The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 2 - 60

Chris Heasley * Katie Boone * Denise L. Davidson

impact on SOC negligible. Since no other SOC
element was found to be significant, results
suggest that SOC as a student outcome should
no longer prevent partnerships between universities and private developers in the creation
of college housing. Still, the generalizability of
this finding may be limited based on site selectivity and the specific P3 participant in this
study.
The research team used qualitative findings to better understand the quantitative
results. Emerging themes were found to align
with this study's SOC theoretical framework:
membership, influence, integration/fulfillment
of needs, and shared emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). In accordance with
fulfillment of needs, financial considerations
were the leading motivator in behavior and
drove housing selection; in turn, this impacted
both existing group affiliation as well as new
community development. Student attention
to housing costs is a factor noted by scholars
in multiple studies about housing selection
(Reynolds, 2007; Sickler & Roskos, 2013);
however, the connection between affordability
and factors influencing SOC development-
and, in particular, reasons that students parted
from previous community networks-is a new
discovery. Importantly, affordability took priority over sense of community. To this end,
university administrators and P3s must be cognizant of the fundamental differences in the financial models and costs between on-campus
residence halls, privatized housing options,
and the off-campus housing market.
It is important to develop a sense of community, where camaraderie, support, and affinity exist, in all student housing (Devlin et
al., 2008; Heasley, 2013), as students are better
60

Students' Sense of Community

able to meet academic demands when in a
supportive college environment (Henninger,
Osbeck, Eshbaugh, & Madigan, 2016; Mattanah, Brooks, Brand, Quimby, & Ayers, 2012).
While many factors contribute to a sense of
community, the impact of influence and shared
emotional connection from paraprofessional
staff on residents' development remains paramount. Students in both accommodation types
articulated the importance of the RA role in
building a sense of community. Staff engagement, RA presence and approachability, and
housing-sponsored programmatic offerings
helped shape student expectations for community. However, students reported that they
experienced stronger community development
during their first year in on-campus residences. These initial experiences established their
understanding of how to cultivate campus
friendships and relationships and defined
how they continued to develop a sense of community in subsequent years. Beyond the first
year, students considered the work of developing a sense of community to be their responsibility and not that of paraprofessional staff.
This change in expectation might suggest that,
as students transition to upper-division accommodations, paraprofessional live-in staff
should shift from focusing on SOC development to helping students nurture SOC within
existing peer networks.
Lastly, membership and influence elements
of the SOC framework (McMillan & Chavis,
1986) were evident in focus group narratives
that emphasized the role of facility design.
While prominent in drawing initial interest to
a particular facility, the aesthetic appeal of the
building and its surrounding grounds were
tertiary considerations impacting building

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

choice, losing prominence to affordability and
a peer support network within the community.
Geographic location and the facility's proximity to other vital campus resources also proved
to be an important factor in housing choice.
Students further noted the impact of floor
plan design and its influence on privacy and
independence. Previous research supports this
dynamic; accommodation types that provide
more autonomy, such as suites or apartments,
are often attractive to upper-division students
(Heasley et al., 2015). Thus, to help ensure
that SOC remains the same between campus
residences and P3s, similar floor plans and
a desirable campus location should be available in both student housing types, especially
when upper-division students are the intended
residents. Lastly, student opinions should be
solicited when determining individual unit
access, social gathering spaces, and amenities,
as these factors affect SOC development. Although student voices are vitally important in
the design process, university administrators
and P3 leaders should remain ever vigilant in
designing facilities that are attuned to student
needs over student wants in an effort to maintain affordability.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH
Though this study provides valuable information for practitioners and scholars with an
interest in SOC and newer student housing
options, several limitations can be addressed in
future research. Notably, the researchers examined only two campuses and one P3 company.
Including additional campuses, both domestic and international, as well as participation
from multiple P3 developers, could enhance

understanding of the association between
SOC and building type. Further, the generalizability of quantitative results in this study is
limited when taking into consideration sample
size. In addition, although researchers believe
that proportional representation was achieved
based on publicly available building capacity and student information, the quantitative
survey response rate is unknown. The survey
was deployed by the institutions' administration, which did not provide the total number
of email recipients. Better tracking of survey
distribution data would address this limitation.
Data collected through a qualitative approach may also be a limiting factor, as the
semi-structured interview guide used in the
focus groups did not undergo testing for reliability, a process to help ensure consistent
results when applied to the same population at
a different occurrence (Salkind, 2014). Based
on this limitation, we encourage additional
studies utilizing a similar research design and
data collection methodology in the hope of validating the semi-structured interview guide.
Finally, this study examined only one of
many forms of P3 and university relationships,
which should be taken into consideration when
comparing SOC in student housing at other
campuses. As previously noted, the P3 model
in this study was university land-lease, a partnership in which "an institution owns land it
leases to a private developer, and the developer
then commits to financing, constructing, and
managing the housing facility" (McClure et al.,
2017, p. 75). Within this model, management
oversight includes hiring, selection, and training of professional and paraprofessional staff,
custodial service providers, and facility maintenance crew members. This limitation supports
V O L U M E 4 6 , NO. 2 * 2 0 2 0

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 46, No. 2