The newsletter of the Ontario association of college and university housing officers April 2020
Presidents Message
Board Recruitment
Research in the Field
Board of Directors PRESIDENT
Valerie Bruce Ryerson University vbruce@ryerson.ca
PRESIDENT ELECT / FINANCE DIRECTOR
Diane Rawlings University of Windsor rawlin1@uwindsor.ca
PAST PRESIDENT
Ian Crookshank Humber College Ian.Crookshank@humber.ca
CONFRENCE DIRECTOR
Lauren Gouchie University of Ottawa lgouchie@uottawa.ca
CORPORATE PARTNER RELATIONS DIRECTOR
Shaun McCracken Trent University shaunmccracken@trentu.ca
ADVANCED MEMBER AT LARGE
Steph Cullen University of Waterloo slcullen@uwaterloo.ca
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR
MEMBER AT LARGE
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
MEMBER AT LARGE
MEMBERSHIP ENGAGEMENT DIRECTOR
ASSOCIATION MANAGER
Daniel Brisebois University of Guelph dbrisebo@uoguelph.ca
Stewart Grunwell University of Guelph sgrunwel@uoguelph.ca
Kamadchi Karunanandan University of Waterloo Kamadchi.karunanandan@ uwaterloo.ca
Derek Worden Western University dworden@housing.uwo.ca
Stacey Phelps University of Waterloo sphelps@uwaterloo.ca
Carol Ford OACUHO info@oacuho.com
Presidents Message On
Connecting During COVID-19
Hello OACUHO members, I know the last few weeks have been difficult and have meant long days and nights for many folks across our membership. We have decided to shift our theme for this issue of The Pulse to focus on our connections across OACUHO to remind folks about the support they can find through this network and ways to maintain self care in a time of uncertain circumstances. At a time where the news cycle can seem endless and the ways at the office in person or virtually feel long, I’ve certainly taken comfort in the connections across this membership and willingness to share the institution's plans, experiences, communication templates and more. OACUHO is a place for student housing professionals to share their expertise, ideas and suggestions on working through a problem, and in a time of need such as this, it is so important that we continue to share where we can and support each other while ultimately supporting the students on our campuses. OACUHO recently sent an update to the membership about our cancellation of all upcoming professional development opportunities including the New Professional Training Institution (NPTI) and the Spring Conference. We know this will come as a disappointment but know this is the best decision for our membership and host institutions at this time. Please take care of yourself throughout this period, I am wishing safety and health for all of you, your families and loved ones. Best, Valerie
EDI Project Coordinator Update I wish to acknowledge all of the members involved in the work that went into publishing the Ethnic Diversity in OACUHO Final Report (June, 2018)1, which is the formative work that made recommendations for this project role and other actions to further diversity and inclusion in our field. I wish to acknowledge the labour that went into that project, from those who coordinated the work and committees, to the BIPOC staff that contributed their time and their stories. I wish to position myself and my approach to this work. This comes from the cultural practice of my ancestors and it is meant to identify my relationships. I position myself as an Indigenous woman with mixed ancestry from the Six Nations of the Grand River. My father is descendent from the Lenape and Kanien'keha:ka of the Haudenosaunee, born and raised on reserve. My mother is descendent from Scottish settlers and grew up in what is known as Waterloo, part of Treaty 3 and Haldimand Treaty territory. I currently reside in Tkaronto in Treaty 13 territory. I want to acknowledge my particular intersection as a mixed Indigenous woman who is white-presenting, which means that most people who look at me make assumptions about my identity. I do not identify as racialized, but I do identify as Indigenous and I hold a responsibility to that identity and to my community. I have had the privilege and opportunity to engage with my Indigenous culture, which informs much of my worldview and values. I have had the opportunity to work in higher education for the past seven years, with much of that work being in the Residence Life functional area. My academic work in cultural anthropology has largely focused on identity politics, race, and Indigeneity. I have attempted to bridge the two by furthering Indigenous education at the association level, particularly with the collaboration and empowerment of my colleague and friend, Seán Kinsella (nêhi(th/y)aw/otipemisiwak/Nakawé/Irish) , with whom I have done this work1. My approach is best summarized by what Kirkness and Barnhardt called the “four R’s: respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility.”1 I strongly believe in the impact of community relationships and reciprocal engagement. This is what I hope to carry forward through this work with the Board as we implement the recommendations laid out by the Ethnic Diversity report. The purpose of this article is to provide some information and updates regarding the status of the project and forthcoming initiatives, but I would also like to take this as an opportunity to encourage members to engage with this work. I met with the OACUHO Board of Directors in February to present a critical path to action the recommendations outlined by the Ethnic Diversity report. Based on the recommendations, there is immediate action that can be taken to embed diversity and inclusion work into existing functions of the Board, such as the professional development and mentorship portfolios, as well as opportunities to develop new initiatives to acknowledge and further this work. In consultation with the Board, I have identified the following key project areas: 1 The full report and executive summary can be accessed on the resource portal of the OACUHO website. 1
See Sloat & Kinsella (2018) https://issuu.com/oacuhopulse/docs/the_pulse_-_reflections__3_/10 Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First Nations and Higher Education: The Four R's—Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1–15. 1
Support & Consultation • Building connections with institutions and members to identify needs and concerns related to actioning recommendations. Resource Development • Identifying key resource areas for recruitment, hiring, support, and retention of BIPOC staff in housing and residence life. • Create self-assessment tools to identify key growth areas and resources to support institutions. Education & Professional Development • Identifying and providing opportunities to increase learning in social justice, diversity, and inclusion. • Creating professional development resources for independent further learning and engagement. BIPOC Staff Inclusion & Community Building • Creating affinity groups that provide opportunities for BIPOC staff to connect with one another and build community. • Offering opportunities for BIPOC mentorship through the existing mentorship programs. Membership Engagement • Provide opportunities for membership of the association to engage with the project in a meaningful way. This work will require engagement and collaboration. Its success will be determined by how fully we allow ourselves to connect with it and understand that it is not about us as individuals, but as a collective community. Our identities and roles at our institutions mean that we will inherently enter into and engage with this work differently. I would like to challenge those in senior leadership positions to engage with this work in a way that demonstrates its importance and potential impact. I would like to encourage BIPOC members of the association to connect with me and continue to share their insights, experiences, and hopes for this project. The world is currently in a state of flux. There is no better time for us to connect with one another and build this conversation. I would gladly welcome further conversation regarding these initiatives and projects. If there is interest, I think we have an opportunity to host a virtual meet up to discuss the work and discuss some project ideas. I would like to encourage members of the association to connect with me via LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/savannah-sloat/) and email (savannah.sloat@utoronto.ca). I want to acknowledge the OACUHO Board of Directors for providing me with the opportunity to take on this role. It truly demonstrates their commitment to furthering inclusion in the association and our institutions, and I feel hopeful about the impact of this work.
Savannah Sloat Assistant to the Dean, Residence Life University of Toronto
My First Role in Housing! The OACUHO Membership Engagement Committee presents My First Role in Housing! The goal is for individuals in our association to share a photo from their first paraprofessional/professional role in Housing. In addition to the photo we would love members to share the description of the photo, their overall experience and what did they enjoy most about their role. Our third entry, Paige Julian shared her first role as a Community Co-ordinator at the University of Waterloo. Here is what Paige shared:
At this point I have re-written this several times to try and summarize my experiences as a Community Coordinator in my first non-student housing role. After much thought I have decided my experiences can be summed up most concisely by three different types of experiences: day-to-day, reactionary, and professional development. The day-to-day are all the interactions with people in the halls and at the desk. The fun comments on a good ping pong shot as you head past the rec area. The everyday is where I started to feel like I was a part of something bigger. Beyond just my team of student staff and my direct supervisors, I got to intermingle with students and see how the web of connections across the university expanded beyond the walls of my building. If day-to-day is a train track then reactionary learning is the loop-de-loops where I get to experience the chaos of students stacking furniture, roommate conflicts not to mention the extreme on the job learning that is Fall/Winter staff training. More currently Covid-19 has also challenged me and my team to explore alternative methods of communication and student support. These unexpected events have taught me to embrace that I will not always have the answers but that with my team we can either rally our resources or create a new action plan to keep the train on track. The last thing that I have learned in this role is that learning, while supported by supervisors and peers, is primarily a self-propelled system. It is possible to move through a role without gaining anything but if you open yourself up to the possibility of every interaction being a learning opportunity you can leave with new wisdom. Actively seeking out opportunities also helps. This year I tried to sign up for as much PD as I possibly could, taking courses on mental health, inclusivity, environmentalism and sustainability, classes on design, life drawing, and project management. Moving forward from this role I hope to continue making each interaction an intentional learning moment, and to seek out new and exciting frontiers; to boldly go where no “me� has gone before. If you would like to be featured in a future edition of the Pulse with a picture of your first role in Housing, please contact our Membership Engagement Director Kamadchi Karunanandan at: k4karuna@uwaterloo.ca. We are continuing the first year in residence program, so feel free to contact Kamadchi about this opportunity as well!
Paige Julian Community Co-ordinator University of Waterloo
Interested in Joining the OACUHO Board of Directors? With nominations opening shortly to join the Board of Directors, we asked some of the members of our current board about their experience so far. If you’ve been thinking about joining the board please feel free to reach out to anyone on the board to talk more about why joining the Board of Directors could be the next great experience in your career. More information about the nomination and election process will become available soon. Continue to look for updates on the process through the OACUHO website, listserv and our social media channels. 1. What made you interested in becoming a member of the Board of Directors and what eventually encouraged you to apply? Derek Worden Member at Large My interest in the Board of Directors started when I joined the Membership Engagement committee. My colleague Lauren Silvestro-Arbuthnot was serving as the Membership Engagement Director and I volunteered to coordinate the Professional Mentorship Program with Andrew Quenneville. In doing this I was able to learn more about the relationships that develop across our association and how the Board of Directors works to facilitate those connections. I found that I had gained a lot from OACUHO and I eventually applied because I wanted to contribute back to our association. I had made connections through NPTI, Spring Conference, and FBMs for a few years, and felt that I could help others make similar connections. It was this desire that led to considering how functional areas connect and to launch the pilot of the Communities of Practice. Ian Crookshank Past President I got my start in Student Affairs in Housing and even though I have drifted in and out of Housing as my primary function, I have always appreciated the connection and value OACHUO has brought to our profession. I became interested in becoming a member of the board because I felt that it was the perfect opportunity to engage with colleagues, give back to the profession, provide leadership, and to continue to develop as a professional. I was also told that there would be pizza...I’m still waiting for that… Diane Rawlings President-Elect/Financial Director I served on the board as a member at large and really enjoyed the connections I made across Ontario. It was a great way to add to my professional network and create new friendships in housing. It can be one of the best PD experiences of your career, working with a hugely supportive group. I’ve been thinking about putting my name forward and then I got a nudge from Val Bruce and made the decision it was time to take a leap into this new adventure.
Kamadchi Karunanandan Membership Engagement Director My manager at the time encouraged me to apply and suggested that the Membership Engagement Director role would be a good fit based on my current skill set and experience. I never saw myself being on the Board of Directors but with the support of my manager and colleagues I submitted my application. As someone who has been at the University of Waterloo for her whole professional career, I saw that applying would give me an opportunity to connect with other likeminded individuals from different institutions. I love meeting new people and I am grateful my manager opened up my eyes to this new opportunity. Shaun McCracken Corporate Partners Director I had always been interested in serving on a Board of Directors to which I could offer a valued contribution. I believe that my work experience gained would be insightful to the OACUHO Board and allow me to also learn and grow in my role and understanding of our industry. I felt that joining the Board of Directors would grow many of my work relationships within OACUHO and the broader housing sector. I wanted to be part of a team that would help grow the OACUHO footprint. I felt that there were opportunities to expand our association as well as increase our engagement with areas such as facilities staff, admin, finance and marketing. At the time I felt I was fairly young in my career but that made me want to get involved more. I ended up having a conversation with many great mentors who encouraged me to run. I have been happy with that decision every day and every chance I have had to connect with my fellow board members and other members of OACUHO! Stephanie Cullen Advanced Member at Large It was the encouragement by past and current board members that sparked my interest to explore the option of running for the Board of Directors. While support from others was an initial driver, the decision to put my name forward was a result of my increased confidence that I was at a point in my career/current role where I felt like I could manage the demands of both my work at UW and on the Board. 2. What has been something that you have appreciated about your time serving on the board? Derek Worden Member at Large I’ve most appreciated the mentorship that you receive from your fellow board members. I think about the variety of institutions, roles and years of experience seen on the board, and it’s really a unique opportunity to connect with leaders across the association. That has held true during this global pandemic, where you suddenly have a natural group to consult with and consider how you may be able to share knowledge and learning across institutions. Ian Crookshank Past President I have truly enjoyed getting to know all of the other folks serving on the board and how the connection I have with colleagues around the province has deepened. I will carry with me the many conversations that we have had about the future of our profession and the importance of inclusion within our association.
Diane Rawlings President-Elect/Financial Director I really appreciate the level to which everyone works together to move the association/housing forward. Members support each other’s portfolios and problem solve together as one board and not individual institutions. Let’s not forget that we have a good time together. Kamadchi Karunanandan Membership Engagement Director I have appreciated the amount of support I have received from my colleagues on the board and the multiple checkpoints we have to ensure we are all on the same page and we understand each other’s goals. I have also enjoyed getting to know the different members on the board. The Board of Directors is a diverse group of Student Affairs professionals at different institutions at different levels. I have appreciated our Face to Face meetings where we get an opportunity to spend a day together working on our goals as a board. The board likes to have fun and out meetings have been very productive but also full of laughter! Shaun McCracken Corporate Partners Director Being involved at the Director level on the Board of OACUHO has created so many new personal and professional relationships that I count on, or will call multiple times to seek advice, ask questions or just check in to say hello! It has truly been a life and career changing opportunity. Stephanie Cullen Advanced Member at Large For me it’s really boiled down to the exposure to and working with members of the Board and connecting with other advanced-level members. I’ve spent the first 9 years of my career at UW, so this has been an amazing opportunity for me to expand my network and learn best practices from other institutions.
Navigating Conflict While Working From Home We are in unchartered territory, Housing Folks! Individuals who thought they would never work at home are now trying to figure out how to fit their profession into their living room. I never thought I’d be working off of my side-hustle MacBook. Not only this, I never thought I’d have my husband working next to me with less space than a cubicle. When working with anyone that closely (even your favourite person on earth), there is bound to be some conflict and misaligned expectations. And misaligned expectations are usually the core of conflict… so it is kind of just a cycle. How will you make this work? I chatted with some folks I know who do this on the regular, as well as leaned into my own conflict management expertise, to answer this question. If you are on Instagram, you are seeing public cries from folks around their roommate’s loud music, moldy coffee cups and less than ideal chewing habits. As a personal development coach, working spaces are not my domain, but helping a client solve a conflict and work towards living in harmony is.
#1: Start with ‘Ground Rules’ This is as ‘res-life’ as it gets but almost every conflict I have ever seen has started with misaligned expectations. You get to that moment where you are yelling at someone, seeing red and imagining packing your belongings, when you realize that you are not talking about the same thing at all. Starting your time together (or start now!), take a seat and ask some of these questions to ensure you are on the same page of what you need from one another: •
What do you need from a workspace?
•
What is important to you, in terms of all five of the senses? Hearing, Sight, Smell, Touch and Taste — the last one is more for the 2pm snacks.
•
What is the best way for me to tell you when something isn’t working for me?
We’ve seen the results at play, it works!
#2: Set up your space In your ground rules, space should be something that is considered by looking at your home fully and thinking about different ways you can utilize space based on your styles. For example, maybe you don’t work well with a TV in the background or you can work in bed. This likely won’t be the same for both of you, so be creative with your spaces and make the best of them! Discuss what this looks like for you both and what is needed from the day. Some examples of creative ways to use your space: • Turn your kitchen counter into a standing desk. Put your earphones in, find some counter space (preferably near the coffee machine) and use it as an opportunity for some passive activity.
Make your bed and sit on top of the covers to do some work that does not require a ton of concentration. Watching a webinar? Reading an article? Perfect opportunity! •
Got a non-video phone call? Sit on your porch or take a walk. Especially in these times, folks are understanding that sunshine is important. •
#3: Create some work/life boundaries We often hear and talk about work/life balance or integration, and how we can successfully ‘work to live’ not ‘live to work’. This is not as simple when your home has become your workplace, and it is easy to slip into working all of the time or at the very least, talking about it all the time. Blogger Maria Oliver shares that it is crucial for you to set boundaries with your stay-at-home buddy around talking about work. As a frequent work from home worker, she encourages folks to schedule lunch with their work from home buddy to have a welcomed distraction. After work, it is important to say something like “we’re home from work now!” and encourage each other to set a ritual to signify the end of the workday. Some of these could be: •
Lighting your favourite candle at 5pm to represent chill time.
•
Scheduling a work-out for the end of the day to hold each other accountable to completing.
•
Watching your favourite show at 6pm and it is starting with or without you!
#4: Be flexible with your methods When working in the office, it seems easier to manage your time and be productive, but when working from home, there is a significant increase in distractions (mainly, your duvet).
It is important to recognize that your schedule will look different and your home life will bleed into your work life, especially if you have a family. James Prunean, a 9–5er who also engages in freelance work (and was my bomb wedding photographer!), reminds us to give ourselves grace as these come up and recognize employers are being more flexible. Being flexible also allows you to work with your work from home buddy to accommodate their schedules and give each other solo work time. If it works better for your family life and promotes balance for you, there are many options for you: •
Waking up before the world to get a start on your day — just make sure to communicate that with your colleagues that this is not an expectation of them.
•
Working with your employer to flex your hours or have some evening hours to free up some of your daytime.
#5: Attitude is everything Although these are horrible circumstances, many of us have the privilege of being home with our spouses, close friends or family members in this time to keep ourselves safe. Ashley Webber of Bonne Media reminds us, We’ve set up a little office area, we laugh together, have dance breaks between meetings, make lunch for one another and ultimately having the attitude that we GET TO work together in this season. The minute you have a “HAVE TO” obligatory mindset, that’s a recipe for negativity…Wake up with a forgiving spirit, that you’re already ready to forgive something that may bother or irritate you, and look for the moments to have a little laugh! What an opportunity we have here with our loved ones and to grow in our styles. Even for myself, this week at home with my husband has meant countless Uno games, episodes of That 70’s Show at lunch, after work walks and shared favourite songs. Choosing to focus on this can be tough when he is online gaming when I am trying to concentrate, but I am feeling blessed to be together in this space at this time. I hope you can cultivate the same. And if not, there is always this option:
Kristina Bartold-Sorgota East Area Coordinator University of Guelph
My First Year in Residence The OACUHO Membership Engagement Committee presents My First Year in Residence! Members will share a photo from their first year and a bit about their experience that helped shape their future and career in student housing. Our fourth entry, Heather Smith, is a Community Co-ordinator at the University of Waterloo. Here is what Heather shared:
I have been involved in residence life for almost a year professionally, and for several years in a student staff role. I do not feel that I would be where I am in my life today without my first year experience. I started my undergrad at McMaster University in Fall 2015. I was so excited to start my university experience, and to meet new friends! McMaster has several different types residences, and I was placed in a traditional double room in McKay Hall. My goal for Welcome Week was to participate in as many activities as I could, so I could connect with the other students. I met a solid group of friends, and we ended up going on adventures and forming solid connections that have lasted for years afterwards. Not only did I have a tight group of friends, my whole building was incredibly friendly, and always ready to hang out! When someone posted in the Facebook group that they were going to toss a frisbee around or play soccer, there were always at least 15 people that would end up joining in. The fact that we lived in a Health & Wellness living learning community likely had a lot to do with that, however it made for a very interactive and social community! My Community Advisors (CAs) played a big part in my experience, and they helped me in so many ways. All the CAs that were in my building had a close bond with each other, but also made us feel welcome and accepted. My CA facilitated so many opportunities for us to get to know each other. One of my fondest memories was when we did a gift exchange before the Winter break, and our entire community participated! Looking back on that now, as someone who knows how difficult that can be for a student staff, I am so happy that my CA was able to pull that off! My floor community ended up becoming good friends, and it made me feel a real sense of belonging. I genuinely love my institution, and the residence that I lived in; however I feel that the people I met along the way made my experience wonderful. That is one of the reasons I pursued residence life as a career, because it does not matter where you are or what institution you work for. What matters is the people you interact with, and the people that make an impact on you and your life. Your residence experience is what you make of it, and mine ended up changing my life forever. If you would like to be featured in a future edition of the Pulse with a picture or article of your first year in residence, please contact our Membership Engagement Director Kamadchi Karunanandan at: k4karuna@uwaterloo.ca.
Heather Smith Community Co-ordinator University of Waterloo
The History of Student Housing & Residence Life in Written by: Jen Coulter Director, Student Housing & Residence Life at Trent University
Student housing has a long history on college and university campuses (Thelin, 2004). In North America, since the colonial period, faculty and administrators have attempted to support students with living accommodations (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019; Thelin, 2004). In Canada, scholars (Lane Vetere, 2010; Schroeder & Mable, 1994) suggest that living accommodations, in some form, have long been a key component of the university experience. As society and universities have changed throughout the decades, the field of student affairs and the functional area of Student Housing and Residence Life (SHRL) have developed. Broadly speaking, this paper explores the history of SHRL in Canada. This paper first describes the guiding research question. Second, SHRL programs are defined in the present context. Finally, this paper explores the historical roots of SHRL programs and leaders, detailing the social and political factors that influenced higher education, student affairs, and the development of SHRL in Canada. Research Question The overall research question guiding this paper is: How has Canadian SHRL changed between 1920 to the present? In considering the evolution of SHRL, I will discuss how the social and political events and philosophical shifts in student affairs that have changed the functional area. By exploring these changes, a greater context will be established in which to discuss future implications for the profession. Student Housing and Residence Life In the most simplistic terms, SHRL programs provide living accommodations for students on college and university campuses (Horvath & Stack, 2013). However, situated within the context of an evolving higher education environment, and institutional missions to support student academic and personal success, SHRL programs are key contributors to institutional goals. The Council for Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) (2019) suggests that SHRL programs provide
living environments that promote learning and development with an emphasis on supporting the academic mission of the institution that they serve. There is abundant literature on the value of living in residence for students and the importance that the role of SHRL programs play on postsecondary campuses and student learning and development outcomes (Academica Group, 2017; Blimling, 2015; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994; Schroeder & Mable, 1994). CAS (2019) highlights that current SHRL programs have broad and deep responsibilities ranging from student support and crisis response initiatives to academically integrated learning communities and community development programming. Further, scholars (Dungy, 2003; Lane Vetere, 2010) suggest that SHRL programs have reporting units including, residence life, facilities operations, residence admissions, and information technology. Other components of SHRL can include food services, family housing and childcare, and graduate housing (Lane Vetere, 2010). The services and outcomes associated with these units are strategically linked to the institutional mission and are typically the responsibility of SHRL employees. Institutional Context Student affairs and SHRL operate within an institutional context and should be discussed as such. Organizationally, the SHRL functional area reports through student affairs on most university campuses (Hyatt, 2016; Seifert, Arnold, Burrow, & Brown, 2011). This reporting relationship can strategically connect SHRL departments with the academic mission of the institution and institutional goals on student success, engagement, and retention (Horvath & Stack, 2013; Hyatt, 2016; Lane Vetere, 2010; Seifert et al., 2011). Often a challenge for SHRL is the need for staffing levels that appropriately support students and university goals, balanced with the need to be selffunded (Horvath & Stack, 2013). As ancillary operations, SHRL receive funding directly from the fees of student residents versus institutional operating budgets (Blattner, Cawthon, & Baumann, 2013; Lane Vetere, 2010).
Typically, SHRL operations are also institutional sources of income supporting both the functional area and contributing to the university operating budgets through overhead fees or direct contributions (Hyatt, 2016). As a result of the institutional context, there is a complexity in the management of SHRL, connection to student affairs and skill level required for its leaders (e.g., SHOs benefit from skills in strategic planning and fiscal and occupancy management, beyond the typical student affairs background (Cawthon et al., 2012; Hyatt, 2016)). SHRL is a complex functional area that, like student affairs, has changed with regard to complexity over time to the present circumstance (Council for the Advancement of Standards, 2009; Lane Vetere, 2010). To provide context in which to understand the shift in SHRL to the present context, the next section describes the changing approaches to SHRL in Canada throughout recent history. Changing Approaches to Student Housing and Residence Life The earliest university in Canada is the Université Laval was established in 1663 (Harris, 1976). The early Canadian universities had strong religious affiliations and were modeled on European institutions (Harris, 1976; Perkin, 1991). Initially, education focused on religion and the professions, educating elite males, in environments where students, faculty, and tutors all lived and learned together (Blattner et al., 2013; Harris, 1976; Thelin, 2004). SHRL as a functional area was not yet established and faculty were responsible for student accommodations. (Clark, Moran, Skolnik, & Trick, 2009; Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006; Thelin, 2004). Overtime, SHRL would begin to be established as an important and complex functional area in the field of student affairs. Between 1920 and 2019, there have been substantial developments in higher education, and as a result, in student affairs and SHRL. These changes are directly influenced by the social and political context. This section of the paper examines the changing approaches to SHRL in 1920 through 1937, 1938 through 1960, 1961 through 1980, 1981 through 1999, and 2000 through the present. 1920 to 1937
Beginning in 1920, higher education in Canada saw a significant increase in enrolment (Harris, 1976). Increasing enrollment of women, part-time, commuting students, as well as increasing city populations changed the demographics of higher education (Geiger, 1999; Gordon, 1991; Ogren, 2003). Further, a shift in the type of curriculum offered, challenged faculty members to become specialized in order to offer technical and semiprofessional academic programs (Geiger, 1999). The increase in expectations of faculty members, along with the increasing number of students, required that non-faculty employees be hired in institutions to address student housing and other administrative issues (American Council on Education, 1937). The first deans of women and men were established and became responsible for student housing (Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010; Manning et al., 2006). The shift of responsibility for student housing from faculty toward a coordinated field of student affairs is a major milestone in the development of SHRL. The Student Personnel Point of View (SPPV) (1937) began a process of professionalizing the field of student affairs and determined a philosophy. Outlined in the SPPV (1937) is the philosophy that, educational institutions have a responsibility for the development of the ‘whole’ person. Further, outlined are the foundations for functional areas to support students (American Council on Education, 1937). SHRL is included in the original list of functional areas, however, during this period was typically led by a dean of men or women (Manning et al., 2006). SPPV (1937) recommends that institutions assist students throughout their “college residence to determine upon his courses of instruction in light of his past achievements, vocational and personal interests, and diagnostic findings” (p.42). While a focus on the ‘whole’ person was suggested, Thelin (2004) notes that student affairs administrators during the 1930s focused more so on student supervision and enforcement of regulations. During this period SHRL was comprised of an administrator specifically assigned to supervise and provide adequate housing, maintain student group morale, and manage student discipline (American Council on Education, 1937). DeNiro (2019) highlights that during this period there was an emphasis on planning residence facilities that aligned with the educational goals of the institution and that those responsible for dormitories were well trained academically (e.g., Academic Deans). The organization and function of the SHRL administrators would continue to change over the course of the next several eras.
1938 to 1960 The period of 1937 to 1960 begins a new era in higher education and SHRL. The Second World War (WWII) generated a high demand for scientific research and trained personnel and as a result a new appreciation for the importance of the university sector was born (Clark et al., 2009; Harris, 1976). During the war, enrolment remained steady with the exception of women who were attending in increasing numbers (Harris, 1976). The period that followed the war was one of the most expansive regarding student enrollment (Clark et al., 2009; Geiger, 1999). After WWII, the government issued the Veteran’s Rehabilitation Act of 1945, as a method of assisting veterans with university education, obtaining future employment, and grants and loans for businesses (Clark et al., 2009; Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010). Like the American GI Bill, the charter allowed military veterans to attend college at no personal financial cost, while receiving a stipend (Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010; Thelin, 2004). In addition to the act, the government in Ontario past new legislation to give charters to newly created universities (Clark et al., 2009). As a result of the legislation, enrollment increased dramatically causing in a need for institutions to develop new curricula, and structures to support students (Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010; Thelin, 2004). As part of the supportive structures for the greater number of students, SHRL became an important part of the institution and with the release of SPPV (1949), further developed as an area of student affairs. SPPV (1949) suggested that organized student affairs units had a responsibility to promote democracy, and in doing so must approach work with an educational philosophy. SHRL was a focus of SPPV (1949) in the development of a philosophy to approach SHRL that included integrating the importance of services and facilities with an educational philosophy that promoted positive group living. The focus on education and developmental objectives is a philosophical milestone for SHRL and one that continues to shape the functional area. By the mid-1950s, after a period of conservatism, the student population became increasingly liberal (Harris, 1976; Thelin, 2004). The continued influx of students and transition from predominantly unmarried 18-22-year-old male students to a more diverse student body including women and older veterans put a strain on campus infrastructure
in the classroom was spurred on by the significant number of students following the war and campuses began to consider permanent and temporary housing facilities and developed new policies on visitation, dining room dress, and hall activities as responses to the new population (Blattner et al., 2013; Nidiffer, 2002). Faced with projections of continuing growing enrolment, administrators began to plan for expansions in post-secondary education that would be realized in the 1960s (Clark et al., 2009). 1961 to 1980 The 1960s saw continued growing enrolment and the development of more formalized systems of higher education in Canada (Clark et al., 2009). Prior to the 1960s higher education was not thought of as a system but as a series of institutions that were primarily teaching focused (Clark et al., 2009). As Canada transitioned from elite-serving higher education to a higher education system for the masses in the 1960s, new universities and colleges were created, while other institutions transitioned from a teaching focus to a situation where teaching and research would hold equal importance (Clark et al., 2009). For example, in 1964 in Ontario, a formalized system of higher education was implemented with the Premier establishing universities in all regions, developing the college system, and creating a ministry to manage government-institution relationships (Clark et al., 2009; Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010). Throughout the period, as the system of postsecondary education in Canada became more complex, more specialized positions in student affairs emerged (Clark et al., 2009; Evans, Forney, Guido, & Renn, 2010; Manning et al., 2006). Dean of men and women positions were eliminated in favour of specialized positions with new senior housing officers (SHOs) being appointed (Manning et al., 2006). New SHOs quickly needed to respond to further increases in the student population which meant quickly constructing new residence halls to house as many students as possible (Blattner et al., 2013). In some cases, due to the rapid period of construction, sacrifices were made for building efficiency in use of space at the expense of a focus on community development (Blattner et al., 2013; Horvath & Stack, 2013). Consequently, there began a period of increasing specialization of employee roles within SHRL and a renewed focus on individual student development (Evans & Reason, 2001; Horvath & Stack, 2013). This included a shift away from live-in “housemothers�
toward trained institutional full-time staff who viewed SHRL as an opportunity to compliment learning and development in the classroom (e.g., residence life coordinators, area coordinators, residence directors, hall directors, etc.) (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019). The more socially and politically aware population of the era, resulted in a recognition by student affairs and SHRL leaders of a need to better understand student development and success (Evans & Reason, 2001; Strange, 2010). In the later part of the period, major theories of student development were published (Evans et al., 2010). Perry’s (1968 cited in Evans et al., 2010) first book and later expanded theory (Perry, 1981) on intellectual and ethical development, and Kohlberg’s (1975) moral development theories were used extensively in practice, including SHRL, changing the way that administrators viewed students (Evans et al., 2010). The focus on student learning and development in SHRL continues to present day. 1981 to 1999 The recession of the 1980s ushered in a time for fiscal responsibility and accountability in higher education (Clark et al., 2009; Thelin, 2004). Institutions tried to accommodate increases in student enrolment while facing reductions in governmental financial support (Clark et al., 2009). As institutions grappled with funding, enrolment continued to climb with a significant increase in the female participation rate (Clark et al., 2009). One way to increase funding from sources other than the government, was to garner more research dollars. The committee on the Future Role of Universities in Ontario in 1981 observed that without government funding, institutional differentiation could achieved through evolution in a competitive context, allowing universities to meet enrolment demands (Clark et al., 2009). For SHRL, in support of institutional differentiation, the establishment of living learning communities (LLCs) began (Blattner et al., 2013). LLCs as intentional, residential communities arranged around a specific topic or academic program, promoted valuable opportunities for student and faculty interaction, becoming a recruitment tool for institutions (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019). LLCs would continue to flourish through the 1990s (Blattner et al., 2013). While fiscal restraint and differentiation were beginning to take shape, there were other important conversations occurring in the social and
political context that would shape the future of the country and its institutions. The 1980s are a particularly important era within Canada with the Constitution Act and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms setting the ground work for many changes throughout rest of the period (Clark et al., 2009). These changes included a series of new laws that were put in place and consequently influenced how SHRL operated. For example, with the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) in 1988, there became new implications on who had access to student information (Blattner et al., 2013; Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019). With FIPPA and a series of human rights related laws, the concept of in loco parentis in SHRL was discarded as a popular approach, in favour of a focus on students as adult learners residing in an academic environment (Blattner et al., 2013; Geiger, 1999; Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010). In the 1990s, student learning became a central focus of student affairs and SHRL (Manning et al., 2006). In support of the student learning paradigm and student-centered pedagogy, and in an effort to achieve accountability, student affairs divisions began to assess how they contributed to student learning (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Manning et al., 2006). Scholars (ACPA, 1996) suggested that experiences in and out of the classroom contributed to student learning, while national organizations (AAHE, ACPA, & NASPA, 1998; ACPA, 1996) called for student affairs professionals to focus their work through intentional outcomes that support student construction of knowledge and transformative learning. In alignment with the student affairs learning orientation, education is the primary role of SHRL professionals (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019). Through student involvement in programs and activities, LLCs, conduct processes, and interactions with staff SHRL professionals engage students in educational conversations that place student learning at the core, professionals assist students in integrating curricular and co-curricular learning (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019). The focus on student learning continues in current practice (ACPA & NASPA, 2004; Blattner et al., 2013; Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019; Keeling, 2006). 2000 to Present At the turn of the century, higher education in Canada shifted from a mass system to a nearuniversal system with more than 80 per cent of
the population over 21 entering post-secondary studies (Clark et al., 2009). New cohorts of students, those with disabilities, Indigenous students, first generation students, and students from historically marginalized populations, arrived on campus in greater numbers, making campuses the most diverse they had been in their history (Blattner et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2009). The new student body was supported by a foundation of student affairs value in supporting diverse student needs and a series of government decisions and laws , influenced SHRL operations (Blattner et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2009; Lane Vetere, 2010). Government reforms to the secondary school system in Ontario resulted in a double cohort of students entering into post-secondary institutions in 2003 (Clark et al., 2009). The growth in graduating students resulted in a 40 per cent increase of postsecondary students in Ontario in the fall of 2004 with institutions and the government predicting additional and permanent growth (Clark et al., 2009). To prepare for the increase in students the government provided capital funding to institutions and institutions took out debt for large capital projects (Clark et al., 2009; Lane Vetere, 2010). For SHRL leaders this period meant finding creative solutions to house the influx of students in addition to advocating for the construction of new residences (Blattner et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2009; Lane Vetere, 2010). Consequently, many institutions in the province began to construct apartment style residences on campuses a trend that would continue in the short term (Blattner et al., 2013). In addition to the preparation for growing numbers of students, changes in the social awareness of the Canadian public influenced changes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission ground of sex under human rights (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2019). By 2016, students applying to university in Ontario were no longer required to identity as male or female and could choose to check “another gender identity� on the Ontario University Application Centre forms creating a ripple effect that would influence various aspects of the postsecondary environment (University of Waterloo, 2016). The first gender inclusive housing programs in Ontario were designed and implemented through the 2017-2018 academic year (Ontario Association of College & University Housing Officers, 2017). In addition to human rights changes, accessibility legislation was put in place throughout Canada to make public institutions more accessible (Clark et al., 2009). For example, in Ontario, the
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) of 2005 provided guidance for SHRL leaders in how to provide accessible housing. This piece of legislation, significantly shaped housing and dining renovation and construction efforts by requiring institutions to meet new standards (e.g., retrofitting fire alarms with visual notification) (Blattner et al., 2013). Further, SHRL departments have managed AODA requirements through the changes to admissions policies and procedures to ensure reasonable accommodations for students who identify accommodation needs (Blattner et al., 2013). While changes to assist students physically took place on campus, more students arrived to residence halls with an awareness of mental health concerns (Blattner et al., 2013; Lane Vetere, 2010). An increase in students presenting with mental health related concerns, required SHRL to adapt by increasing the training required for student and professional staff, developing safety net programs (e.g., behavioural intervention programs and teams), and adding counseling resources within residences (Blattner et al., 2013; Lane Vetere, 2010). Student mental health continues to be a significant focus for SHRL programs. In the late 2000s and early 2010s a new generation of students entered into university and brought a new set of expectations and support needs (Blattner et al., 2013; Donna Hardy Cox & Strange, 2010). Blattner et al. (2013) argue that the millennial generation arrived on campus with requests and demands that required campuses to respond. Aging infrastructure of SHRL had in many cases outlived its functionality and usefulness for this new group of students (Blattner et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2009). Consequently, with new the new expectations on SHRL, there became a renaissance in the renovation and construction facilities to meet new demands (Blattner et al., 2013; Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2019). Technological changes (e.g. wifi), luxuries (e.g., insuite laundry), and renovation designs that reinforce student wellness in residence halls (e.g., fitness centres, plant walls) accompanied societal shifts (Blattner et al., 2013; Lane Vetere, 2010). As SHRL programs continue to grapple with the state of their housing stock and the supports for today’s student, SHRL employees continue to focus on the needs of the student population. Implications for the Future Highlighted above, SHRL is a complex
functional area that has been influenced by the social and political context. Looking toward the future, SHRL staff will continue to be challenged by current and emerging issues. Issues such as the internationalization of the student body, demonstrating relevance, and fiscal and facilities constraints are prime examples of future challenges (Blattner et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2009; Lane Vetere, 2010; Manning et al., 2006). Each issue will require staff to focus on different competencies than those of eras before, while holding expertise in areas of current importance (e.g., student learning and development, facilities management, mental health support, fiscal management, etc.). This section of the paper explores some future issues and how staff competencies may evolve for SHRL. Institutions in Canada should expect continued limited funding from the government, and therefore post-secondary institutions must seek alternative revenue sources, such as admitting more students who pay international student fees (Clark et al., 2009). Traxler (2013) suggests that staff who seek to support international students are best served by taking time to learn about their students and direct the SHRL program from that learned place (e.g., understanding student demographics, culture, needs, wants, etc.). As more students from across the world arrive to study on Canadian campuses, SHRL staff will be required to have stronger intercultural skills and knowledge, be able to adapt quickly, and anticipate student needs, more so than their predecessors. International influences for SHRL have the potential to be expansive and may include changes to recruitment, selection, and training, service delivery, programing, facilities, and policies (Lane Vetere, 2010; Traxler, 2013). Strong leadership will be required to guide SHRL programs in serving international students and an everchanging student body. As higher education in Canada is tasked with demonstrating its effectiveness to taxpayers, each functional area in a university will have a role to play (Clark et al., 2009; McCuskey, 2013). Future SHRL staff will require expertise relating to assessment, evaluation, research and planning in an effort to articulate the degree that residence environments contribute to student success (Horvath & Stack, 2013; Manning et al., 2006; McCuskey, 2013). McCuskey (2013) posits that continuous improvement and an ability to formally assess the degree to which students learn in residence halls will be critical components of future positions.
Further scholars (Horvath & Stack, 2013; Lane Vetere, 2010; McCuskey, 2013) suggest that the ability to establish partnerships to connect curricular and co-curricular learning and articulate the effectiveness of the these partnerships will be critical to future success of SHRL programs. Assessment, research, and evaluation will be critical skills for future SHRL staff. In Canada, there is a long tradition of SHRL facilities being constructed by traditional funding strategies (e.g., provincial capital funding and/or mortgages). Overtime as universities reach their debt capacities, institutions may need to explore partnerships with the private sector to garner funds to address maintenance and facilities issues (McCuskey, 2013). Privatized financial or operating models can provide solutions for campuses that display significant housing needs, however come with challenges of their own (McCuskey, 2013). While housing operations have traditionally had to balance their budget between operational responsibilities, and student development, future staff may be required to garner specific expertise in business administration to effectively support private partnerships in addition to supporting student life (McCuskey, 2013). To do so, senior leaders may be best served in the future with focusing on competency areas such as fiscal resources and controls, occupancy management and evaluation and planning. Conclusion Throughout history SHRL programs have changed and developed as a result of societies influences on higher education and student affairs. First, a changing student population placed need for student affairs professionals supervising accommodations. Second, the growth in campus housing infrastructure mirrored the growth in higher education in the period after WWII. Third, the professionalization of SHRL in Canada aligned with the increasing complexity of the post-secondary education system. Fourth, a move toward a learning orientation in student affairs has influenced SHRL professionals as they seek to provide students with a seamless learning environment. Finally, government changes and laws alongside a generational change in students created a more complex environment for service delivery. Each of these shifts in SHRL has increased the need for staff competencies that go far beyond simply providing accommodation for students and suggest that the trend for further developing housing staff expertise be a necessity for the future.
References: AAHE, ACPA, & NASPA. (1998). Powerful partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Authors. Academica Group. (2017). Good news for the champions of on-campus housing. Retrieved March 5, 2019, from Academica Forum website: https://forum.academica.ca/forum/good-news-for-the-champions-of-on-campushousing ACPA. (1996). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Presented at the Alexandria, VA. Alexandria, VA: Author. ACPA, & NASPA. (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, D.C.: Author. American Council on Education. (1937). The student personnel point of view. Washington, D.C.: Author. American Council on Education. (1949). The student personnel point of view (rev. Ed.). (13). Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 13–25. Blattner, A., Cawthon, T., & Baumann, J. A. (2013). Milestones in campus housing. In N. W. Dunkel & J. A. Baumann (Eds.), Campus housing management: Past, present, & future (pp. 2–27). Columbus, OH: Association of College & University Housing Officers-International. Blimling, G. S. (2015). Student learning in college residence halls: What works, what doesn’t, and why. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cawthon, T. W., Schreiber, P. J., & Associates. (2012). ACUHO-I core competencies: The body of knowledge for campus housing professionals. Columbus, OH: AUCHO-I. Clark, I. D., Moran, G., Skolnik, M. L., & Trick, D. (2009). Academic transformation: The forces reshaping higher education in Ontario. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Council for the Advancement of Standards. (2009). The book of professional standards for higher education (7th ed). Washington, D.C.: Author. Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2019). CAS professional standards for higher education (10th ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. DeNiro, M. (2019). Paving the way: Throughout its history, student affairs and campus housing have benefited from the guiding hand of women. Connections: Women In Housing, 37(2), 1–10. Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In D. B. Komives, D. B. Woodard, & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession (4th ed, pp. 339–357). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Evans, N. J., & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student affairs philosophy statements. Education Publications, 42(4), 359–377. Geiger, R. (1999). The ten generations of American higher education. In American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (2nd ed, pp. 38–69). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Gordon, L. (1991). From seminary to university: An overview of women in higher education, 1870-1920. In L. G. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), The history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. 473–498). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Hardy Cox, Donna, & Strange, C. C. (2010). Foundations of student services in Canadian higher education. In Achieving student success: Effective student services in Canadian Higher education (pp. 3–17). Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Harris, R. S. (1976). A history of higher education in Canada 1663-1960. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Horvath, T., & Stack, G. (2013). Staffing patterns. In N. W. Dunkel & J. A. Baumann (Eds.), Campus housing management: Staffing & leadership (pp. 2–31). Columbus, OH: Association of College & University Housing Officers-International. Hyatt, J. L. (2016). Women chief housing officers at state universities in the Northwest United States. University of North Texas: Denton, TX.
References: Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2006). Learning reconsidered 2: A practical guide to implementing a campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, D.C.: ACPA, ACUHOI, ACUI, NACADA, NACA, NASPA, NIRSA. Kohlberg, L. (1975). The cognitive-development approach to moral education. Phi Delta Kappan, 56, 670–677. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lane Vetere, H. (2010). Housing and residence life. In D. Hardy Cox & C. Strange (Eds.), Achieving student success: Effective student services in Canadian higher education. (pp. 77–88). Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. (2006). One size does not fit all. New York, NY: Routledge. McCuskey, B. (2013). The future of campus housing. In N. W. Dunkel & J. A. Baumann (Eds.), Campus housing management: Past, present, & future (pp. 116–136). Columbus, OH: Association of College & University Housing Officers-International. Nidiffer, J. (2002). Historical and cultural contexts: Overview. In Women in higher education: An encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. Ogren, C. A. (2003). Rethinking the “nontraditional” student from a historical perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 74(3), 640–664. Ontario Association of College & University Housing Officers. (2017b). The state of gender inclusive housing in OACUHO. Authors. Ontario Association of College & University Housing Officers. (2018a). Constitution. Toronto, ON: Author. Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2019). Emerging human rights protections. Retrieved from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-gender-identity-and-gender-expression/5emerging-human-rights-protections. Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1994). The impact of residential life on students. In C. C. Schroeder, P. Mable, & Associates (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp. 22–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Perkin, H. (1991). History of universities. In L. G. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.), The history of higher education (2nd ed., pp. 3–34). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. Perry, W. G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The modern American college (pp. 76–116). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Porter-Roberts, D. (2013). Senior-level housing officer competencies. In N. W. Dunkel & J. A. Baumann (Eds.), Campus housing management: Staffing & leadership (pp. 154–179). Columbus, OH: Association of College & University Housing Officers-International. Schroeder, C. C., & Mable, P. (1994). Residence halls and the college experience. (C. C. Schroeder & P. Mable, Eds.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Seifert, T. A., Arnold, C., Burrow, J., & Brown, A. (2011). Supporting student success: The role of student services within Ontario’s postsecondary institutions. Toronto, ON: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. Strange, C. C. (2010). Theoretical foundations of student success. In D. G. H. Cox & C. C. Strange (Eds.), Achieving student success: Effective student services in Canadian higher education (pp. 18–30). Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Thelin, J. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Traxler, S. A. (2013). Internationalization and higher education. In N. W. Dunkel & J. A. Baumann, Campus housing management: Past, present, & future. Columbus, OH: Association of College & University Housing Officers-International. University of Waterloo, U. R. (2016, May 18). University application forms change for transgender students. Retrieved February 10, 2019, from Waterloo Stories website: https://uwaterloo.ca/stories/university-applicationforms-change-transgender-students
Coming Soon…