AFA Perspectives Issue 4 2019: Data-Driven Practices

ISSUE #4 2019-2020

A Publication for the members of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors

The Data at Your Fingertips

| A D A M M . M C C R E A DY, P H . D .

Perspectives is the official publication of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, Inc. (AFA).

Views expressed are those of the individual authors/ contributors/advertisers and are not necessarily those of the Association. AFA encourages the submission of articles, essays, ideas, and advertisements.

Submissions should be directed to the editor, advertising queries to the staff.

EDITORS: Noah Borton, Editor

Delta Upsilon Fraternity borton@deltau.org | (317) 875-8900 ext. 206

Brooke Goodman, Editor

Delta Phi Epsilon Sorority brookegoodman01@gmail.com

AFA STAFF: Andrea Starks-Corbin

Director of Marketing & Communications andrea@afa1976.org

Justin England

Graphic Designer justin@afa1976.org

2019 EDITORIAL BOARD: Brittany Barnes Deeg, RISE Partnerships Meredith Bielaska, Interfraternal Volunteer Katherine Carnell, University of Mount Union Annie Hardie, Sigma Delta Tau Tyler Havens, Delta Sigma Pi Andrew Hohn, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Ashly Horton, The Ohio State University Jodi Jabs, High Point University Jamison Keller, Georgia Institute of Technology Heather Kirk, Sigma Phi Epsilon Kyle Martin, North-American Interfraternity Conference Ryan Miller, University of Utah Tara Leigh Sands, Lycoming College Lindsay Sell, Colorado State University

AFA PERSPECTIVES ISSUE #4 2019-2020

IN THIS ISSUE: Data-Driven Practices 05

what’s your perspective?

07

Using Data to Make Better Arguments

09

Determining Priorities in Fraternity/Sorority Life Assessment

11

The Data at Your Fingertips

14

Maximizing the Effectiveness of Your External Review

18

Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform

21

30 Years of UIFI

23

Writing and Retreating: Our Perspective on the AFA Oracle Writers Retreat 2019

25

Hi Values-Based Recruitment,Meet Research-Based Recruitment

28

Identity Work in Online Fraternal Spaces

33

Building Better Brotherhood: A Data-Based Approach to Membership Development

36

A New Rite of Passage: Fraternity Men as Sexual Violence Prevention Educators

40

Using a Chapter Health Index to Support Our Students

43

from perspectives to practice

Scott Radimer, Ph.D.

Dan Bureau, Ph.D. & Annemieke Rice

Adam M. McCready, Ph.D.

Jason Bergeron

Stevan Veldkamp, Ed.D.

Jackie Hackett

Brian Joyce, Ph.D.

Becky Gleason

Bryan Dosono, Ph.D.

Clayton Cooper

Kevin Carey

Mark Starr & Amie Jackson

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 02

LETTER FROM THE president In today’s digital age we have access to an abundance of information right at our fingertips. Likewise, we can use technology to gather feedback and assess learning far more easily and quickly than past generations (does anyone even carry a #2 pencil anymore?). On one hand, that can mean we are perfectly primed for data-informed decision-making. And yet, it can also lead to drowning in a sea of disparate data points we are challenged to make meaning of. One thing is certain, though: as a profession, we must improve on telling our story and advocating for ourselves and our students in a data-supported manner.

In October, I traveled to the NASPA FSL Summit in Houston, Texas. The summit convened umbrella group leaders, headquarters executives, senior student affairs officers, and senior fraternity/sorority advisors to discuss challenges that plague this industry: health and safety, communication, new member processes, the disciplinary process, FSL staffing, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. While not a topic we had time to discuss, “data and metrics for FSL organizational success” was a top 10 issue and it was evident we couldn’t talk about solutions to any of the six hot topics without discussing data and metrics. Similarly, a recent AFA virtual program How to Successfully Advocate for Resources included guidance on how to partner with institutional resource professionals to boost advocacy efforts on campus.

Telling our story — as an industry and profession — is much more compelling when supported by research. Additionally, we must continue to move away from common practice to best practice and cannot define “best” without assessment outcomes to demonstrate efficacy. Whether discussing a prevention framework or staffing model, we must take time to gather evidence of need, impact, and return on investment. An ongoing evaluation of key performance indicators (KPIs) enables us to measure community/organization success and wellness longitudinally. Those measures may be membership statistics, member engagement, and/ or financial health. The key to getting started is making use of resources that already exist such as institutional data, student success software, and learning management systems to cull data and build a framework.

As our industry continues to grapple with challenging issues during a time when resources are becoming scarce, it is imperative our membership becomes increasingly data savvy. I hope this edition of Perspectives offers insights and inspiration on how to collect, analyze, and apply data.

Wendi Kinney President 03 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS We live in interesting times.

It is no secret a number of divisions and conflicts exist within the fraternity and sorority community. Factions develop around different interests, organizational affiliations, policies, conduct practices, and organizational philosophies. Before we can address the complexity and nuance required to find a way forward, we must address a fundamental question that can inform future resolution.

Will we move forward together or will we take our own paths?

The frustrations, challenges, and disappointments that create fissures within our community are real. In that light, many reasons favoring factionalism are understandable. However, the reality remains we are more likely to find success if we stick together. This “we” is everyone invested in the work of supporting the fraternity and sorority experience. This “we” is campus-based advisors, institutional leadership, organizational staffs, volunteers, board members, vendors, and umbrella organizations. To address the challenges we face – and to secure a successful and sustainable future – we must develop, elevate, and maintain an interconnected relationship among the many disparate entities within this community.

Of course, it is unrealistic to expect this number of people, fulfilling so many different roles and holding a vast array of philosophies and beliefs, to exist in perfect harmony. Even the closest relationships in our lives include strife. If we are going to remain in this together and be true partners, conflict is inevitable.

It is natural for emotion to become part of the various conflicts that emerge among competing interests and values in this community. When emotion consumes our thinking, however, we set ourselves up for failure.

If we allow feelings, perceptions, or subjective realities to drive decision-making, we fall into fallacies of cognitive bias. We begin to construct mental models and social norms as a means to create simplicity that can protect us from the difficult circumstances we are often called to grapple with. In doing so, we inhibit our ability to operate within the complexity around us.

If we are going to succeed, we cannot allow truth to become a personal construct. Facts still matter.

To do this, we need information … we need data. Within this work we must seek evidence-based truths. We must infuse reason and logic into the resolution of our conflicts.

Of course, data does not solve all. A statistic or a research study does not necessarily generate a clean and definitive yes or no. Data can also fall victim to overgeneralization. Such is the reason for scientific method and the nature of academic discourse. Through this work, we can join in an effort to seek truth.

It is easy to type a paragraph about the need to find data to drive this work. It is much harder to engage in meaningful inquiry that delivers results. Our authors in this issue guide us in that endeavor. They provide insights on how to find data and what to do with it when we do. They provide examples of research in action.

Regardless of where you are in your career or experience level in relation to working with data, you will find something in this issue that can inform your work in new ways.

There are answers out there and it is our duty to find them.

Noah Borton & Brooke Goodman Co-Editors Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 04

Prompt: What’s an example of a data-driven practice you’ve used?

Brandon J. Cutler Purdue University

Associate Dean of Students/Director of Fraternity, Sorority and Cooperative Life

Data can, and should be, a tool that helps you tell your story and advocate for support. The quality, and quantity, of data available through institutional research partners, consultants, and external organizations can help you understand and communicate the strengths, needs and challenges associated with your community. Going beyond traditional data points like GPA, service hours, and philanthropic dollars is essential in 2019. In a resource scarce environment we must demonstrate a significant need along with a potential for return on investment if we hope to secure funding, staff and other resources. Data will help you communicate your needs, identify additional opportunities for growth, and advocate for the resources needed to effectively implement your growth strategies.

It takes time and energy to produce meaningful data, but it is an investment in process that pays off over time. At Purdue we utilized data to demonstrate key areas of need for the community. This resulted in the addition of 1.5 staff in our office that directly support alumni engagement and health & safety initiatives, in addition to the development of numerous leadership development and educational programs. Each of which were secured with the help of a wide variety of data points.

leadership I have often found that data conveys a story of the human experiences we get to witness and can often be quite compelling. For senior leaders they will often not have the ability to remember every aspect of the fraternity/sorority experience on campus – that’s your job.

Yet, they will often be in the position of needing to share that experience with others for the sake of resourcing your efforts, demonstrating its value, or countering a prevailing narrative.

You want the senior leaders of your institution to be armed with the proper data that adequately describes your department’s efforts and needs. For example, when a fraternity alumnus is being considered for a major gift, but indicates they would never give to fraternity and sorority life because they believe complaints of obscene behavior by fraternity men are increasing. Yet, you have prepared a talking point for the vice president for advancement that less than 15% of weekly arrests are associated with fraternity men. Or, when a potential donor unfamiliar with fraternities and sororities proclaims that interest in joining is declining, but your vice president for student affairs shares that there has been an average increase of 5%-7% growth in new members for the past five years. Mastering the pertinent data for your fraternity and sorority program allows you to equip senior administrators with accurate information in bite-sized form that conveys a story and more importantly – a need.

Byron Hughes, Ph.D.

Leslie Fasone, Ph.D.

Dean of Students

Acting Assistant Dean for Sorority and Fraternity Life

As a younger professional I often hated attempting to condense an impactful learning moment from a conversation, program, or intervention into a finite data point. It felt antithetical to what I had learned about college student development. However, as I have progressed in

Data can be overwhelming and scary. You may not know where to start. Seven years ago, I ventured into the field of public health where I learned data drives everything. I had previously dabbled in data when working in sorority and fraternity life, but I became immersed in it while

Virginia Tech

05 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

Indiana University

working on my PhD and further incorporated it into my work in higher education.

Samantha Keltner

Over the years we’ve used data to guide our bystander intervention programs, including social norm campaigns centered on creating a Culture of Care. We’ve used it to facilitate student discussions that have resulted in studentled recommendations to inform sexual violence prevention and response efforts on campus. We’ve used data to obtain funding to support not only our campus, but also statewide prevention initiatives. It helps us reform and revise programs to better meet student needs and make a case for why additional staff members are needed to serve our students.

Chief Experience Officer

Here are some ideas that have helped me along the way: •

Every conversation and interaction you have with students is data. Use what you learn to guide future conversations and initiatives

•

Find out what data you already have and if there is data specific to fraternity and sorority students you can access and use

•

Identify what you still need to know and the avenues for collecting that information, such as through a community or campus-wide survey, focus groups, or by evaluating programs

•

Review the information you have and identify what trends and themes you see in the community.

Identify problems and concerns as well as successes

Gamma Phi Beta

One of my favorite ways to use data in my work is through program design. Most recently, we used data to revise our new member education curriculum. We started by identifying our desired outcomes: high new member retention rates and self-reported positive new member experience. From there we worked backwards.

We used existing data we to identify chapters that were already achieving these outcomes. We reviewed their new member education practices and looked for commonalities in their approach. Next, we tried to replicate those practices in our program design and curriculum revision. Constructing the program to replicate these high achieving chapters allowed us to test our hypothesis: practices that had developed intuitively among these groups would increase member retention and positive experience for all chapters. The result? We’re a few years in and we’re seeing positive progress in both areas.

Rinse and repeat. We should always use data to inform our work and should consider every interaction, conversation, and survey an opportunity to collect information from constituents and stakeholders. Let data guide the work you do and you’ll be on the right track for creating tangible, long-lasting change.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 06

“

PEOPLE DON’T ‘BUY’ WHAT YOU DO, THEY ‘BUY’ WHY YOU DO IT — Simon Sinek

The most important step in making an effective argument is articulating why a program exists. Every program has a purpose and it is critical to clearly articulate it. This should be relatively simple for fraternities and sororities: the founding mission and values of each organization.

These foundational elements explain why an organization exists and why others should support its efforts.

Regardless of the type of resource requested, there will never be a shortage of other entities competing for the same resources. As such, decision makers need a compelling reason to pick your program over competing interests.

USING DATA TO MAKE BET TER ARGUMENTS SCOT T R ADIMER, PH.D.

For better or worse, it is an increasing expectation across the political spectrum that higher education administrators provide data to support arguments and demonstrate the value of programs. Rather than lament this increased scrutiny, educational leaders would be wise to embrace the call for better evidence of the impact of this work. While it may initially feel alien to some, using data to make more persuasive arguments is easier than many fear and can add value to one’s daily work. To do so only requires an ability to articulate what larger goal a program serves, gather data that directly relates to that goal, and present it in an easily relatable manner.

While this might seem obvious, too often individuals skip past the why and skip to what they want to do and how they plan to do so. When immersed in work, the reasons why something is important may be taken for granted. Talking first about why a program is important builds interest and invites others to become part of the endeavor. This also helps provide the necessary context for decision makers to evaluate what is desired and how you propose to do it. It does not matter how interesting the proposed program is, nor how novel its method of completion if there is no good reason for it to exist in the first place.

The program’s mission will not appeal to every audience and that is okay — no argument works with every audience, nor should it. However, having no argument at all results in leaving it up to the audience to determine a proposal’s value. Audience members may not want to do that work on your behalf, or even worse, could develop their own reasons for why the proposal is important that differ from your own.

Program supporters may have different ideas as to what the program should accomplish. Therefore, it is important to consider if the ability to part ways or say no exists, or if you might find yourself committing to something other than initially envisioned. Finding support for an argument is in many ways like new member recruitment.

The goal is to find other individuals and/or organizations with shared values and purpose. This occurs by openly communicating values and purpose to potential supporters. It is not enough to simply get support - the right support is needed to ensure continued success.

While situations where a complete mismatch in values or priorities should be avoided, there will be instances where values overlap but are not exactly the same.

In those situations, one should still articulate why a program exists by choosing what parts of the “why” are emphasized. Conduct research on what is important to the target audience and emphasize areas of common ground. This will communicate to the audience a vision for future relationship as an opportunity to work toward common causes, rather than a transactional connection.

“

IF WE HAVE DATA, LET’S LOOK AT DATA. IF ALL WE HAVE ARE OPINIONS, LET’S GO WITH MINE. — Jim Barksdale

After providing a good reason for why an audience should support a program, it needs to be reinforced with data.

Every audience will have its own ideas about what kind of support is warranted for the proposed outcomes.

Therefore, data must be provided to support why the proposed method is most appropriate. A common first reaction to any proposal is more should or can be done with less. The only way to win against an argument for greater efficiency is to provide data demonstrating the efficacy of current programs or the specific need for proposed programs that are currently unaddressed.

The need to have quality data can feel overwhelming; almost like having an additional job. The good news is if assessment and data collection occurs correctly, it will remove work rather than increase workload. Here, the secret is to focus only on collecting data that leads to achieving mission priorities. For example, if an organization claims to help create better scholars, the impact of the organization and its programs on students’ academic performance should be measured. If an organization promotes moral development of college students, data should be collected on how students’ moral development changes over time. Measurement only needs to occur for the things that directly or indirectly relate to the championed priorities.

Gathering data regarding core priorities informs where time and resources should be directed. Demands for time and resources inevitably exceed what is available.

This calls for evaluation of where time and resources are most needed. Focusing on one’s core mission allows for effectively choosing between competing demands and better assigning existing resources. Data that measures the extent to which a mission is actualized allows programs to be discontinued or altered if they no longer achieve stated purposes. It also provides a means to effectively communicate to stakeholders why change is necessary. By focusing on assessing how well core priorities are achieved, it not only leads to having the necessary data to create more persuasive arguments, but also provides a roadmap for how to more efficiently distribute existing resources.

“

that projects progress in positive or negative directions.

However, these signs may not be representative or accurate.

As humans, we are naturally inclined to pay more attention to things we can directly observe and to familiar patterns.

We know what works for ourselves and are inclined to overemphasize those experiences.

This natural human bias toward what is in front of us and what is familiar can cause us to miss the larger picture.

Things may not be as good — or as bad — as they seem.

We seek to correct blind spots by collecting data. We try to gather information about what is most important from a representative sample — or the entire population — not just the individuals with the loudest voices. However, this does not mean the data should be cold, distant, or unrelatable.

While professional researchers have a host of advanced methods for collecting and analyzing data, some of the most effective arguments are made with relatively simple analysis.

Reference groups are one of the easiest ways to make an argument. For example, one can demonstrate a program produces superior academic outcomes by presenting stories or numbers to highlight the difference between students who participate in a program and those that do not.

While it is important to recognize some arguments are better supported by numbers and others by stories, the most compelling arguments often use both. Numbers from a representative sample make arguments harder to ignore. They convey to an audience the argument is not just an opinion, but rather carries the weight of the entire population represented in the data. While numbers can effectively show the size or scope of a situation, they can sometimes feel abstract. The remedy for this shortcoming is to put a human face on an argument through quotes or stories from the individuals represented. Combining quantitative and qualitative data reinforces the larger argument and increases the likelihood an audience will be persuaded.

With increased demands to utilize data in decision making, higher education administrators have an opportunity to change and improve the way they approach this work.

Rather than view supporting college students as an art that some are born to do and others are not, we should view this work more as a science — something to be systematically approached and improved over time. Through a focus on mission, collecting both quantitative and qualitative data, and making data relatable, one can more effectively persuade others to support ideas, leading to a more effective and efficient use of time and resources.

MAYBE STORIES ARE JUST DATA WITH A SOUL.” — Brené Brown

Finally, it is important to emphasize collecting and utilizing data is not the opposite of being people-focused, but rather a way to make sure a situation is viewed realistically and not as we want it to be seen. Human beings are constantly collecting and using information to make decisions. We look for signs that meetings are effective, that other people respond positively to efforts, and

Scott Radimer, Ph.D. Scott Radimer serves as the director of assessment and planning for the Division of Student Affairs and Enrollment Services at the University of Houston. He has degrees in higher education from Boston College (PhD) and Florida State (MS), and political science from the University of Vermont (BA). Scott is a member of the Phi Delta Theta fraternity.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 08

Determining Priorities

in Fraternity/Sorority Life Assessment DAN BUREAU, PH.D. & ANNEMIEKE RICE

Have you ever felt like you did not have enough time

to fit in your assessment responsibilities? Assessment can be hard work. It is particularly difficult when busy professionals who must respond to the needs of students and stakeholders are also managing assessment projects. In the work fraternity and sorority life professionals conduct every day, assessment must be prioritized even if it seems like it cannot fit into one’s schedule. The challenge of how this is achieved is ultimately a question each of us must address in our work.

Much has been written about the importance of assessment in modern higher education.1 Articles have appeared in past issues of Perspectives, Essentials and Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors that cover the role assessment can play in fraternity and sorority life.2 This very issue of Perspectives has great content about the why and how of assessment in fraternity and sorority life; however, no matter how much you know, implementation will always be difficult if you do not set priorities.

1

2 3 4

Before we provide these strategies, it is vital you understand something: setting priorities, period, is an essential practice for all in higher education, including fraternity and sorority life. Our primary suggestion as authors and avid fans of assessment may come as a surprise to you: DO LESS. Or more specifically, DO WHAT MATTERS. This means the assessment you are able to fit in is truly meaningful to your work and the time spent on it generates a direct impact on your objectives as a fraternity and sorority life professional, and as a result impacts your students.

This article presents three steps to selecting assessment priorities when determining a fraternity and sorority life assessment agenda, and some practical tips for making time for them. Ultimately, once priorities are determined and planning occurs, you will be on your way to creating an intentional and contributory assessment agenda for your fraternity and sorority advising program.

Banta, T.W, & Palomba, C.A. (2014). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. Jossey Bass.

San Francisco, CA. Bingham, R., Bureau, D.A., & Garrison Duncan, A. (2015). Leading assessment for student success. Sterling, VA; Stylus Publishing.

Henning, G. W. & Roberts, D. (2016). Student affairs assessment: Theory to practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Strayhorn, T. L., & Colvin, A. J. (2006). Assessing student learning and development in fraternity and sorority affairs. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 2(2), 95-107.

09 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

1

Step One:

Align Work With Institutional Priorities

After determining the prioritized assessments, there are a few tricks that can help make room for them in your day: •

Audit your recurring assessment practices, looking closely at data usage and impact: Are you asking questions you already know the answer to? You will likely find some can be sunset or cycled to make room for your next project. Sometimes you need years of data to indicate trends or make a stronger case, but sometimes you simply need to move on to the next important topic to consider.

•

At this stage, it is also important to consider what questions matter most and what is the best way to ask.

Getting too much feedback can be overwhelming, as will getting all the data you may obtain. Due to this, identify the most important questions to answer and stick to those questions.

Look for existing data: It is possible the data you need already exists! Meet with your student affairs assessment staff (if you have one) or check with your Institutional Effectiveness or Institutional Research office. If you can advance straight to the analysis and data usage phase of assessment, you will save a lot of time without sacrificing impact.

•

Before you continue, double-check data on this topic does not already exist elsewhere. If it does, find out why it has not been used or why it did not meet your needs. You will need to be prepared to overcome those barriers or your data will end up in the same unhappy state.

Engage key stakeholders: Think back to the campus goals and priorities from step one. Who else cares about them? Perhaps others on campus have the same data need and would be willing to collaborate.

Engaging others can help avoid duplication of efforts as well as increase shared investment in your efforts.

•

Test your assessment with informal practices: The assessment you design needs to produce the data you need. One-on-one meetings with stakeholders or students can be fertile ground for testing big questions prior to launching anything formal such as surveys or focus groups.

Consult your campus’ key documents - institutional goals and priorities, learning outcome frameworks, strategic plans, and mission statements. Now look to the standards set forth by national organizations such as AFA or the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). Any key points with a strong connection across these sources have already been identified as priorities at least once. Use those foundational sources to supplement any resource requests or changes you propose as a result of your assessment.

2

Step Two:

Consider Data Usage You need to know what questions you wish to ask and only ask questions from which you would use data gleaned.

Data in and of itself is not valuable - it is the action we take with it that matters. In this step, look critically at how the data would be used.

•

Who exactly would use the data?

•

What actions might they take?

•

Does buy-in from stakeholders who would need to support that action exist?

If you struggle to answer these questions, set the project aside until you have a solid plan for data usage. Avoid overreaching by focusing on assessments that can have immediate and meaningful impact.

3

Step Three:

Focus on Highest Impact If the list of assessment possibilities is still too long, rank them from highest to lowest potential impact. Higher impact assessments might relate to the most expensive programs or services, initiatives with the highest student enrollment or participation, or those that impact the greatest number of people or staff time. Conducting those assessment projects first may allow the time and resources to continue through the list of priorities.

Whatever the priorities are, make sure to take that final step — put the data into action. Too many great assessment projects sit on shelves collecting dust. When planning the steps to launch the assessment, consider pre-scheduling time to review the data and present it to others. Having a commitment to action on your calendar — and involving others in it — can ensure using that precious information does not get put on the backburner. Ultimately, using this data will aid in the advancement of your fraternity and sorority advising program and fraternity and sorority community, as a whole.

Dan Bureau, Ph.D. Dan Bureau is the associate VP for student academic success at the University of Memphis.

He has worked for 23 years in higher education with fraternities and sororities and assessment. In addition, Dan has served as AFA president and on the Phi Kappa Theta board of trustees. He is currently the president for the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS).

Annemieke Rice As a leader at edtech company Campus Labs, Annemieke provides consultation to hundreds of higher education institutions on topics of assessment and continuous improvement, retention and student success, and teaching and learning. Annemieke worked at Northeastern University in assessment, strategic planning, retention, advising, and accreditation. She holds a masters degree from Northeastern University and a bachelors degree from Lehigh University.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 10

The Data at Your Fingertips A D A M M . M C C R E A DY, P H . D .

Collecting new assessment data can be a daunting task, especially with competing interests for staff time and energy. However, professionals like Aubrey often overlook the data at their fingertips, including information they already possess or is available elsewhere at their institutions.1 After deciding what fraternity and sorority professionals want — or need — to know to assess student learning, it is important to identify readily available data before taking on new initiatives to collect this information.

Aubrey is the assistant director of fraternity and sorority life (FSL) at Seacoast State University. As the sole FSL professional in her office, she is responsible for supporting the entire fraternity and sorority community of 2,000 students. Though she has prepared an annual assessment report for the past two years that included the FSL community and chapter grade point averages, attendance figures from FSL events and programs, students’ satisfaction with these initiatives, and service hours reported by each of the 20 chapters on campus, her supervisor has informed her these findings will no longer be enough for future assessment reports. The new vice president for student affairs expects each office to present evidence that allows stakeholders to better understand student learning and development.

While Aubrey supports this new assessment push, she is concerned about her capacity to collect more data. She is already stretched thinly by her other responsibilities that include meeting with all chapter presidents and attending weekly fraternity and sorority council meetings.

In addition, she must plan and coordinate all FSL community programming, including an upcoming new member retreat. She does not have time to develop or distribute questionnaires.

Students have also expressed to her their frustrations with receiving so many survey invitations over the course of a year. Aubrey is at a loss for how she can meet the expectations of the new vice president.

Before pursuing leads for new data sources, fraternity and sorority professionals should identify data already in their possession or that they can easily collect with some slight modifications to current professional practices.

Professionals most likely have access to more data than they realize, and this may be particularly true for qualitative data that can be easily overlooked when others prioritize quantitative findings.2 However, qualitative assessment designs often align with the philosophical perspectives of student affairs (e.g., the value of the individual experience).

Returning to our initial case, Aubrey may be able to use ethnographic research practices to record her observations from the weekly fraternity and sorority council meetings. By analyzing this data over the course of a semester or year, she may be able to identify themes related to student learning and development relevant to the mission, vision, or values of her office, division, or institution. Fraternity and sorority life professionals are bombarded with qualitative data on a daily basis (see Table 1 for examples). By being organized and intentional, fraternity and sorority professionals can use this information to engage in iterative assessment.

Table 1

Possible Sources of Qualitative Data for FSL Professionals: Chapter officer meetings One-minute written reflects at the end of a program Chapter accreditation reports Social media posts by fraternity and sorority members Reflective journal entries Interviews with general members, alumni, or other stakeholders Council minutes Digital media, including pictures, audio, and video 1

2

Culp, M. M. (2012). Starting the culture of evidence journey. In M. M. Culp & G. J. Dundy (Eds.), Building a culture of evidence in student affairs: A guide for leaders and practitioners (pp. 1-20).

Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administration (NASPA).

Schuh, J. H, Biddix, J. P., Dean, L. A., & Kinzie, J. (2016). Assessment in student affairs (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 12

Beyond the data in your immediate possession, fraternity and sorority professionals may also be able to access data collected or managed by other stakeholders that can be used for their assessment efforts (see Table 2). Higher education institutions and other organizations collect and maintain large amounts of data on college students. For example, say fostering a sense of community citizenship was a desired outcome of the Seacoast State new member retreat. Aubrey could work with student conduct professionals on her campus to compare the frequency of conduct violations for new members who participate in the fraternity and sorority new member retreat with those who did not to see if there is a statistically significant difference. While Aubrey could also use other findings to assess this outcome, the conduct data could provide useful evidence for her report.

Table 2

Other Potential Data Sources for FSL Professionals Admissions data Financial aid data Student conduct data Retention data Graduation data Alumni data Housing data Service-learning data Leadership program participation data Student organization membership data

Data from studies and reports Data generated from benchmarking or program reviews Data from external surveys Data from fraternity and sorority national organizations Data generated by town, city, or other community organizations

There are several challenges that fraternity and sorority professionals should consider if they decide to identify data maintained by other sources within an institution or organization. First, the data may be highly decentralized, and identifying what exists and who maintains these data can be difficult.3 Additionally, even if the desired data can be located, gaining access to this information may be challenging because of bureaucratic roadblocks and concerns about privacy and confidentiality. To navigate these challenges, both Culp and Schuh recommended professionals seek the support of colleagues in student affairs assessment positions, institutional research, institutional effectiveness, and other data managers.

Forming partners with these professionals and other stakeholders may help to improve overall assessment efforts.

In addition to data collected by the institution or organization, many colleges, universities, and organizations turn to external agencies or researchers to collect data on their students.4 These data are often collected through survey research such as the fourth-year National Study of Student Engagement (NSSE) survey.

The items included in these questionnaires may align with the purpose of your assessment. Since institutions or organizations often contract and pay for these external surveys or projects, institutional data from the surveys may be accessible to other staff. Returning to our example, Aubrey could work with other professionals on her campus who maintain the NSSE dataset to examine the responses of fraternity and sorority members to particular survey items. However, like other institutional or organizational data, there may be challenges to accessing these findings.

There are frequently overlooked additional data collection opportunities such as agreements with external agencies that conduct survey research. Professionals like Aubrey could establish formal agreements with headquarters professionals to exchange mutually beneficial data to support ongoing assessment efforts. There are also countless researchers, including highly-motivated graduate students, who would gladly conduct research on fraternity and sorority members in exchange for data or a report of their findings. There are plenty of avenues to identify new data sources with a bit of resourcefulness and ingenuity.

Data are everywhere. Before a new survey is designed or time is devoted to a new assessment initiative, professionals may first want to consider other data sources within their grasp. These data may provide them with findings that meet their assessment goals or objectives.

Adam M. McCready, Ph.D. Dr. Adam M. McCready is a visiting assistant professor for the Higher Education & Student Affairs program at the University of Connecticut and serves as the senior research associate for Dyad Strategies, LLC. While completing his Ph.D. in higher education from Boston College, he served as a graduate assistant for the vice president of student affairs at Bentley University, supporting the assessment initiatives for the Division of Student Affairs. Adam worked as a campus-based fraternity and sorority life professional at the University of New Hampshire and MIT prior to his doctoral work.

3

Schuh, J. H, Biddix, J. P., Dean, L. A., & Kinzie, J. (2016). Assessment in student affairs (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

4

Culp, M. M. (2012). Starting the culture of evidence journey. In M. M. Culp & G. J. Dundy (Eds.), Building a culture of evidence in student affairs: A guide for leaders and practitioners (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administration (NASPA).

13 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

JASON BERGERON As campuses increase efforts to enhance and transform the fraternity and sorority experience, external reviews increasingly emerge as mechanisms to identify gaps and inform solutions. By simplification (or one could argue, oversimplification), an external review often consists of assembling a team of content experts that, through a combination of virtual and on-site data collection, evaluates the current effectiveness of a fraternity and sorority program. This often leads to identifying key areas for improvement and heightened effectiveness.

External reviews, however, are more complex than that, as they hold a unique space within student affairs and higher education. Specifically, that complexity rests at the intersection of research, assessment, and evaluation, including important elements of all three concepts. There is no “guide book” for external reviews. Campuses are often left to their own devices to figure out how to best navigate the planning, implementation, and post-review expectations of an external review. While certainly not an expert on the topic of external reviews, I have been privileged to manage external reviews from both sides: as an external reviewer and coordinator for campus-based external reviews. Those experiences — coupled with a deep, almost unexplainable affinity for assessment work — inform the following makeshift “roadmap” that can help campuses determine if an external review is the right decision and if so, how to effectively navigate it.

Clarifying Reason and Intent

for audiences beyond the direct fraternity and sorority advising operation.

An external review can often be the first strategy thrown on the table in several different instances:

Here are the most common ways external reviews are framed:

1. When confusion or challenge about the fraternity and sorority experience and/or effectiveness of fraternity/sorority advising and operations exists 2. When a change in departmental/divisional/ institutional leadership occurs and new leadership attempts to better understand operative effectiveness 3. As a tool in a larger planning or change initiative effort While value exists for each of those rationales, it is important to have clarity on the proposed review’s purpose and intended impact. Understanding who commissioned the review and their desired expectations for the process’ outcomes helps provide direction for the purpose. A review commissioned by divisional/university leadership to better understand the successes and challenges within the fraternity and sorority community may yield different outcomes than an external review considered as part of a larger assessment strategy.

The reality of external reviews is they utilize multiple limited resources: time, financial, and attention from others. External reviews can be an important component of a larger assessment and evaluation strategy. An external review should be designed to complement, but not replace or supersede, current campus assessment and evaluation practices. In the same way a campus may establish a timeline for other important assessment activities, establishing a regular timeline for external reviews allows it to become an ongoing part of larger assessment and evaluation strategies as opposed to something more episodic. A five to seven year cycle can be an effective timeline for conducting a review, utilizing the review for long-term enhancement planning, and resting/maintaining.

Framing the Review Framing the review by clearly articulating the lens through which external reviewers should approach the process can be one of the single greatest strategies for increasing review effectiveness and usefulness. Effectively framing the review prevents it from sliding into a “let’s bring people together so they can tell us what they think” methodology. While that approach might be valuable and honors reviewers’ individual perspectives, it does not always translate into a final product grounded in relevant fraternity/sorority/student affairs/higher education literature. It also may not be usable by or useful

1

1. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS): CAS was designed to guide program review in higher education. It is “a consortium of professional associations in higher education that promotes the use of its professional standards for the development, assessment, and improvement of quality student learning, programs, and services.”1 CAS provides a common language and roadmap for functional areas to evaluate current programmatic efforts, policies, and organizational structures. It is the gold-standard and provides incredible resources to successfully execute a review.

2. “Big Questions”/”Problem Areas”: While CAS provides a common language widely understood across multiple functional and programmatic areas within higher education, it may not provide a review that meets the needs of campuses engaging an external review team to provide insight toward specific questions. The “big questions” or “problem areas” approach engages an external review team to provide insights and recommendations for targeted areas of concern. While there are less resources available with this approach, it can provide practical recommendations that may have deep relevance to specific challenges within a community.

In my experience most external reviews are framed through elements of both. Utilizing CAS ensures credibility and inter-divisional relevance, while the “big questions” framework ensures the review meets immediate needs of the campus and community.

Building the External Review Team External reviewers are qualitative researchers. They are charged with entering an unfamiliar space, quickly gaining entry into that space, and intentionally engaging with members of the community in ways that allow themes to emerge. While being a skilled fraternity and sorority professional can certainly inform work as an external reviewer, it does not solely define external review work. Effective external reviewers lean on skill sets in research and assessment, often complemented or enhanced by experiences in the fraternity and sorority advising profession. Care should go into ensuring an external review team has the research, evaluation, and assessment skills necessary to conduct the review. Simply put, this is not a time to assemble your friends.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). (2019). CAS professional standards for higher education (10th Ed.).

Washington, DC: Author.

15 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

Additionally, effective review teams exist at the intersection of skill and diversity. External review teams are tasked with gaining access quickly upon entering a campus, and the quality of access can impact what information is available to the reviewer.2 Campus community members — specifically students and volunteers — want to see a team as representative of their lived experiences as possible. A team that fails to value their experiences through representation can impact the quality of access gained by reviewers. On an external review team, representation matters.

The Self-Study A self-study is likely the most neglected component of an external review. This is a campus effort to evaluate perceived effectiveness in the proposed review areas prior to evaluation by external reviewers. The self-study is noteworthy for several reasons: 1. It engages the campus in its own review.

Perceptions of those who exist within the institutional culture and “do the work” everyday hold equal importance to the “expert opinion” 2. It prepares and primes the review team with data that allows the team to build an effective data collection strategy on campus. By nature of name, external reviewers are “external.” As such, a selfstudy provides insights about what interventions currently exist and perceived effectiveness of those interventions While a full self-study is recommended, any efforts to gather and collect artifacts to help the review team build its strategy are helpful to ensure time on-site is maximized. There is a difference, however, between gathering documents and conducting a self-study. Simply compiling policies, procedures, and other items forces reviewers to make sense of the information provided through their own lenses. A self-study provides those artifacts in a way that has already been evaluated for perceived effectiveness. For example, if a specific policy, practice, or intervention strategy may be ineffective and you KNOW it is ineffective, it changes the way it is evaluated within the context of the review. A strong self-study effort is grounded in the same framework as the external review. One of the many benefits of using the CAS framework is the self-study guides allow for easy translation within and between functional areas.

The On-Site Visit While only part of the external review process, the on-site visit is often perceived as the most critical component of the review. It is where preparation from the campus

2

and external review team is more fully realized, as it places reviewers in front of community members to directly collect data from those experiencing or interacting with the fraternity and sorority community on campus. While this is the case, there often seems to be a “kitchen-sink” approach to developing visit schedules, where JJ’s cousin’s best friend’s babysitter has an opinion and wants to share that with the external review team. This can present a challenge for the campus in crafting a schedule that is comprehensive, gives voice to all relevant constituent groups, and values external reviewers’ time and intellectual energy. The focus is often only on creating a schedule that meets with all the appropriate “constituent groups.” It can be more helpful, however, to focus on creating “theme groups” in cooperation with “constituent groups.” Theme groups may emerge as those who are involved and have a vested interest in student safety and student conduct, intellectual development, volunteer engagement, etc. This can also allow campuses to see if there are important stakeholder communities based on topic area, in addition to constituent groups, that can lead to a more comprehensive schedule.

Managing External Review Outcomes and Expectations The intellectual labor of the external review team is usually captured in one specific form: the final report. The final report is intended to accurately describe methods used by the review team to collect and understand data, how that helped the team most accurately understand and communicate the issue(s), and provide a recommendation based upon relevant literature and best practice. It is important a final report communicates the high-quality evaluative work of the review team, however it is even more vital the report is usable. A final report is ineffective if it cannot accurately communicate the challenges in a way that is easily understood across constituent groups.

Campuses can provide guidance to the external review team in organizing and framing the report for maximum effectiveness. I often ask clients in advance how the report can best be understood by campus community members.

This includes how content can be grouped and organized, along with language that is colloquial to the institution.

In external reviews, expectations of what the report should recommend can be placed upon the review team before the work even begins. This most often comes in the area of staffing and resources. Clients may expect an external review to tell them they “need more staff” or “need a bigger budget.” These expectations are often grounded in feelings about the ways fraternity and sorority advising is valued within the context of an institution or within higher education. While these expectations are understandable, recommendations for increasing staff and budget are generally an oversimplified — and sometimes inaccurate —

Feldman, M. S., Bell, J., & Berger, M. T. (2003). Gaining access: A practical and theoretical guide for qualitative researchers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 16

solution to the problems at hand. More staff and larger budgets may in fact be recommendations from an external review. However, I frequently find recommendations come in the form of repositioning and reallocating time, focus areas, and resources by the university and fraternity and sorority community members. If more (insert resource here) is needed, it will most certainly be recommended.

However, it will be done within the context of maximizing current resources and awareness of the diminishing resources with which many student affairs divisions currently operate.

When summarizing the usefulness and impact of external reviews, the Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning3 serve as an effective guide and reminder for how to frame reviews: •

Assessment works best when the programs it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes: The same should be said for external reviews. What these processes aim to achieve and how they are framed should be clear across multiple communities

•

Assessment works best when it is ongoing and not episodic: Establish a cycle of external reviews as part of a broader assessment program. This ensures it is not only seen as a strategy when things get “out of control”

•

Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a larger set of conditions that promote change: An external review can be a great resource that might help facilitate change, but the conditions that exist around and as a result of it are more likely to facilitate change

External reviews can be a valuable tool to aid in the growth and development of a fraternity and sorority community. An external review should not, however, be a casual proposition, nor conducted just because other institutions or peers are doing one. An effective review that will provide a useful report must be constructed with intentionality, direction, and preparation. Designing a review process the right way sets the review team up for success and ensures a high-quality product that will help the institution move forward.

“While these expectations are understandable, recommendations for increasing staff and budget are generally an oversimplified— and sometimes inaccurate— solution to the problems at hand.”

Jason Bergeron Jason became invested in higher education assessment work through his leadership of the now defunct AFA Assessment Committee. In addition to his 14 years of professional experience in fraternity/sorority advising, he has both coordinated external reviews on his home campuses in addition to serving on multiple external review teams. He is currently a full-time director and part-time Ph.D. student at the University of Houston studying student learning and institutional effectiveness. Jason often speaks about assessment work to anyone who will give him the time of day.

3

American Association of Higher Education. (1996). 9 principles of good practice for assessing student learning. Retrieved from http://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/ academicprograms/1 pdfs/assess/nine_principles_good_practice.pdf

17 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform S T E V A N V E L D K A M P, E D . D .

Hazing tragedies of the last two years have left campuses and headquarters in a quandary as to what policies and practices will create safe, successful, and sustainable fraternities and sororities.

Questions about campus staffing ratios, recruitment policies, and effective anti-hazing prevention loom in the thoughts of student affairs professionals, university presidents, and trustees.

These practice and policy questions are just a few examples of the compelling matters Penn State’s Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform (Piazza Center) is poised to address to inform professional practice. In January 2019, the multidisciplinary research center was named in memory of Timothy J. Piazza, a sophomore at Penn State who died in February 2017 following alcohol-infused hazing activities.

A New Center Since 2017, Penn State has undertaken a series of aggressive measures to overcome challenges in its Greek-letter community related to hazing, misuse of alcohol, sexual assault, and overly large and disruptive social events. The Piazza Center extends local efforts by providing the scholarship required to study and learn from common reform actions such as deferred recruitment, as well as develop and manage a national scorecard on fraternities and sororities, host national conversations on important and pressing topics, collect and distribute best practices, and sponsor original research to inform fraternity and sorority professionals’ advising practice.

The Piazza Center is primed to create unbiased answers to perennial questions regarding professional practice and policies.

“Our aim is to make the center a valuable resource for colleges and universities across the United States, as well as for members, chapters, and organizations. The center will focus on research to support positive educational outcomes, student safety, and the reduction of highrisk behaviors. What everyone in this field really seeks is sound, professional practices,” said Damon Sims, Vice President for Student Affairs and a primary advocate for creation of the center at Penn State. “The Piazza Center will study best practices in creating safer chapters, as well as the positive impact fraternity and sororities can create on campus and in the community.”

An Old Idea This new center builds upon the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research, located at Indiana University in Bloomington since 1979 and transitioned to Penn State in 2019. This transition allows for dedication of full-time staff and resources to develop best practices in fraternity and sorority life. Penn State’s trustee and presidential leadership chose to pick up the mantle of finding grounded practices to enduring and contemporary challenges, and surfacing opportunities facing fraternities and sororities. After Piazza’s tragic death, university administrators were determined to fix the serious lack of research available to inform how fraternity and sorority affairs should most effectively operate and guide decisions on policies proven to work. Proposed by Penn State President Eric J. Barron and Vice President for Student Affairs Sims, 34 university trustees voted unanimously to support the creation and funding for the research center (see Penn State’s Commitment to Funding Fraternity and Sorority Research).

The idea of a fraternity and sorority research center goes back more than 44 years. In 1975, higher education and fraternal leaders convened with a goal to create a national agenda for fraternities and sororities. Indiana University Chancellor Herman Wells, Dean of Students Robert Shaffer, and a commission of well-known names in the higher education and interfraternal world led the effort. The agenda, speeches, and subsequent book Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 18

“Our aim is to make the center a valuable resource for colleges and universities across the United States, as well as for members, chapters, and organizations.

The center will focus on research to support positive educational outcomes, student safety, and the reduction of high-risk behaviors. What everyone in this field really seeks is sound, professional practices.”

Damon Sims, Vice President for Student Affairs, Penn State University created a pathway for the future of the American college fraternity (and sorority) on nearly the exact date of the 200-year founding of Phi Beta Kappa Fraternity. The proceedings included a call for the creation of a fraternity and sorority research center.

As a result, the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity was created to bridge the gap between espoused expectations and 1970s student behavior. However, the funding model was inconsistent and not adequate for such a heavy task, and the center continued with limited to moderate success. Forward-thinking campus and interfraternal leaders kept pushing for a research agenda to help inform their operations. The names of those involved read like a “Who’s Who” of campus and fraternity and sorority leadership, too many to list here — but most are honored by their campuses and headquarters.

19 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

What is Different Now? There are numerous studies related to the size, shape, and extent of problems facing fraternities and sororities.

However, there is little evidence related to professional practice in working with Greek-life organizations or in effective operations of these organizations. Learning how institutions move from identifying problems to creating chapter, community, and cultural change internally and externally is critical to the future of fraternity and sorority life.

The Piazza Center seeks to build upon — and amplify — professional practice that changes the hearts and minds of students, alumni, campuses, and headquarters by studying the efficacy of different methods to advise chapters; impact of changes to campus policies; and implementation of educational programs designed to create change. The Piazza Center strives to learn about professional practice that positively shifts student behavior and chapter cultures, and will determine how institutions can replicate that work.

The Piazza Center will not only disseminate discovered best practices, but also consult with professionals to help implement needed change. As an example, the National Scorecard is an accountability process for campuses and headquarters to gauge progress and benchmark against peers. The scorecard is meant for various chapters to inform on key metrics such as grade point average, community service, and violations of codes of conduct.

Piazza Center staff have guided institutions in creating their own campus scorecards (See National Fraternity and Sorority Scorecard).

What will the Piazza Center do?

The Piazza Center is committed to the study of fraternity and sorority life, focusing on research to support positive educational outcomes, student safety, and reduction of high-risk behaviors. Specifically, the Piazza Center examines sound professional practice in fraternity and sorority advising and the impact of policy implementation.

Further, the Piazza Center is committed to working toward: Transformation of fraternity and sorority life: The research, tools, and best practices produced by the Piazza Center will help professionals enhance student safety and create transformative experiences. This will ultimately lead to sustainable chapters, which positively impact the campus and surrounding communities. One such strategy is providing support to equip campuses and headquarters with data from the Fraternity & Sorority Experience Survey (FSES). The FSES provides insight about academic experiences, values, social issues, bystander intervention, chapter operations, and community found in members’ experiences. Data collected and presented in the FSES summary report provides a perceptual overview of individual behaviors and chapter cultures. Participating institutions and headquarters can use the data to create

8

chapter and council benchmarks. The FSES report can also inform critical decisions on where to focus program and advising support to create healthier and safer chapters and communities. Gamma Phi Beta Sorority currently incorporates data in conversations with local chapters to choose which programmatic areas to emphasize, replacing their satisfaction survey with the FSES. Further findings from the FSES and other research projects will inform campuses, organizations, and legislatures on how to institute comprehensive professional practices and change. The Piazza Center will host an annual symposium designed to bring together universities, organizations, researchers, and policymakers to better understand and address the reality of the current fraternity and sorority environment.

Share findings: The Piazza Center encourages collaboration to develop best practices and policies for fraternities and sororities. This cooperative approach allows for universities and organizations to learn from one another, while enabling researchers to collectively compare, track, measure, and analyze potential solutions to the longstanding challenges within this unique student organization experience.

The National Fraternity and Sorority Scorecard is just one example and the first exploratory study of uniform consequences and accountability for campuses and inter/national headquarters.

Thinking critically: The Piazza Center takes a multidisciplinary approach to create sound professional practice. As a result, studies are comprehensive and review all existing literature, with value placed upon multiple points of view and approaches to the complex issues facing fraternities and sororities.

For more information about the Piazza Center email PiazzaCenter@psu.edu or visit https://studentaffairs.psu.edu/piazzacenter

Stevan Veldkamp, Ed.D. Dr. Stevan Veldkamp is the special assistant to the vice president for student affairs and executive director of the Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform at Penn State University. The Piazza Center is a national multidisciplinary research center that aims to provide actionable evidence to practitioners to improve the safety and experience of fraternity and sorority members. Veldkamp has served in senior student affairs roles at Indiana University Bloomington and is a frequent campus consultant.

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Penn State’s Commitment to Funding Fraternity and Sorority Research Penn State and the Piazza Center have a goal to raise $8 million to endow the critical work that must be done to create the elusive framework for professional practice. This financial infusion provides the center with fiscal resources to hire the staff needed to support existing projects and offer resources to launch new studies to benefit fraternity and sorority life.

The university is approaching alumni, parents, corporations, headquarters, and foundations for gifts that benefit fraternity and sorority research, while building upon Penn State’s ongoing initiatives to reduce unsafe behaviors and increase accountability within fraternities and sororities. With overall costs to create the center estimated at $8 million, Penn State University has committed $2 million in initial funding as well as pledging up to $3 million in 1:1 matching funds for donor endowed gifts of $50,000 or more. Through this opportunity, alumni, parents, foundations, and friends can leverage their gifts to secure matching funds that double the impact of their generosity.

Contact Stevan Veldkamp, Executive Director of the Piazza Center, at sjv54@psu.edu if your campus, council, or organization is interested in a gift to the Piazza Center.

National Fraternity & Sorority Scorecard Organizational-level policy violations

F R AT E R N I T I E S

SORORITIES 10

The establishment of a National Fraternity and Sorority Scorecard (NFSS) project creates the possibility for common reporting practices in fraternity and sorority advising. Campuses and organizations can use these reports in purposeful ways to track trends and review what measures are meaningful. Reporting brings transparency and accountability that could help advance student safety and improve the overall student experience.

The inaugural report will highlight information from 53 campuses about grades, philanthropic activity, and organizational conduct in Spring 2018. Our data show that 52.8 percent of institutions (n=28) reported organizational-level policy violations at one or more fraternity and 28.3 percent of institutions (n=15) reported organizational-level policy violations at one or more sorority.

Across all chapters, 13.7 percent of the fraternities listed had at least one organizational violation (n=133), while 7.7 percent of sororities had at least one organizational violation (n=51). Among institutions reporting at least one violation within their chapters, the average number of organizational violations was 10, with the highest number of violations being 45. As participation in the NFSS grows, the Piazza Center will be able to track and report on conduct trends and enable campuses to benchmark against peers.

Plans are also underway to enhance the NFSS project and the Piazza Center is looking for early adopting institutions to join a 15-to-30 institution cohort pilot project to categorize campus organizational discipline. If you are interested in being part of this project, please email PiazzaCenter@psu.edu.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 20

Transformative programming is a hallmark of the fraternity and sorority experience. Whether it is a national program, regional meeting, or chapter-based activity, creating a space for fraternity and sorority members to dive deeper into understanding their purpose and developing ambitions for change has become an integral experience for undergraduates. For more than 20,000 students, the Undergraduate Interfraternity Institute (UIFI) is that hallmark program. How did UIFI become what it is today and how has it evolved throughout its 30-year history?

In some ways, leaders that graduated from UIFI in 1990 had a similar experience to 2019 attendees. The program remains a time for students and facilitators to come together for five days — away from their day to day environments — to reflect upon their own experiences and address challenges the collective fraternity and sorority community faces.

This article shares insights from some of the key individuals that have influenced UIFI and explores why it was created, what it looked like in the early years, and why it continues to impact undergraduate fraternity and sorority members today.

UIFI 30 YEARS OF

JACKIE HACKETT

In the late 1980s and 1990s, there were few educational opportunities that provided transformational learning experiences and human connections that lasted beyond any given program. There were nuts and bolts trainings, conferences, and academies. Many organizations did not have far-reaching learning experiences or diverse facilitator teams. The NIC staff and volunteers recognized a need for something similar to the Fraternity Executives Association (FEA) Interfraternity Institute (IFI) both in model and philosophy but for undergraduate members. This meant large group discussions about key issues the participants faced and unpacking those in a personal way through small group experiences. The goal was also to provide more education and resources to campuses with limited support.

In its early years, UIFI received mixed buy-in from professionals but great feedback from participants and facilitators. As with many new ideas, conflict existed around program ownership and a concern for the unknown. UIFI’s first year consisted of two sessions. The first session had 28 students and 8 small group facilitators. After a strong first session, registration for the second session doubled.

One of the greatest learning moments in the early years centered on participant management. Smaller-sized sessions had intimate conversations but could lack depth of discussion or participation. Larger sessions saw increased occurrence of unwanted behaviors but allowed for teachable moments and demonstration of confrontation, communication, and values-based decision making directly connected to program content.

As seen in many programs, the most meaningful learning experiences occurred when students stepped out of their comfort zones and dug deep to process their experiences on campus and within the program. Due to this, the overall model of UIFI has remained similar over its 30-year history.

Just like on campus, human dynamics and a desire for connection and belonging exist throughout programmatic experiences. Students craved a platform to discuss issues, talk through solutions, and be heard. UIFI provided that opportunity. For participants then — and still today — UIFI is the first time many students might have an emotional learning experience and/or find themselves around a diverse set of Greek leaders and change-makers.

Throughout UIFI’s history, the content provided to students, facilitators delivering the content, and locations have changed, but the purpose

21 19 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

and outcomes have not. The purpose of UIFI continues to be geared toward developing strong student leaders; building relationships between fraternity and sorority headquarters professionals, campus professionals, and volunteers through volunteer facilitation; and modeling what great programs can accomplish for participants and campuses.

Knowing that data frequently drives decisions, understanding what UIFI looked like in the early years was crucial for understanding where it should go moving forward. Over time, data has shown the greatest impact(s) on students are the ritual-based conversations, accountability discussions, and continuing the conversations long after leaving the session. As a result, and with advances in technology, the UIFI family is able to continue discussions about key components and remind students and facilitators about resources that drive continued success and affinity to the program. Data pulled from longitudinal surveys shows providing consistent contact and refreshing of memories helps motivate students. Knowing this, the current curriculum includes a blueprint and roadmap for action planning, for when participants return to campus and need quick references to the conversations shared during UIFI. Looking at data from the past 15 years, the North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) has consistently sought to assess participants’ personal growth. Consistently, it has found commitment to the fraternal experience, understanding the role of Ritual, and appreciating the importance of these aspects are the highest areas of growth. Due to this, these areas have remained in the curriculum. Changes to the curriculum have come from lower scores or changing demographics and needs of college-aged students. The curriculum is continually modified and developed to offer undergraduate fraternity/sorority leaders an innovative educational experience that provides the awareness, motivation, and skills necessary to elevate their chapters, councils, and communities. In addition to participant data, updates and changes are made based on facilitator feedback about the experience. As the professionals delivering the content - either in general sessions or chapter meetings - facilitators have immense knowledge about the UIFI experience.

Understanding the evolution of UIFI helps us shape the program’s future. As UIFI crosses its 30-year threshold it is important to think about how we can continue to meet students where they are and provide innovative interfraternal educational experiences. Data from the last 30 years helps us understand what works, what is outdated, what still needs to be addressed, and where students are in understanding the fraternity and sorority experience. We believe in the value of institute-style programming and offering increased opportunities for students to engage in intentional learning experiences with diverse peers. As such, there may be changes to UIFI in the upcoming years as we think about how to achieve this goal.

SU MM ARY

DATA

Please rate your level of personal growth in the following areas.

Consider yourself before UIFI and after UIFI. (the scale is 1-10, with 1 being the lowest). Here is a guide...1 = you didn’t change at all in this area, 5 = you experienced moderate change in this area, 10 = you experienced complete growth in this area: Percentage of students that ranked 8, 9 or 10 for experiencing growth in this area: 2019 2015 2010 2006

My commitment to living my Ritual 89% 85% 86% 81% Importance of Ritual/ritual in the fraternal experience 91% 85% 87% 80% Appreciation of my own fraternity/sorority 94% 84% 86% 82% Appreciation for fraternity/sorority life 97% 87% 84% 82%

Please rate your competency or level of understanding in the following areas. 1= Low/None, 5= Some/Moderate, 10= High/ Complete Percentage of students that ranked 8, 9 or 10: 2019 2015 2010 2006

Understanding the importance of linking values to decision making 93% 80% 74% 67% My personal commitment to integrity as a leader 96% 78% 75% 70% Awareness of critical issues affecting fraternity/sorority life 93% 83% 76% 68% Ability to develop a vision 91% 67% 72% 62% My confidence in my ability to create positive change in my council 82% 70% N/A N/A My confidence in my ability to create positive change in my community 84% 77% N/A N/A My willingness to volunteer/contribute to my fraternity/sorority on a national level 86% 74% 77% N/A N/A: Questions not asked in these surveys

This article was written via interviews and discussions with Craig Peterson, Karyn Nishimura Sneath, Jeffrey Cufaude, Will Foran, and Mike McRee.

Jackie Hackett Jackie Hackett serves as assistant director of education and leadership development at the North American Interfraternity Conference. Prior to working at the NIC, she was the assistant executive director for undergraduate engagement at Phi Mu Delta National Fraternity. She is a member of Sigma Sigma Sigma from Marshall University and received a M.A. in student affairs in higher education from Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 22

Writingand Retreating:

Our Perspective on the AFA Oracle Writers Retreat 2019 BRIAN JOYCE

We

started the second annual AFA writers’ retreat in the dark and spooky foyer of a large, historic home in an unfamiliar space. The room was lit only by candlelight. We remained silent, standing in a semi-circle until someone in all white came to the front of the room to greet us.

We weren’t taking part in a fraternal ritual ceremony, but rather starting our retreat time on a ghost tour through Colonial Williamsburg, widely known as one of America’s most haunted places. Whether or not you believe in the hauntings and mysteries of eyewitness accounts throughout the historic homes of the Colonial era, we walked away from the tour with a shared experience and one of the cornerstones of quality writing: the art of storytelling.

When we think about our stories from the retreat, the most impactful narrative from our time at William & Mary is one of community. The connections between researchers were purposeful. Dr. Jim Barber, associate professor of higher education at William & Mary, editor of Oracle, and one of the primary retreat organizers designed this networking time with intentionality. “I think the two most productive aspects of the retreat are (1) the time reserved for writing and (2) the community of researchers that come together for the retreat,” Barber said. “It is such a great opportunity to have so many colleagues who are interested in fraternity and sorority research come together in the same place. The conversations that happen at the retreat not only affirm the work that we’re doing, but generate new ideas for research, partnerships, and writing projects.”

The new ideas generated during the retreat are as much a part of our story as the writing. Among the vast resources in the Earl Gregg Swem Library on the historic campus of W&M, several researchers in attendance chatted about ways to combine their interests in whiteness and masculinity into a future collaboration.

Over a cup of coffee from nearby Aromas coffeehouse, they conceptualized the framework for important and 23 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

critical issues in the field, and following the retreat, have discussed co-authoring a piece going more in-depth on how these issues affect student leaders.

The small cohort and idea generation aspect of the retreat allowed for critical moments of reflection for scholars.

Dr. Pietro Sasso, assistant professor of college student personnel and program director at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, stated, “this opportunity helped me reflect on my future contributions to the profession of fraternity and sorority advising as a researcher who supports our undergraduate student leaders.”

Ideas about the profession and the future of research in the field were plentiful. After an afternoon of guided brainstorming, the group generated a varied list of topics thought to be critical areas of exploration for future research. The group brainstormed everything from membership development in online spaces to an economic impact study of the fraternity and sorority community on both a campus and its surrounding community. Jason Bergeron, director of the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Life at the University of Houston, commented this aspect of the retreat was perhaps the most meaningful. Bergeron said, “the idea generation with other attendees I think will have the most long-term impact as it helps to create multi-disciplinary teams of people who can brainstorm potential studies.”

Of course, there was also plenty of writing. Bergeron pointed out he primarily “spent time working on completing my candidacy paper, which was the most immediate project in front of me.” Sasso indicated he “was able to work on my own scholarship to complete my two volumes on the forthcoming fraternity/sorority texts, as well as begin conceptualizing an article on sense of belonging among fraternity members.”

The setting is an important piece of any story. When talking about the importance of the retreat, Barber reiterated the significance of the space. “The retreat offers

not just time and community to help the participants advance their research, but also resources to do so,” Barber said. “We’re supported at the retreat by a fantastic team of research librarians at William & Mary Libraries who are there to help move our work forward. We have access to historical archives, article databases, and librarian expertise that many professionals do not have at their home campuses or organizations. William & Mary is the birthplace of the American college fraternity, and our research is very much valued and supported by our partners at the library.”

Every good story needs a villain, and in this story, the enemy is time, or lack thereof. Sasso mentioned, “the most productive part of the retreat was allowing myself isolated time to focus on my scholarship.” Barber discussed the difficulty of finding time to write in our day to day lives. He says, “it is a luxury to have hours in a day blocked off to work on a writing project, and I’m very protective of that writing time in the retreat.”

The luxury of time is not often replicated in other professional travel experiences. For example, the experience of being in a library all day entirely focused on the topic at hand was quite different than a conference experience. At conferences, we often check email, meet up with colleagues, and consider practical ways to improve our jobs when we return home. In other words, a conference is an extension of work, and work does not shut off in that space.

One of the reasons the AFA writing retreat is special is because it is an opportunity to disconnect. While at the retreat, we did not think about what waited for us after - or the immediate pressures of the office. Instead, we were able to connect deeply with our writing. By engaging completely with research and writing, it enabled us to shut off the daily minutiae and think broadly about the fraternity and sorority field. What is next? What do we need to know to redefine the fraternity and sorority field? Perhaps most importantly, how can we

work together to accomplish these ideas? Bergeron commented many researchers might be “part of a cohort of people who may not have complementary research interests. The retreat attempts to change those conditions by providing access to people who have a passion for and interest in empirical research within fraternities and sororities.”

Like many good stories, this one had a happy ending.

As many educators are well aware, there is intangible benefit and development that occurs in a residential undergraduate experience. The researchers stayed in a fraternity house on William & Mary’s campus, reminding many of us of our days as full-time students. Our last night at the retreat felt oddly comforting, as though we had known each other for years, even though many of us met just a couple of days before. As Bergeron stated, “I just straight up enjoyed the company of other attendees and exploring W&M and Williamsburg with them.”

Us too, Jason.

In the end, it was the community of scholars that had the biggest impact. Being surrounded by colleagues who challenged and supported us through this intense writing experience is the main reason this experience is one that will stay with us long after our time spent together.

Brian Joyce Brian Joyce currently serves as the director of Greek Life at Dartmouth College. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in political science from Eastern Kentucky University, a Master of Education in college student affairs from the University of South Florida, and a Ph.D. in educational leadership with a higher education emphasis from Clemson University. Brian is an active volunteer with AFA, currently serving on the peer review board of Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors and as a member of the AFA research team.

Wonder what a room full of practitioners could derive for the field of fraternity and sorority advising? At the Oracle Writers Retreat, participants engaged in a structured brainstorming activity that harvested a series of potential research topics. If you are interested in one or more of these, consider attending the Oracle Writers Retreat in July of 2020!

•

Curriculum-based housing

•

Sophomore presidents

•

Efficacy of live-in advisors

•

•

Relevance of single-gender organizations (or rather, experience of co-ed organizations)

Relationships between fraternity and sorority staff and upper-level administrators

•

•

Positive displays of masculinities

Changing qualifications of organizational-based professionals; impact of professionalization

•

Economic impact of fraternity and sorority on campus (or in the community in which it is situated)

•

Long-term effects (affects) of campus change initiatives

•

Gender inclusivity, specifically policies and procedures

•

Member development through online learning

•

Pros and cons of deferred (or prolonged) recruitment

•

Structural and organizational characteristics of FSL departments, campuses, or headquarters

•

Role of fraternity or sorority in social mobility

•

Is self-governance still relevant?

•

Implications of membership on patterns of giving (philanthropy)

•

Demographics of members

•

•

Alcohol use in various settings (or in different settings

•

Local or regional fraternity and sorority organizations; entire local chapter communities

The high school pipeline - learned behaviors in high school and their impact in college (i.e., hazing, alcohol use)

•

Membership expectations versus reality

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 24

CURRENT ACTIVE DATA USE PRACTICES IN RECRUITMENT

Hi Values-Based Recruitment Meet Research-Based

Recruitment BECKY GLEASON Imagine if the “Evolution of Dance” YouTube video was about Panhellenic recruitment. One would see an evolution from carriage rides and small gatherings; to a more formalized process with skits, costumes, and elaborate decorations; to door chants and songs; to a process now defined by videos and social media influence.

While it could be entertaining to watch, it begs the question of where we go from here. What is next when it comes to not only Panhellenic recruitment but also recruitment and/ or intake for any organization? In this article, I posit the next stage in the evolution of recruitment is to use more holistic, researched-based methods.

Since 2003, sororities associated with the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) have used the Release Figures Method (RFM) to compute the formal recruitment process. Simply described, RFM is a mathematical model to determine the number of invitations issued by each participating chapter during the formal recruitment process.

This method provides professionals, volunteers, and undergraduate chapters with data including information on priorities, rankings, and anticipated quota and total that helps inform, measure, and analyze chapter and community recruitment processes.

In 2015, the NPC began focusing on values-based recruitment and fully defined expectations in its Manual of Information (MOI). The NPC refers to values-based recruitment as focusing on values-based conversations, establishing guidelines on recruitment budgets, keeping decorations at a minimum, determining chapter member attire to reduce financial burden, barring gifts to and/or from potential new members, and eliminating skits from the process.

While values-based recruitment has done a lot to shift away from frills and expense, it may be time to enhance the recruitment preparation conversation. Preparation should include more robust data than mere recruitment performance statistics. This research-based recruitment model does not mean giving chapters data points they can recite to recruits. It means utilizing the data gathered to understand what development and education the chapter needs to be prepared to create effective relationships through the recruitment process. Data-based recruitment would aim to measure overall chapter health and inform recruitment preparation.

THE CASE FOR WHY ONLY RFM & VALUES-BASED RECRUITMENT MISSES THE MARK Research shows the brain does not fully develop until age 25. For many, college is a time where students expand and challenge their assumptions, connecting new information with previous learning to make meaning. As such, many traditional students don’t enter college having identified or developed a true understanding of their personal values.

While it’s important to start those conversations, it’s also important to acknowledge participating in the NPC formal recruitment process does not historically elicit that type of thoughtful engagement.

More often than not, potential new members seek connection, belonging, and “a home away from home.”

When two individuals meet outside of higher education, do they typically begin an introductory conversation with, “What are your values?” Maybe … but probably not. We learn the values of others over time and by getting to know them on a deeper level. Brené Brown tells us humans are

wired for connection and belonging. She also notes the opposite of belonging is fitting in. Based on this, we should teach our chapters and undergraduate members to be more authentic and accepting, rather than assessing and acclimating.

Focusing solely on RFM figures can also lead to overlooking the actual problem at hand. For example, RFM data may indicate a chapter is falling in its returns after the first invitational round, otherwise described as an increasing number of potential new members are not indicating they want to continue exploring membership with that chapter.

Without additional data, it might not be obvious the poor performance is because the chapter has a sisterhood issue, leading members to experience difficulty in positively speaking about their experiences in the chapter.

Using RFM and related data focuses on the time period during and immediately after recruitment. It answers the questions, “How IS the chapter doing?” and “How DID the chapter do?” Employing research-based methods holistically shifts the focus to the time period before recruitment. Instead, it answers the questions, “What major areas for improvement does the chapter maintain that if improved can help shape its recruitment strategy?” and “How can chapter members and advisors focus on those areas for improvement during recruitment preparation instead of just valued-based conversations?”

Zeta Tau Alpha approaches values-based recruitment by focusing on one of its Nine Key Values, “Being Rather Than Seeming.” It comes directly from the organization’s creed, meaning to be authentic, share who you are, and listen to others to learn their stories. Part of being authentic is also using chapter-based data to understand chapter identity.

This helps uncover a chapter’s areas of strength and growth.

TOOLS FOR RESEARCH-BASED RECRUITMENT Understanding the Context: 20th century education was teacher-centric, with professors regarded as “sages on the stage” and classrooms organized with desks in neat rows. It worked well for an industrialized nation focused on order. In 21st century education, however, technology and collaborative learning methods have sparked advancement.

Within this new era, professors are often regarded as “guides on the side” and focus is placed on the learners.

The 20th century education model can be seen in fraternities and sororities. Examples include the belief that all chapters can do the same one-hour program and the organization overall will improve or that all students will learn from the same program format and teaching methods. This industry must evolve and adapt to the 21st century model to create a more individualized and datadriven chapter and membership experience.

Believe it or not, current collegians grew up with Netflix.

In the early 2000s, the company used a personalized

recommendation service for movies based on a user’s individual interests and past views. Netflix was a massive disruptor to the cable industry. Now, think of Netflix for fraternity and sorority recruitment. A research-based approach would create a personalized model for each chapter.

Moving from Thinking to Doing: The next phase in this evolution is to actually use a holistic, data-driven method.

Similar to a doctor, this requires a three-step process: diagnose, prescribe, and follow-up. This cuts out blanket education and skips right to what chapters really need.

The process starts with asking what is really desirable to know. Questions could include, “What defines an overall chapter’s health on campus or in an organization?” and “What does the organization or campus really hope members learn from the fraternity/sorority experience?” This could also include measuring student learning outcomes, values-alignment, sisterhood/brotherhood, and/or health and safety categories. Practitioners should pay special attention to sisterhood/brotherhood because it’s what gets potential new members “in the door” during recruitment and will also be most helpful for a chapter’s recruitment preparation.

These factors can be measured in a variety of ways. For example, through a formalized assessment process, observations at chapter meetings and events, consultant/ volunteer/staff reports, individual meetings with chapter leaders, or focus groups to name a few. Data gatherers should challenge themselves to use more than easily obtainable data such as grade point averages, community service hours, and philanthropy dollars raised. This takes planning and work but has the potential to impact more than just recruitment. Identifying different unique data sets can also improve other areas such as chapter goal setting and programming.

Once a chapter’s health is diagnosed, the next step is to prescribe solutions to positively impact recruitment performance. Focus on the key time prior to recruitment.

For ZTA, this includes a team of staff members that travel to chapters for recruitment presentation. They use chapter data to individualize the program. The visit focuses on chapter identity, strengths and areas of improvement, goal setting, identifying ideal new members for that specific chapter, and who will make the chapter stronger based on the data. For professionals, this means tailoring specific recommendations, creating individualized plans and presentations, and developing varied programming expectations and/or community-based initiatives.

Remember, it’s not a one-size fits all method.

The last step is to evaluate if the interventions work. This could be following up directly after an intervention or annually measuring outcomes. Then, adjust tactics based on new data. Look at what changed, what the feedback entails, and if goals were achieved. ZTA committed to creating a highly customized recruitment preparation curriculum that launched in fall 2019 and looks forward to reviewing not only the RFM data, but also overall membership data to see how chapters changed based on such interventions.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 26

Timeline

CONCLUSION If my younger self read this article, I would have thought this all sounds great but when can I accomplish this? With fraternities and sororities, it can feel like there are constant fires to put out. What I’ve learned over the years, however, is that you never get more time or less work. You learn to make time for the important things. In this case, you push for data to drive your and members’ work.

You also don’t do it alone. Enlist staff within the department or organization to share in championing this work. The greater the involvement and buy-in from others, the greater the opportunity to place data at the center of all programs and operations. For instance, it is incredibly rewarding when a volunteer rattles off a bite of data in a call. This also helps build community buy-in as students become familiar with a data-driven framework and take on a common language for operating. Over time, members know the focus group or survey they participated in is important because of the impact the data makes on their experience.

The idea of data-driven recruitment is not to dismiss values or RFM. Rather, it provides a more holistic picture of the chapter to drive continuous improvement. It shifts the focus from during and after recruitment to creating and conducting interventions before recruitment. Using this data creates a capacity to change chapters during this time, while also driving goal setting, programming, personal development and overall satisfaction with the experience. This is about providing members with what we promise and asking the tough questions to see if it works.

of National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) Sorority Recruitment Practices Late 19th Century:

1920s: Chapters relied on public transportation to meet potential new members as people didn’t have cars on campus. With the growth of Hollywood, skits and music became critical and entertaining the potential new members was key. The bigger the skit, the better.

1950s - 1970s: Prior to WWII, many chapters used live musicians. After that, record players were the norm until portable cassette and CD players arrived in the 1980s.

2003: Release Figures Methodology began with 10 pilot campuses and continues today.

Potential new members were often met at the train station as they arrived on campus and given bids before even setting foot on campus!

Chapters have sung since the birth of the sorority system— it was the one entertainment everyone could participate in and singing at functions was expected.

1940s: Chapter dress codes became the norm.

Recruitment was streamlined during WWII, but emerged as even more extravagant than before. Decorations, gifts, costumes, and entertainment became more elaborate and competition to have the best show was fierce.

1991: Gifts were standard until 1991 when they were disallowed by NPC agreements. The agreement prohibited attempts to “buy” potential members’ interest in a group.

2015: Becky Gleason

Becky is the senior director of education & programs at Zeta Tau Alpha. In her role, she serves as project manager and team leader to develop educational programs, events, and resources. Becky has worked at ZTA for seven years and has previous experience working at a campus-based level.

27 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

NPC outlined details of Values-Based Recruitment, focusing on recruitment conversations and movement away from frills.

B R YA N D O S O N O, P H . D. B E LO N G I N G O N L I N E As social media platforms allow for interactions to scale and reach larger audiences, people in search of community can find others who share similar identities and interests through digitally mediated exchanges.

Online platforms allow fraternity and sorority members the opportunity to engage in identity work — a process through which people manage and revise their identities.

Online fraternal communities can be open to the public to view (e.g., r/frat on Reddit) or private such that membership is vetted to those who share a common identity (e.g., “Subtle Asian Greeks” on Facebook). Even hyper-curated submission sites like WatchTheYard.com serve as a window to performativity of the Black Greek experience.

Today’s students navigate a number of life transitions simultaneously, such as joining a fraternity/sorority, onboarding to a new campus job, or learning how to file taxes for the first time. Through these liminal stages, students make sense of their individual selves and collective place within higher education institutions.

YouTube comments, relatable memetic tweets, and virtual learning environments open students to additional perspectives that shape their identity work. This process of discovery and expression is especially liberating for those of marginalized or historically underrepresented backgrounds, as online spaces democratize the way they share their experiences outwardly.

M OT I VAT I O N A N D M E T H O D Having grown up with and alongside the internet, I sought to understand the effects of digital transformation within online communities, deeply captivated by the social networks, governance, and infrastructure that underpin them. My doctoral dissertation uncovered the ways in which individuals that identify within APIDA (Asian Pacific Islander Desi American) communities negotiate collective action in the context of online identity work.

Through interviews with online community moderators, I wanted to understand how APIDA folks build resilience in revising their identities; how people build resilience in the technical systems they use so identity work can happen; and how people work to decolonize their identities, or in other words, build an identity that is their own.

My fieldwork encompassed a broad, multi-sited investigation of the use of technology within and among online communities engaging in identity work. I conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 moderators on Reddit who facilitate identity work discourse in APIDA spaces, distilled recommendations for improving moderation in online communities centered on identity work, and discussed implications of racial identity in the design of Reddit and similar platforms.

In examining how marginalized communities are studied, reflexively understanding one’s race and ethnicity may Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 28

bring certain affinities into perspective. I personally identify as Filipino American and engage in advocacy work for the APIDA community through my involvement with and role as Director of Membership for the National APIDA Panhellenic Association (NAPA). Through this involvement, I have the opportunity to highlight the work of constituent APIDA fraternities and sororities that collectively span 500+ local chapters at 150+ North American colleges and universities.

In my research, I found APIDA communities manifest belonging online through shared expressions of solidarity.

Beyond the scope of my thesis, I also observed how fraternity and sorority members use online spaces to deliberate and negotiate tensions of their identity work among their peers. Based on that, an opportunity exists to elevate the fraternal advising profession by conceptualizing online identity work as part and parcel of student learning.

W H Y I D E N T I T Y WO R K M AT T E R S Through my research it became clear identity work materializes in the way people talk among themselves, how they manage interactions within their groups, and the ways they align with the shared ideals of a movement. The relationship between offline and online fraternal spaces is linked in mutually informing ways that span personal, social, and collective contexts.

Identity work is a personal endeavor. People undergo identity work to understand their place in society and find meaning in the way they live their lives. Anonymous online platforms like Reddit afford individuals the ability to ask deeply personal questions or lurk for relevant answers without disclosing their own identities. One of the most common transitions young adults face is the shift from high school to college. In this transition, undergraduates experience emergent challenges that may disrupt their everyday routines and often turn to online spaces to attain the resources they need to return to a state of normalcy. For example, potential new members going through formal NPC sorority recruitment in 2019 may extensively search and scour relevant Instagram pages to learn more about the holistic bidding process. Thus, online spaces designed for identity awareness enable a wider understanding of new rules and norms when individuals embed new practices in their sense-making activities. By empowering individuals with agency and self-determination, online spaces serve an increasingly important role in constructing the ever-evolving personal identities of users.

Identity work is also a socializing process. Culturally-based fraternal organizations — particularly APIDA fraternities and sororities — have a particularly difficult time receiving adequate social support due to the contrasting traditional cultural beliefs of their parents and that of mainstream culture’s views of adequate social support.

For example, the model minority myth fails to recognize 1

the needs of APIDA students as it shrouds them in a veil of perceived excellence and accomplishment. Such societal expectations make APIDA students reluctant to seek assistance for dealing with issues critical to their overall health, well-being, and sense of self. Furthermore, the model minority myth reinforces a toxic mindset for APIDA students as it hinders the way they seek support for dealing with issues of mental health, sexual assault, and other taboos. As cultural barriers stigmatize APIDA students from openly receiving adequate resources and services offline, they seek social support in online communities to address the various issues they face on a daily basis. By allowing groups to form around social categories like race, gender, and special interests, online spaces facilitate the organization of social identities.

Finally, identity work is a community effort. Fraternities and sororities are deeply embedded in routines and logic more centered on the collective than the individual.

Identity work can be expressed through signals of solidarity, particularly in times of crisis or uncertainty.

After a fraternity house at a Georgia college burned down earlier this year, a viral GoFundMe campaign promptly raised more than $28,000 of its $30,000 goal in one day.

Online spaces, as illustrated, provide a means for groups to amplify their intentions and strengthen their networks during times of unrest. By lending visibility for social movements in emergence, online spaces enable collective identities to mobilize more quickly than ever before.

I N F O R M I N G PR A X I S Implications for chapter leadership: Effectively communicating in digital environments that facilitate identity work begins with prioritizing the safety and reputation of the spaces’ memberships. Scholarly critiques of Reddit as both a toxic corner of the internet and aggregator of crowd wisdom implore users to think critically about the content they consume. Thus, executive boards of collegiate chapters should be mindful of educating their peers on how they interact with public comments and the nearby surroundings in which they may be captured in an unflattering Snapchat story. Trace data are subject to screenshots and screen recordings.

Implications for alumni advisors: In a 2016 survey conducted by the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research (n=1392), 88 percent of NAPA-affiliated respondents reported receiving formal or informal advising from their chapter alumni and 98 percent cited their chapter upholds organizational values.1 The involvement of respected alumni in advising capacities signals favorable learning outcomes for cultural identity education of a chapter. To prevent a generational disconnect between younger members and older advisors, both parties should establish a regular communication check-in cadence in messaging channels such as Slack that integrate seamlessly with chapter documentation and pinned file repositories.

Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey. (2016). The National APIA Panhellenic Association. Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research.

29 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

Implications for campus-based professionals: Undergraduate students may not be aware of all the cultural, financial, and programming resources an institution offers to recognized student groups. Providing newly initiated fraternity and sorority members with a comprehensive network checklist — such as hyperlinks to join the appropriate university LinkedIn group, registering for OrgSync or an equivalent community management system, and following relevant department feeds — should be distributed at the beginning of each academic term.

Implications for fraternity and sorority headquarters professionals: Investing in online infrastructure that can scale with the size of the organization will pay dividends for increasing transparency of board-level decision-making. For example, facilitating a shared sense of belonging and purpose in virtual town halls is essential to build buy-in among chapters and clarify important questions asked via live stream. Additionally, providing collegians with regularly updated social media policies will help demarcate appropriate and inappropriate online behavior.

O N WA R D O N L I N E The future is intersectional. Fellow researchers may expand understanding of identity within fraternal communities by taking into account multifaceted social categories that intersect beyond gender and race. Within the fraternal community lies untold stories of military, ministry, and professional Greek-lettered memberships — a subset of students even opt to join multiple fraternal orders. Understanding complex intersections of identity work will allow us to more intentionally and inclusively design spaces of belonging for all types of members.

Yesterday’s Yik Yak is today’s TikTok. The platform de jour will continue to change as new trends in technology emerge.

However, the desire for satisfying human connection and intellectual curiosity will undoubtedly persist. Online spaces fulfill the liminal and sensemaking needs of students and are often an accessible means for professionals in advisory roles to get a collective pulse on the ever-shifting attitudes and perceptions of fraternity and sorority life.

REFERENCES Dosono, B. (2019). Identity work of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders on Reddit: Traversals of deliberation, moderation, and decolonization.

Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.

Dosono, B., Gee, B., Seoh, H. (2019). The National Asian Pacific Islander Desi American Panhellenic Association Resource Guide. Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors.

Dr. Bryan Dosono

Dr. Bryan Dosono serves as the director of membership for the National APIDA Panhellenic Association and external vice president of Lambda Phi Epsilon International Fraternity. His dissertation research uncovered ways in which Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders negotiate collective action in the context of their online identity work. He earned his Ph.D. in information science and technology at Syracuse University.

“Online spaces, as illustrated, provide a means for groups to amplify their intentions and strengthen their networks during times of unrest.

By lending visibility for social movements in emergence, online spaces enable collective identities to mobilize more quickly than ever before.”

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 30

C L A Y T O N

33 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

C O O P E R

As many chapter officers can tell you, brotherhood is difficult to quantify or even define. In a world increasingly focused on quantitative approaches to just about everything, these difficulties provide a challenge for fraternities that are often tasked with proving the fraternity experience is worth the time and financial commitment to numerous stakeholders. Even highfunctioning chapters able to express their value may struggle with demonstrating the effectiveness of their membership development programs.

When I was elected chapter president, I found myself among brothers unsure of the financial and developmental worth of my chapter’s membership experience. Around election season it became all too prevalent to see members questioning why they joined and if they even belonged in the chapter. I never thought I would be chapter president during my undergraduate membership in Delta Upsilon. However, as someone whose life has been exceedingly transformed by Delta Upsilon and my sense of belonging in it, seeing my brothers not having a similar experience was heartbreaking. I felt compelled to run for office.

To make members feel welcome and that their time and money were well spent, I knew my actions must have demonstrable impact on other members. Thus, the majority of my time as president has been spent developing a data-driven method to systematically evaluate, improve, and re-evaluate the member experience provided by my chapter to make members certain our chapter gives more than it takes. This databased approach had an unmistakable impact on my chapter, and I believe similar approaches would be worthwhile for most, if not all, fraternities and sororities.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the key principles of our data driven approach, implementation within my chapter, and the outcomes to this point. I believe the methods presented herein are applicable to all areas of chapter operations, though my testimonials come from the area of membership development.

Preliminary Data Gathering Gathering targeted feedback from every single member is critical to systemic improvement. In an organization reliant upon ever-changing membership for its existence, every single member is important as are the demands for their time by the organization. Neglecting even a single member can — and likely will — make them feel excluded and either begin or increase feelings of alienation. While mass-emailing a survey is a tempting and efficient means of chapter-wide data gathering, and while this methodology does have its place, it was not ideal for my desired outcomes. Such surveys are easy for members to ignore and they do not allow for real-time follow-up questions to help brothers develop thoughts or explore intriguing topics that may arise. Individual interviews using a common set of questions are preferable as they

alleviate the problems previously outlined while also potentially forging new relationships between brothers.

The interviewers should be chapter leaders — likely those on the executive board plus perhaps chapter chairmen — and the common interview questions should target only one or two areas the chapter leadership wants to improve during the semester.

“This data-based approach had an u n m i s t a k a b l e i m p a c t o n my c h a p t e r, a n d I b e l i eve s i m i l a r a p p r o a c h e s would be wor thwhile for most, if not a l l , f r a t e r n i t i e s a n d s o r o r i t i e s .”

As for my own experience, I developed a short survey focusing on brothers’ sense of belonging and chapter worth by asking a combination of open-ended (e.g.

“What can the chapter, its members, and/or the executive board do to make DU more worth your time, money, and effort?”) and quantitative (e.g. “On a scale from 1 to 10, how well do you feel you are able to express your feelings, ideas, and opinions around your brothers without feeling disrespected because of what you say?”) questions. I administered this to each executive board member so they would feel comfortable administering it to their assigned general members. This was done within the first two weeks of the spring semester, and we went over the feedback as a board soon thereafter. The feedback was incredibly insightful and wonderfully creative. Chapter members suggested novel and substantive ways to build brotherhood. In addition, they felt implementing these ideas would make their membership more worthwhile and make them feel like they truly belonged. At that point we knew we were onto something.

Implementation of Feedback Members must know what their time spent being interviewed is worth. As a chapter leader, what tangible deliverables are derived from the data? Maybe a new kind of brotherhood event? A chapter tradition?

A philanthropy idea? How do any of these things add value to the chapter and how will members know their feedback is driving the organization? This last question is crucial, as failing to robustly and clearly answer it makes members feel their time and feedback were meaningless and could undermine the data-driven approach and chapter’s confidence in the executive board. Distributed summaries of feedback and a list of actions derived from it are extremely helpful tools to avoid this pitfall, but it is important to be explicit. Say what was suggested and how that has been translated into an actionable item or how the feedback is being addressed. Do not dismiss critical feedback or twist feedback to suit predetermined objectives. Member feedback should be considered in addition to any officer visions and goals Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 34

already established. Mutual exclusivity between different perspectives must be carefully addressed.

My chapter’s spring semester programming calendar essentially wrote itself because of our beginning-ofsemester interviews. This allowed us to put our time and energy into planning the events suggested by members rather than having to invest time and energy into brainstorming new ideas. Since our planning process was more effective, we were able to hold more events, which was another member request.

Additionally, the interviews revealed issues regarding chapter culture that members wanted addressed, which led to meaningful dialogue in the chapter that resulted in non-disruptive and positive culture change. The pieces of feedback leading to these changes were made clear to the chapter by compiling and distributing a feedback summary report with action items early in the semester.

Brothers were able to watch these action items take shape and seemed happy they made meaningful contributions to the chapter. Meanwhile, officers were happy they could develop outcome-oriented goals informed by the membership.

Evaluation of Changes & Documentation A data-driven organization must provide those who give feedback with the opportunity to evaluate its implementation. This evaluation must be available for future leaders. Average leaders gather feedback and good leaders implement it. However, great leaders also gather feedback on the implementation. It is easy to stop after initial feedback implementation, but this does not necessarily help the organization in the long run.

Without follow up the chapter leadership does not know the sentiments of the general membership regarding the work they did, nor is there anything to be handed down to the next generation of leaders besides anecdotes and a fading footprint of their predecessors’ work. Similar to exit interviews in the professional world, follow-up interviews give members the opportunity to evaluate the chapter’s progress and voice opinions on how their feedback was meaningfully addressed. These interviews also bookend a phase of potentially substantial chapter change, allowing for meaningful documentation in the form of problemapproach-outcomes. This documentation is a crucial goal setting tool for incoming or aspiring chapter leaders, as are continued and improved iterations of the interviewimplement interview cycle.

My executive board conducted end-of-semester interviews in the spring to determine if members felt we made progress in the right areas. By the end of the semester, every single qualitative and quantitative metric included in the first interview had improved.

Members were incredibly supportive of the work the chapter officers had done, and were excited for our future.

However, they were also not afraid to voice their beliefs 35 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

regarding where we fell short and what needed to be addressed in the fall. After we completed this round of interviews, I compiled and distributed an end-of-semester feedback summary. I linked the feedback and action items from the beginning of the semester with their endof-semester counterparts for the sake of transparency, continuity, and desire to improve wherever possible.

We used this document to ensure areas for improvement were addressed in the fall. Using the wealth of data available at the end of the semester, I also compiled a semesterly report that will turn into our chapter’s annual report by the end of the year once we have the fall data.

Finally, the interview feedback and semesterly reports are already being used as a foundation for a three-year chapter plan. The data we gathered from the interviews and the resulting report provided us with tangible information to use regarding members’ visions for the chapter and areas of focus for the plan.

Conclusions A data-driven approach to systemic chapter improvement is well worth the time invested by our chapter. Such an approach has catapulted my chapter from a good chapter with a questionable value-added proposition to a high performing, award-winning chapter that provides members the means to satisfy their wants and needs. Through preliminary data gathering, feedback implementation, and follow-up evaluation, chapters can make strides in improving members’ experiences. In addition, such a system provides valuable opportunities to develop deeper relationships between interviewer and interviewee. Through this, brothers know their ideas, frustrations, and desires matter to chapter leadership.

The dynamic nature of questions and responses from semester to semester creates a sustainable cycle for chapter development, given there are strong leadership transitions and advisory support to sustain the system.

Fraternity and sorority members have no choice but to provide evidence to demonstrate how their efforts add value to chapter membership and how members receive a personalized experience. My approach has provided this in my chapter and I believe it can be transferred to others, as well.

Clayton Cooper

Clayton Cooper is an undergraduate student at Case Western Reserve University studying mechanical engineering. He has been a member of Delta Upsilon since 2015 and has served the fraternity at the local and national levels since his first semester as a member. He will pursue a PhD in mechanical engineering upon his graduation this December and aspires to one day be a professor at his alma mater and an alumni advisor to his chapter.

A N E W RIT E O F PAS SAG E:

FRATERNIT Y MEN AS SEXUAL VIOLENCE PREVENTION EDUCATORS

KEVIN CAREY Four years ago I sat in my office contemplating how fraternity and sorority life could internally and proactively address sexual violence. I shared my thoughts with a student intern, who immediately came up with an idea to create a peer-to-peer, train-the-trainer program called “Greek Peer Advocates.” While about 70 individuals signed up for the pilot, engagement in the training sessions slowly dwindled over time. The loss of engagement was from fraternity men. This experience was the first time I was prompted to think about how to invite and engage fraternity men to facilitate, lead, and champion sexual violence prevention on college campuses. Now, when I plan and facilitate sexual violence prevention education programs, I always note how many male identifying individuals attend and am hopeful they are engaged in learning and discussion. Following programs, I often reflect upon how I can encourage and invite more men to attend sessions focused on topics related to sexual violence.

The vast majority of higher education institutions fail to target and engage men meaningfully in proactive prevention efforts.1 All-male organizations (i.e. fraternities, athletic teams, living communities) may view sexually violent behavior as normal because male peers encourage

1

2

the same beliefs and actions.2 Fraternity men can be the champions, catalysts, and safe social norm creators of sexual violence prevention education on college campuses. With relevant and timely models for men’s engagement and sexual violence prevention frameworks, campus-based professionals and headquarters staff can provide comprehensive, holistic prevention education to the community and institution at-large by inviting and engaging men to lead.

While many campuses have sexual violence prevention educators — both students and staff — and centers or offices doing this work, fraternity and sorority offices and headquarters can serve the work of campus prevention, too. In this year’s third issue of Perspectives, I called attention to the belief fraternity and sorority advisors — and those who work in the industry at-large — are also prevention educators. We increasingly see communities create positions and hire individuals to specifically do health and safety programming for fraternity and sorority members and chapters. While this occurs, we must determine how to respond to fraternity members’ programmatic needs and what strategies we utilize to invite and inspire fraternity men to engage in sexual violence prevention initiatives.

Hong, L. (2010). Toward a transformed approach to prevention: Breaking the link between masculinity and violence. Journal of American College Health, 48(6), 269.

Seabrook, R. C., Ward, L. M., & Giaccardi, S. (2018). Why is fraternity membership associated with sexual assault? Exploring the roles of conformity to masculine norms, pressure to uphold masculinity, and objectification of women. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19 (1), 3-13.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 36

27 LIFE SKILLS 1.

Problem-Solving Skills

2.

Conflict Management Skills

3.

Decision-Making and Goal-Setting Skills

4.

Career Awareness and Planning

5.

Personal Health Care

6.

Stress Management

7.

Service Learning, Altruism, & Helping Others

8.

Positive and Healthy Masculinity

9.

Assertiveness Skills

10.

Self-Control and Centering

11.

Empathy Skills

12.

Listening Skills

13.

Competition

14.

Courage and Resilience

15.

Developing Integrity

16.

Sensitivity to Social Justice

17.

Emotional Awareness and Expression

18.

Power in Relationships

19.

Understanding Psychological Abuse

20.

Masculinity Ideology

21.

Patterns of Gender Role Conflict

22.

Relationships With Girls and Women

23.

Relationships With Boys and Men

24.

Puberty

25.

Sexuality

26.

Understanding Parents

27.

Dealing With Loss

Inviting Men Through Life Skills A critical first step in engaging fraternity men in sexual violence prevention work is to assess ways to invite and include men in programming and initiatives.

Jim O’Neil, leading researcher and developer of Men’s Gender Role Conflict theory, created a model for responding to men’s programmatic needs.3 This model incorporates psychoeducational approaches.

Psychoeducation infuses learning principles to promote emotional and intellectual development of students. Psychoeducational programming utilizes experiential learning, interactive learning, and opportunities for self-disclosure. O’Neil and Lujan developed Thematic Areas for Psychoeducational Programming focused on developing healthy masculinities within programs. Instead of labeling the programmatic areas as masculine ideology or gender role conflict issues, the researchers called them “life skills.”4 This research aimed to build a strategy centered on attracting men to life skills-based programs and positive aspects of being male. There are 27 life skills including problem solving, personal health care, decision making, self-control, centering, courage and resilience, competition, and empathy.

These life skills are opportunities to refocus and approach prevention education programs by beginning to engage fraternity men. Programs and trainings like “Bystander Intervention Training” may be immediately rejected by men, whereas “Making Courageous Decisions for Preventing Sexual Violence” might catch the curiosity of men. If your campus, community, or membership struggles to engage men in attending programs on health and safety, infusing the life skills into titles and program marketing can help attract men to these opportunities in a new way. These life skills also allow for more intentional building of learning outcomes and program assessment. For example, within a training on how to support a survivor/victim, men would experience and become educated on listening skills.

Listening skills is one of the 27 life skills connected to positive formation of masculinities. Therefore, students would develop listening skills through the use of interactive and discussion-based survivorcentric support strategies. While O’Neil and Lujan’s Thematic Areas for Psychoeducational Programming could be adopted for an enumeration of program and training opportunities to increase male attention, these life skills applied to sexual violence prevention programming can also create and norm positive masculinities for fraternity men.

3

Preventing Boys’ Problems in Schools Through Psychoeducational Programming: A Call to Action James M. O’Neil and Melissa L. Lujan University of Connecticut 37 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

4

O’Neil, J. M., & Lujan, M. L. (2009). Preventing boys’ problems in schools through psychoeducational programming: A call to action. Psychology in the Schools, 46(3), 257–266.

Ibid.

Prevention Education & Social Justice Organizing and engaging fraternity men to work alongside women and other genders to end violence can be seen as social justice ally building.

This social justice work allows men to begin and continue to see oppression individuals experience and actions that contribute to sexual violence. A strategy Linder discusses in engaging individuals in sexual violence awareness, prevention, and response is recognizing the historical perspectives of oppressed groups.5 Helping men recognize systems of oppression (racism, sexism, homophobia, genderism and transphobia, classism, and ableism) can be rooted in historical examples and connected to today’s understanding of sexual violence.

Casey and Smith produced a conceptual model of men’s pathways to anti-violence involvement.

Within this model, social justice consciousness and changing world views are critical tenants. With this, men began to make new meanings for their masculinities and gender identities while leading anti-violence efforts. These new meanings could be discussed through incorporating O’Neill and Lujan’s life skills. These new meanings allowed them to feel connected, join others, and view violence prevention as relevant.

Helping men recognize systems of oppression (racism, sexism, homophobia, genderism and transphobia, classism, and ableism) can be rooted in historical examples and connected to today’s understanding of sexual violence.

Linder also discusses exposing individuals to selfawareness.6 Allowing fraternity men to navigate their dominant identities in contrast to those with non-dominant identities allows them to view sexual violence with a different perspective. In connection to developing a power-conscious model for sexual violence prevention is men’s awareness of their internalized violence. Men’s socialization can contribute to an inability to recognize their power structures over others with minoritized identities.

Exposing men to programs where they explore selfawareness may help them come to the realization they have been socialized in a pro-violence culture.

For college administrators, addressing student

5

6 7 8

populations with risk factors for violence — namely within athletics and fraternities — requires direct confrontation of power. Campus-based professionals and headquarters staff are uniquely positioned to confront this power with fraternity men.

When building curriculum or selecting the best method by which fraternity men can engage with sexual violence prevention, it is imperative we find ways to introduce conversations and examples representative of oppressed groups. The continual use of heterosexual examples may lead men to believe sexual violence only occurs within these types of encounters, however, fraternity men can become more power-conscious if we discuss scenarios incorporating members of other communities.

Research in Action It is important for campus-based and headquarters professionals to recognize how these models can be integrated into prevention work already being done when creating new opportunities. There is urgency in sexual violence prevention work, as we know fraternities are identified as creators of risk factors and enhancing environments tolerant of sexual violence perpetration. To ensure life skills for positive masculinities development and social justice ally building are part of sexual violence prevention, here are several important questions to consider.

• • • • •

•

What is the purpose for fraternity men to attend this program and what should they learn?

How does the marketing and strategy to invite fraternity men to this program invoke curiosity?

What topics of this prevention education training/program/opportunity connect to men’s life skills and thematic areas?

What is the style of learning by which fraternity men can best be engaged?

How does the curriculum/discussion introduce concepts of oppression? Are examples/scenarios/research reflective of multiple identities and lived experiences?

What is the call to action at the end of the program/initiative/opportunity?

Linder, C. (2018). Sexual violence on campus: Power-conscious approaches to awareness, prevention, and response. United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Murnen, S., & Kohlman, M. (2007). Athletic participation, fraternity membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A Meta-analytic review. Sex Roles, 57(1–2), 145–157.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 38

These questions respond to characteristics of the shared research and models and serve as a guide when planning programs to increase fraternity men’s engagement. The 27 life skills and thematic areas are also a helpful way to challenge men to program for men’s development. Consider showing fraternity men the list and asking them to review the programs offered.

Then, have them take the list and consider programming and marketing with these life skills to drive engagement.

In Practice A theory-to-practice approach for the life skills can be adopted in a variety of ways with fraternity men. Utilization of life skills such as decision-making, courage, developing integrity, and helping others are beneficial in recruiting men to community leadership positions. When advising chapters, councils, and groups of men, these life skills are beneficial to bring up in conversations to challenge unhealthy behaviors and masculine ideologies not in line with organizational values, mission, and purpose.

When inviting men to engage in sexual violence prevention education, I find myself ensuring learning outcomes of programs and marketing materials promote vocabulary and action related to these life skills. A strategy and goal to remember when focused on prevention is reducing risk factors associated with the problem at-large. Navigating conversations with men about smaller dimensions of risk factors can impact the larger issue of sexual violence prevention on campus. For example, when training male-identifying council officers, discuss dimensions of healthy relationships with other councils, student organizations, and departments. Talking about healthy relationships through organizational collaboration can impact how a male builds healthy relationships with peers socially and romantically.

Fraternity Men’s Call to Action As a fraternity man, we have to show up, listen, participate, and become advocates for change around sexual violence on college campuses. Campus-based and headquarters professionals will continue their urgent priority to provide a healthy and safe membership experience through initiatives such as sexual violence prevention education. Incorporating social justice consciousness and men’s life skills to increase positive masculinities are ways fraternity men can be fully invited and engaged leaders of sexual violence prevention. We must stop asking why engaging fraternity men in sexual violence prevention is so difficult and begin asking what strategies exist for inviting and inspiring fraternity men to learn and lead sexual violence prevention and awareness.

Kevin Carey

Kevin Carey is the director of student involvement at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Illinois. Kevin is currently pursuing his EdD in educational policy, organization, and leadership with a concentration in diversity and equity in education at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He is a member of Sigma Pi Fraternity.

39 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

U S I N G

A

CHAPTER

HEALTH

INDEX T O

O U R

S U P P O R T

S T U D E N T S

M A R K S TA R R & A M I E J AC K S O N

In fall 2016, a chapter at Case Western Reserve University closed after 24 years despite significant effort to keep it open from the Greek Life Office, chapter’s alumni, and headquarters staff. As we reflected upon our inability to save the chapter, we realized the efforts to do so began too late. By the time our staff intervened — with the help of headquarters staff and volunteers — the chapter was already too far gone. This situation prompted us to think about the warning signs we missed and how we could create a system to identify the next chapter slowly heading toward closure so we could intervene before that chapter reached the point of no return. From the ashes of this closed group emerged the Chapter Health Index.

We realized if we can determine objective data points to serve as warning signs of a chapter in decline, we can engage students, volunteers, and staff when change is still possible. In creating the Chapter Health Index, we reflected upon components of a “healthy” chapter.

What does the chapter do or not do that contributes to its current status?

Ultimately, four categories emerged: Community Standards, Community Involvement, Recruitment/Retention, and Academics. Within each category we identified objective data points the Greek Life Office or university were already collecting.

Within the Community Standards category, data was utilized connected to individual member campus conduct history as well as chapter conduct history. We know this information is an important connection to the overall health of the chapter. For example, the chapter that closed had 96 unique responsible student conduct cases related to individual members the year before closure. In establishing this category, we not only took into account severity of the conduct cases but also allocated additional points if the chapter “failed to comply” with outcomes. We believe a chapter that fails to comply with outcomes is indicative of poor chapter management or attitude about the conduct process.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 40

Another element of Community Standards is a chapter’s walkthrough scores. The Office of Greek Life, Office of Housing, and Office of Facilities conducts monthly walkthroughs of university-owned houses (only four of the housed groups at CWRU have privately owned facilities).

Including the walkthrough score was important because it relates to the idea of “how you keep your house is how you keep your chapter.” Additional data points are included in the sidebar.

COMMUNITY STANDARDS

+ Pytte Cup – Community Standards Score + Pytte Cup – Chapter Development Score + Individual Judicial History + Chapter Judicial History + Failure to Comply + House Walkthrough Score + House Occupancy

ACADEMICS + GPA in Comparison to campus averages + Scholarship Score

the chapters’ Scholarship+ points. We choose to compare the chapter’s GPA to the all men’s and women’s average because all chapters exceed a 3.0 GPA. For example, the highest sorority GPA for last spring was almost a 3.7 with the next chapter only .1 below. With such an academically rigorous institution, we believe it is more relevant to compare the chapter against the all men’s and women’s GPA. This demonstrates whether or not a chapter is enhancing the academic experience of its members.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT/ENGAGEMENT

+ Alumni Involvement + Attendance at Educational Programs + Attendance at UIFI + Involvement in Community Leadership Positions + Greek Life Office Assessment of Chapter Health

GREEK LIFE OFFICE

+ Assessment of Chapter Health + Recruitment/Retention + Chapter Recruitment + New Member Retention + Member Retention

The Community Involvement category is primarily comprised of data points connected to an individual chapter’s community engagement. This can be evaluated through attendance at key leadership programs and leadership roles in fraternity and sorority community organizations. In our experience, greater chapter involvement in these programs and positions connects to a member’s increased desire to improve their organizations and community. We found when less successful chapters become more engaged within the community they quickly demonstrate positive growth and development. The other key data point in this category is alumni engagement. Despite this being a subjective data point, we believe the quality of alumni engagement is essential to the long-term success of an organization.

The Scholarship+ points are a program run by Gamma Sigma Alpha, the Greek Scholarship Honorary. It allows chapters to submit supporting documentation about how they facilitate a holistic academic experience focused on intellectual development, career development, and academic engagement on campus. Including the Scholarship+ in the model was important because it showed the academic culture a chapter works to facilitate.

The Recruitment and Retention category is comprised of data regarding recruitment results and member retention within the first year. Data limitations prevent the consideration of longer term retention analysis. For men’s recruitment, fraternities are evaluated based on the average number of members recruited per chapter for the year. For NPC sorority recruitment, sororities are evaluated based on spring semester quota. The retention data is scored based on members being retained for at least one year past when they join. We believe these two data points are vital to the long-term health of the organization.

Throughout the process of creating the Chapter Health Index we looked back at the chapter we closed in 2016 as a test group. Would the data we chose have alerted us the chapter was in trouble? That helped us focus on the important data and how it should be weighted.

The Academic category is comprised of the chapter’s GPA related to the all men’s and women’s average and 41 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

Once solidified, the categories were weighted based on what most contributed to a healthy chapter. Therefore, the categories were weighted out of a 100 point scale as follows: Community Standards at 43 percent, Community Involvement at 28 percent, Recruitment/Retention at 21 percent, and Academics at 9 percent.

After compiling data for the academic year we give it to every chapter. This provides each chapter a chance to see where they stand against the rest of the community.

We also give chapters several years of longitudinal data so they can see any progress or regression that occurs.

Our focus, however, is on chapters at the lower end of the scale.

For chapters that receive lower scores, we spend more time digging into the data and talking about how they might have reached this point. The chapter leadership is often surprised by their results in the Index. The point of the Chapter Health Index is to start working on changes before the chapter enters a steep decline phase. Using the data as an impetus for dialogue can make a big impact and fosters a sense of urgency for chapter leadership. This usually leads chapter leaders to take action to improve the chapter.

We also created a formal intervention for chapters with lower scores. We recruited a group of eight alumni and trained them to be consultants. The training was based on Intentional Change Theory1 and Appreciative Inquiry.2 This approach is meaningful because it is strengths-based, not deficit-focused.

Two groups each semester are identified and assigned two consultants. The consultants interview chapter members and alumni. Then, the consultants produce a report on the current state of the chapter along with a list of priorities to address. This process gives the chapter a clear list of areas to work on with the benefit of not being told what to do by the Greek Life Office or “nationals.”

They receive feedback from an unbiased external source with no agenda other than trying to help them improve.

We discovered chapters are excited about this process.

Additionally, it places the Greek Life Office in a supportive — rather than authoritative — position. The chapter is empowered to make informed decisions about its future with staff support assisting in the process. We find it is much easier to facilitate change when the chapter understands a need for change and is the one leading the change with the support from others.

The Chapter Health Index is only one way the Case Western Reserve University Greek Life Office assesses the fraternity and sorority experience. Our vision as an office is to “reclaim the original definition of social fraternity.”

This means we want to help students, volunteers, faculty, and staff understand and develop an experience intended to help members grow personally and professionally so they can have a positive impact on society. We work to achieve this through creating a culture of care. We believe to reclaim fraternity we need to work on building the necessary skills in members so they are able to make healthy choices for themselves, their chapters, and communities more confidently. To do this, we also work with Scott Hedyt, Educational Consultant with Refined Character, to create a framework based on Social Emotional Learning and the development of specific assets — or skills — based on the work of the Search Institute for K-12.

For the past three years, we have distributed our annual

5 5

Greek Life survey based on these assets to better understand how a chapter is exhibiting these skills and helping its members develop these skills. Along with the Chapter Health Index, we provide this comparative information with concrete ideas to address chapters’ gaps in asset development by leveraging chapter strengths.

This information is given to chapter presidents, advisors, and council officers at our annual Lyceum (chapter president and council retreat). During the retreat, we utilize the Intentional Change Theory and Coaching for Compassion techniques to build a sense of community by envisioning members’ ideal organizations. Here, we utilize the data to better understand the organization’s current reality regarding strengths and gaps as they relate to their ideal vision. We also identify a concrete method for creating a learning agenda to address these gaps and emphasize developing key relationships to support the intentional change.

Our goal is to provide leaders and advisors tools to facilitate the necessary changes to achieve the ideal vision of their organizations. We believe this approach to support chapters fundamentally changes the relationship between our office, the chapter, and the advisors. It helps foster a shared vision based on key data points we all agree upon and allows our office and the alumni to truly support the chapters in taking ownership of their own health. The Chapter Health Index and Culture of Care data allows our organizations to proactively consider what a healthy organization looks like and make timely decisions and necessary adjustments to ensure the longevity of their chapters.

Mark Starr

Mark Starr is the director of Greek Life at Case Western Reserve University and is a longtime volunteer for Delta Tau Delta.

Mark is a two-time graduate of Case Western Reserve University, B.S. in chemical engineering and JD, where he joined Delta Tau Delta.

Amie Jackson

Amie Jackson is the associate director of Greek Life at Case Western University and has volunteered with Kappa Kappa Gamma on several chapter advisory boards. Amie received her B.S. in marketing from Butler University, where she joined Kappa Kappa Gamma, and has a master’s degree from Kent State University in higher education administration and student personnel and from Case Western Reserve University in positive organizational development.

Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective. Journal of Management Development, 25(7), 607-623.

Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D. (2005). A Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative Inquiry. The change handbook: The definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems. 87.

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 42

PERSPECTIVES PRACTICE

On average, American adults process 34 gigabytes (more than 100,000 words) of information daily. Our lives are flooded with Google searches, YouTube videos, Facebook and Twitter posts, and a never-ending feed of suggested reading, watching and listening.

Media consumption is a constant task — conscious and subconscious — to separate the trivial from the significant, process new information, and discern meaning.

Perspectives provides a forum for ideas, opinions and experiences that is thoughtprovoking and innovative; shares new information; highlights best practices; and challenges thought. As a quarterly publication, we recognize Perspectives is a microscopic part of your general — and professional — information consumption reality. We want to ensure the content published in Perspectives is communicated, positioned and promoted in a way to maximize impact by encouraging continued discussion and informing practical application.

“From Perspectives to Practice” aims to provide a guide for learning through a focus on continued discussion, engagement and action. You’ll find this section at the end of each issue. We hope it helps you critically examine the viewpoints offered, make meaning of the content, and identify ways for further engagement through applying the ideas in these pages to your everyday practice.

T O

MAKING THE MOST OF THIS PUBLICATION 1. Engage with the content : Read the article more than once, and as you are reading, do the following: Identify one important concept, research finding, theory, or idea you learned.

Determine why you identified that piece of information as important.

Apply what you learned from the article to some aspect of your work.

Take it a step further: What question(s) does the article raise for you? What are you still wondering about? What do you agree or disagree with?

2. Reflect : What stood out to you in each article? What new information was presented? Did you experience any “aha” moments?

3. Share & Discuss : Take those highlights and insights and discuss them with friends. Share them with stakeholders.

Create an idea pipeline and see how the concept(s) evolve.

4. Write About It : Did something resonate with you?

Frustrate you? Did reflection lead to brilliance? Put those thoughts into words and add your own viewpoints to the discussion.

5. Put it into practice : What is a key takeaway that can inform your work? How can you take that information and apply it? What is realistic? What is a longer term goal? *Adapted from the 2017 Unmistakable Creative post, “A Quick and Effective Guide to Remember and Apply What You Read.”

31 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

CONTINUED DISCUSSION Using Data to Make Better Arguments

Discussion Question: Reflect upon a time you presented a proposal for a new program, increased resources, or method for accomplishing work in your area. What data did you utilize to inform that proposal? Was it well-received? If not, what information from the article can help improve the proposal process?

Discussion Question: The author notes it is important to focus on collecting data that leads to achieving mission priorities. Think about your current priorities. What data do you need to achieve those priorities? What avenues exist for collecting that data?

Determining Priorities in Fraternity/Sorority Life Assessment

Discussion Question: It can be difficult to prioritize assessment among the many other tasks associated with working in fraternity and sorority life. Think about your role, office, department, division, etc. Is assessment prioritized? If not, how can you begin to place increased emphasis on assessment?

Discussion Question: What assessment priorities exist for the fraternity and sorority community you support? What assessment must occur to inform and achieve those priorities?

The Data at Your Fingertips

Discussion Question: What data would be helpful to advance the mission and vision of your area or organization? What individuals or organizations may already have those data available to share?

Discussion Question: What barriers exist in your use of data?

What is one thing that would make managing the data collection or management process easier?

Maximizing the Effectiveness of Your External Review

Discussion Question: The author emphasizes the importance of a self-study prior to an external review and suggests it is likely the most neglected component of reviews. If you were preparing for an external review, what steps would be necessary to conduct a self-study to clarify framework and set reviewers up for success?

Discussion Question: The author warns stakeholders about avoiding placing expectations for a final report on the review team prior to the process. Consider your own workplace or community.

What potential expectations could arise prior to an external review that you must be aware of to avoid influencing the review process?

Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform

Discussion Question: The Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform builds upon the notion that increased and improved research is needed to create sustainable change within the fraternity and sorority experience. How can your workplace, organization, or company utilize resources provided by the Piazza Center now and in the future?

Discussion Question: One early product of the Piazza Center is a National Fraternity and Sorority Scorecard (NFSS) to create common reporting practices in fraternity and sorority advising.

What benefits does a common reporting practice provide?

What challenges exist? What avenues exist for addressing those challenges?

30 Years of UIFI

Discussion Question: This article showcases how data informs programmatic evolution and improvement over time. Think about a hallmark program your office or organization hosts.

How is data gathered and utilized to continually improve the program?

Discussion Question: The article notes data shows the greatest impacts from UIFI on students are the ritual-based conversations and accountability discussions. Is this surprising? How can that insight be utilized in educational program creation on campus or within organizations?

Writing and Retreating: Our Perspective on the AFA Oracle Writers Retreat 2019

Discussion Question: This article showcases how disconnecting from the day-to-day can spark creativity, big picture thinking, and problem solving. How can you find time to separate yourself from the day-to-day to focus on generating new ideas and methods?

Discussion Question: This article demonstrates the art of storytelling in describing an experience and conveying a message. How can you utilize storytelling to communicate experiences — personally and professionally — to increase the impact of a message?

Hi Values-Based Recruitment, Meet Research-Based Recruitment

Discussion Question: Establishing deep connection takes time. In recognizing the NPC formal recruitment process is not structured to allow for the time needed to do this, how can data be used - at the organizational and campus levels - to better prepare chapters to identify shared priorities and engage in meaningful discussions?

Discussion Question: The author suggests several means for measuring what chapters need such as a formalized assessment process, observations of chapter operations, staff or volunteer reports, and/or focus groups. Depending on current assessment strategies, what methods for measuring chapter needs currently exist and how can you utilize that data to inform a more research-based approach to member recruitment and/or intake?

Identity Work in Online Fraternal Spaces

Discussion Question: The author notes “online platforms allow fraternity and sorority members the opportunity to engage in identity work - a process through which people manage and revise their identities.” Recognizing student identity work is occurring in both physical and virtual spaces, how can professionals adapt current practices to account for the evolving lived experiences of students beyond physical spaces?

Discussion Question: The author describes identity work as a “personal endeavor,” “socializing process,” and “community effort.” How does this multi-layered approach inform advising; especially of those with marginalized identities that increasingly turn to online spaces for social support?

Issue #4 PERSPECTIVES 44

Building Better Brotherhood: A Data-Based Approach to Membership Development

Discussion Question: This article showcases what is possible when professionals engage students in conversations about data-driven decisions and membership experiences. How can we work to ensure student leaders have avenues to participate in this work?

Discussion Question: What insights can be taken from this article to inform future conversations with student leaders on how to increase engagement, feedback, and ownership within the chapter experience?

A New Rite of Passage: Fraternity Men as Sexual Violence Prevention Educators

Discussion Question: Who primarily attends and/or leads sexual violence prevention education programs offered within your communities? What message does program marketing communicate? Reflect upon programs offered and audiences involved, and identify three areas for improvement based on this article.

Discussion Question: The author references 27 “life skills” that can be utilized to invite male-identifying individuals into conversations about sexual violence prevention. How can these thematic areas be infused into current programs to increase engagement for men and/or male-identifying students?

Using a Chapter Health Index to Support Our Students Discussion Question: The Chapter Health Index is based on four categories that contribute to a “healthy” chapter at CWRU: Community Standards, Community Involvement, Recruitment/Retention, and Academics. In thinking about the community you work with, what categories would you use or create to define and assess chapter health?

Discussion Question: This article focuses on new professionals’ perceptions. As you welcome new professionals into your office, department, organization, and/or company, what questions can you ask to ensure a productive working environment for entry-level staff?

CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT Read the following Essentials and Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors articles that relate to the topics discussed in this issue: April 2019 Essentials: “Trends in the Fraternity/Sorority Experience Survey as Generation Z Joins” by Cindy Cogswell, PhD., Dawn Maynen & Deborah Lee May 2016 Essentials: “Using the CAS Standards in the Fraternity/Sorority Advising Program Planning Processes” by Dan Bureau Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, Volume 13, Issue 2, Fall 2019: “Increasing Survey Data Quality Using Screening Validity Questions” Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, Volume 11, Issue 1, Spring 2016: “The Effects of Sorority Recruitment on Psychological Wellbeing & Social Support”

45 PERSPECTIVES Issue #4

Check out the following books, articles, podcasts, or videos/shows that can enhance discussion of topics in this issue: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) Self-Assessment Guides “The Decision Book: 50 Models for Strategic Thinking” by Mikael Krogerus and Roman Tschäppeler “Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong About the World - and Why Things Are Better Than You Think” by Hans Rosling and Anna Rosling Rönnlund, et al.

“Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense: Profiting From Evidence-Based Management” by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton Podcast: “Keys to Data-Informed Decision Making: Data Readiness, Data Governance and Data Ethics,” Campus Intelligence, Data in Higher Education Series, Episode 10

Ongoing personal and professional development opportunities tied to this issue theme: Complete your annual “AFA Core Competencies Self Assessment” that was emailed to association members in September. If you’re a new professional or new to the association, this is a great way to identify competency levels to center professional development plans on. If this isn’t your first time taking the assessment, reflect upon your previous results, celebrate areas of growth, and identify continued opportunities for increasing competence.

Join or check out resources provided by the Association for the Assessment of Learning in Higher Education (AALHE), that aims to develop and support a community of educators and inform assessment practices in higher education to foster and improve student learning and institutional quality.

CONTINUED ACTION 1. Read and/or consider contributing to upcoming editions of Essentials and Oracle.

2. Select an article to discuss at an upcoming staff or division meeting, council meeting, with students, etc. — use it as a discussion topic to kick off the meeting and then share the conversation’s outcome with the hashtag #AFAPerspectives.

3. Review the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Core Competencies and identify ways the content relates or doesn’t relate — how can you use the information gained to continue to build your professional competence?

4. Circulate an article that resonates with stakeholders based on your campus, organization, vendor, or company’s circumstances.

5. Look outside of the industry — what concepts relate, challenge, or inform our thinking and practice? Who else can we learn from?

6. Reflect and write for a future issue: Perspectives is getting a refresh in 2020! Keep an eye out for information about exciting changes coming to the publication next year and email borton@deltau.org or brookegoodman01@gmail.com with questions, article ideas, and submissions.

7. Stay curious: Ask questions, challenge ideas, and see how this content can spark ongoing thought and practice.

Keep your eyes on the mailbox AFA Perspec tives is get ting a refresh

A F A 1 9 7 6 . O R G

W E D N E S D AY, D E C E M B E R 4 - S AT U R D AY, D E C E M B E R 7 , 2 0 1 9