Case Study – Identity Development in Student Activities Scenario

Nani Quezada Arroyo

Higher Education and Student Affairs, Northern Illinois University

HESA 562: Helping Skills for Student Affairs Professional

Katy Jaekel, Ph.D.

November 9th, 2022

Introduction

Picking up right after the student has shared his concerns, the professional utilizes

microcounseling skills such as listening and developing goals and action-plans as well as

student development theories to address his concerns and assist in coming up with solutions.

Application

After Paul, the president of the Rainbow Association, approaches the organization’s

advisor for a meeting in which they discuss some of his frustrations with other executive

board members and the organization, as a whole. The professional would demonstrate

listening, a microcounseling skill, by attempting to summarize what the student has shared

thus far and ensure that they are accurately understanding the issue. From the professional’s

understanding, the student believes that the organization should become more politically

engaged and that its main goals should be to advocate for the rights of LGBTQ students on

campus and LGBTQ rights on a state and even national level. However, other members on

the executive board believe that the organization should reach out to other cultural centers on

campus to organize joint programming. Others believe that the organization’s main goal

should be to build community among LGBTQ students on campus. In other words, the

executive members of the organization need to come to an agreement about the next steps

and overall purpose and goals of the organization on campus. However, before the executive

members of the organization gather to come to an agreement about the next steps and overall

purpose and goals of the organization on campus, the professional should help the student to

understand where they are and what perspectives that they may not be aware of.

Paul, a white student who identifies as gay, mentioned previously that they believe

that the organization should become more politically engaged and advocate for the rights of

members of the LGBTQ community. The students’ involvement in and goals for the Rainbow
Association indicate that they have entered the lesbian-gay-bisexual community, the sixth

process of Anthongy D’Augelli’s Theory of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Development. In this

process, the “key factor[sic] in the formation of identity are personal subjectivities and

actions (perceptions and feelings about sexual identity, sexual behaviors, and the meanings

attached to them, interactive intimacies (influences of family, peers, intimate partnerships,

and the meanings attached to them), and socio-historical connections (social norms, policies,

and laws)” of which the student has developed a commitment to political and social action

(D’Augelli, 1994a & 1994b).

As a result of their identity as a white person, this student may “have given little

thought to multicultural issues [...] generally [be] naive about racial issues and their inherited,

unearned privileges (see Neville et al., 2001; Vasquez, 2001) as White people [...] [and] [is]

unaware of the concepts of subtle racism or modern racism (Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner,

2000; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) or institutional and cultural racism” (Sebani, 1991, p.

96-97). In other words, this student does not realize that they have privilege as a white person

and that they are able to view their racial identity as separate from their sexual identity. As a

result, when another student, Mary, who identifies as a Black Lesbian, suggested that the

Rainbow Association partner with cultural centers to organize joint programming, Paul was

not able to connect how these two entities could create programming that addressed LGBTQ

and Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) issues. The professional can bridge the gap

of knowledge by educating the student on the theoretical framework of intersectionality.

Intersectionality is the notion that “race, class, and gender (and other ascribed statuses) do not

operate as distinct categories of experience but are lived conjointly, intersectionality is

concerned with the interaction between gender, race and other identity categories (Crenshaw,

1991). Therefore, intersectionality is never additive” (Stahl & Nichols, 2019, p.2). In simpler

terms, the professional would tell it is not about a person’s experiences being shaped by
being, for example, Lesbian and Black but by the specificity of Black Lesbian-hood. This

means that individuals such as Mary’s experiences are shaped the intersection and interaction

of their race and sexual identity. This student’s goals are seemingly in opposition to the goals

of the other members of the executive board of the Rainbow Association. In other words, the

professional can inform the student that the desire of some of the executive board members

for the organization to collaborate with cultural centers on campus on joint programming may

be more in line with their goals than initially thought.

Despite being presented with a different perspective and being informed about

intersectionality, Paul may not be ready to grapple with the implications of their

obliviousness to white privilege and the subsequent feelings they may experience regarding

this. According to Janet Helms’ White Racial Identity Development Model, the student is in

the first stage (contact) and the subsequent stage (disintegration) is “characterized by

disorientation, guilt, and anxiety as the realities of racism seem to break through the

obliviousness of the contact stage [...] One solution to mitigating the anxiety of this stage is to

reembrace the ideology of the normative White group and its racist social pressure” (Sebani,

1991, p. 95). If this is the case, the professional may redirect the conversation and focus on

assisting the student in creating an action-plan to alleviate conflict within their group.

It is clear to the professional that the Rainbow Association is in the storming stage of

Tuckman’s Model of Group Development in which conflicts arise and is characterized by

high levels of emotion (cite). One of the activities that student affairs professionals may

utilize to move through this stage is and the first is to suggest reviewing the mission

statement of the organization. Upon review of the mission statement, does the student believe

that their personal goals for the organization align with the mission statement of the

organization? Do the goals mentioned by the executive board members align with the mission

statement of the organization? At this time, the professional should listen to the students’
answers and offer potential solutions to assist in creating an action-plan. If all the

aforementioned goals align with the mission statement, the professional can suggest that the

leadership and members of the organization hold a roundtable discussion to come to a

decision on the goals and next steps of the organization. As emotions are at high levels

regarding this issue, the professional should provide mediation resources so that the conflict

may result in a productive solution. The professional should schedule a subsequent session to

assist the student “in monitoring progress and in adjusting plans, if necessary” (Dunkel et al,

2014, p. 106).

Methods

Microcounseling Skills

Listening

Listening as a micro-counseling skill is defined by Reynolds as “…slowing down and

making an intentional decision to focus on the student rather than the long to-do list at the

office” (2009). By attempting to summarize what the student has shared thus far and ensuring

that they are accurately understanding the issue, the professional is demonstrating to the

student that not only are they paying attention but, they also understand the issue(s) at hand.

This is the first step in establishing rapport with a student and will encourage him to continue

to share their thoughts and feelings throughout the conversation.

Developing Goals and Action-Plans

Developing goals and action-plans is defined by Reynolds as “aid[ing] [the student] in

identifying and specifying goals that can alleviate [their] dilemma” (2009). While the student

may be aware that there is an issue, or more, the solution(s) are not always clear. In this case,

the students’ personal goal for the organization and those of their executive board members

was clear, however, the professional offered options such as reviewing their mission
statement and hosting a roundtable discussion so that the organization could clarify their

goals for the organization together.

Theories and Frameworks

Ponterotto’s White Racial Consciousness Development Model

Joseph G. Ponterotto’s White Racial Consciousness Development Model consists of

four stages that consist of pre-exposure, exposure, zealot-defensive, and integration. White

individuals in the pre-exposure stage, “have given little thought to multicultural issues [...]

generally [be] naive about racial issues and their inherited, unearned privileges (see Neville et

al., 2001; Vasquez, 2001) as White people [...] [and] [is] unaware of the concepts of subtle

racism or modern racism (Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner, 2000; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986)

or institutional and cultural racism” (Sebani, 1991, p. 96-97). In other words, Paul does not

realize that they have privilege as a white person and that they are able to view their racial

identity as separate from their sexual identity. As a result, when another student, Mary, who

identifies as a Black Lesbian, suggested that the Rainbow Association partner with cultural

centers to organize joint programming, Paul was not able to connect how these two entities

could create programming that addressed LGBTQ and Black Indigenous People of Color

(BIPOC) issues.

Helms’ White Racial Identity Development Model

Janet Helms’ White Racial Identity Development Model consists of two phases, the

first of which is called abandonment of racism. This phase is home to three stages; Contact,

Disintegration, and Reintegration. The second stage consisted of four stages;

Pseudoindependence, Immersion, Emersion, and Autonomy. In this scenario, Paul is in phase

one, stage one of Helms’ White Racial Identity Development Mode. According to Sebani

(1991), this phase is “[c]haracterized by denial of or obliviousness to White privilege [...]

individuals do not acknowledge the reality of racism in society, they take no action to
understand their own privilege or work toward creating a more just society” (p. 94-95). These

individuals may react to racial stimuli (e.g., discussion about racism) with avoidance, denial,

or obliviousness. In other words, Paul may not be ready to grapple with the implications of

their obliviousness to white privilege and the subsequent feelings they may experience

regarding this. However, these feelings will surface and the student will enter the subsequent

stage, disintegration, which is “characterized by disorientation, guilt, and anxiety as the

realities of racism seem to break through the obliviousness of the contact stage [...] One

solution to mitigating the anxiety of this stage is to reembrace the ideology of the normative

White group and its racist social pressure” (Sebani, 1991, p. 95).

Crenshaw’s Intersectionality, A Theoretical Framework

Crenshaw’s Intersectionality, a theoretical framework, is the notion that “race, class,

and gender (and other ascribed statuses) do not operate as distinct categories of experience

but are lived conjointly, intersectionality is concerned with the interaction between gender,

race and other identity categories (Crenshaw, 1991). Therefore, intersectionality is never

additive” (Stahl & Nichols, 2019, p.2). Since Paul does not realize that they have privilege as

a white person and that they are able to view their racial identity as separate from their sexual

identity, he lacks an understanding of intersectionality. In providing an understanding of the

concept of intersectionality and providing an example, Paul may be able to understand how

the Rainbow Association and cultural centers on campus could create programming that

addresses LGBTQ and Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) issues. In other words, in

understanding intersectionality, Paul may be able to realize that the goals of his executive

board members are more in line with his goals than he initially thought.

D’Augelli’s Theory of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Development

Anthony D’Augelli presented a lifespan model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity

development based on his social constructionist view of sexual orientation. The model uses
steps instead of stages, indicating an individual’s ability to go back and forth between steps.

Avoiding the notion of progressive stages, he hypothesized six interactive processes related to

lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity formation (D’Augelli, 1994a & 1994b). The six process of

LGB Development are exiting heterosexual identity, devloping a personal

Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual identity, becoming a Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Offspring, developing a

Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual intimacy status, and entering a Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual community.

In this scenario, the student was in the sixth process, entering a Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual

community. In this process, the “key factor[sic] in the formation of identity are personal

subjectivities and actions (perceptions and feelings about sexual identity, sexual behaviors,

and the meanings attached to them, interactive intimacies (influences of family, peers,

intimate partnerships, and the meanings attached to them), and socio-historical connections

(social norms, policies, and laws)” of which the student has developed a commitment to

political and social action (D’Augelli, 1994a & 1994b). This theory informs the professional

why the student is so adamant on the organization becoming more politically engaged and

advocating for the rights of members of the LGBTQ community. Recognizing that this is an

important process in their development, the professional can help the student maintain this

goal while assisting them in figuring out compromises for the goals of others in his

organization.

Tuckman’s Model of Group Development

Bruce Tuckman’s Model of Group Development (1965) consists of four stages,

Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing. In 1977, Tuckman, in collaboration with Mary

Ann Jensen, added a fifth stage, Adjourning. In this scenario, it was clear to the professional

that the Rainbow Association is in the storming stage in which “members react negatively to

the demands of whatever tasks need to be accomplished; conflicts arise as members resist

influence, and there is a high level of emotion” (cite). It is important to understand where the
group is currently to employ strategies to help them move onto the next stage of

development. Despite the negative connotation that conflict holds, it is a normal part of

formation of all groups. Once Paul is able to employ some of these strategies in his

organization, it can move onto the next stage, norming in which the group will develop

cohesion moving forward.

Scholarly Research

Current scholarship indicates that it is of the utmost importance that professionals

help students develop cultural competency as it “is arguably one of the most critical skills

that college graduates need for careers and citizenship in a diverse global society” (Chun &

Evans, 2016, p. 7). This is further emphasized as recent studies utilizing nationally

representative survey data suggest that a significant proportion of freshmen begin their

college careers with limited exposure to diverse populations and perspectives [...] which can

lead them to hold ethnocentric worldviews, minimize cultural differences, and lack an

awareness of their own biases” (Walls, 2022, p. 151). As such, the literature supports the

approach of the professional in providing education to fill the gaps in knowledge about

intersectionality. Additionally, the scholarship indicates that queer students of color face a

variety of dilemmas in a predominately white student group such as “navigating racism [...]

[and] considering the creation of an intersectional identity organization that would reflect

their own developmental needs” (Miller, 2016, p. 19). This means that queer students of color

would benefit from predominately white student groups adopting an intersectional lens which

could alleviate instances of racism.

Conclusion

As someone whose professional praxis is diversity, equity, inclusion and social

justice, it is important to offer education to students who lack an understanding of the plights

of minoritized people due to a limited exposure to diverse populations and perspectives.

worldview, acknowledge cultural differences, and work toward reducing their own biases, it

will challenge them and allow them to reexamine their currently held beliefs and worldview.

This could also lead to better and more profound interactions between white and nonwhite

students.
 References

Chun, E., & Evans, A. (2016). Rethinking Cultural Competence in Higher Education: An

Ecological Framework for Student Development. ASHE Higher Education Report,

42(4), 7–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.20102

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994a). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of

lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman

(Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312-333). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

D’Augelli, A.R. (1994b). Lesbian and gay male development: Steps toward an analysis of

lesbians’ and gay men’s lives. In B. Greene & G.M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay

psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pg. 118-132). Newbury

Parks: Sage.

Dunkel, N. W., Schuh, J. H., & Chrystal-Green, N. E. (2014). Advising Student Groups and

Organizations, 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons.

Goodrich, K. M., & Kathryn Brammer, M. (2019). D’Augelli’s model of LGB Identity

Development: A critical analysis. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 13(2),

152–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2019.1597820

Miller, R. A., & Vaccaro, A. (2016). Queer Student Leaders of color: Leadership as authentic,

collaborative, culturally competent. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,

53(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1087858

Reynolds, A. L. (2009). Helping college students: Developing essential support skills for

student affairs practice. Jossey-Bass.

Sebani, H. B., Ponterotto, J. G., & Borodovsky, L. G. (1991). White Racial Identity
 Development and Cross-Cultural Counselor Training: A Stage Model. The

Counseling Psychologist, 19(1), 76-102. https:doi.org/10.1177/0011000091191007

Stahl, G. & Nichols, S. (2019). Intersectionality in higher education research: a systematic

literature review. Higher Education Research and Development.

https://doi.org/07294360.2019.1638348

Strayhorn, T. L. (2017). Using Intersectionality in Student Affairs Research, 2017(157),

57-67. New Directions for Student Services. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20209

Walls, J. K. (2020). Class Assignments That Promote Openness to Diversity among

Undergraduates at Predominantly White Universities. Journal of the Scholarship of

Teaching and Learning, 20(1), 151–154.