University of North Dakota UND Scholarly Commons Theses and Dissertations Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects January 2021 The Evolution Of An Institution And Student Misconduct Polices: A Study Of Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM), 1887-2007 Ashley Jo Atteberry Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.edu/theses Recommended Citation Atteberry, Ashley Jo, "The Evolution Of An Institution And Student Misconduct Polices: A Study Of Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM), 1887-2007" (2021). Theses and Dissertations.edu/theses/3908 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, and Senior Projects at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.
THE EVOLUTION OF AN INSTITUTION AND STUDENT MISCONDUCT POLICES: A STUDY OF MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY MOORHEAD (MSUM), 1887-2007 by Ashley Jo Atteberry Bachelor of Arts, University of South Dakota, 2002 Master of Arts, University of South Dakota, 2004 A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of North Dakota in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Grand Forks, North Dakota May 2021 Copyright 2021 Ashley Jo Atteberry ii iii PERMISSION Title The evolution of an institution and student misconduct policies: A study of Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM), 1887-2007 Department Higher Education Degree Doctor of Philosophy In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a graduate degree from the University of North Dakota, I agree that the library of this University shall make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for extensive copying for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my dissertation work or, in her absence, by the Chairperson of the department of the dean of the School of Graduate Studies. It is understood that any copying or publications or other use of this dissertation or part thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of North Dakota in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my dissertation.
Atteberry April 9, 2021 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES viii LIST OF TABLES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER 1: Introduction and Background of the Study 1 Statement of the Problem 2 Purpose of the Study 4 Conceptual Framework 5 Definitions of Terms 7 Significance of the Study 9 Overview of the Research Design 9 Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations 12 Positionality of the Researcher 13 Organization of the Document 15 CHAPTER 2: Historical Context 16 Normal Schools 17 State Teachers Colleges 23 State Colleges 35 State Universities 39 Conclusion 45 CHAPTER 3: Review of Literature 46 Model Codes of Student Conduct 46 v Previous Research 55 Literature Review 60 Conclusion 77 CHAPTER 4: Methods 78 Research Approach 78 Purpose of the Study 79 Research Questions 80 Research Design 80 Methods 81 Limitations 97 Conclusion 98 CHAPTER 5: Findings 99 Overview of Themes 99 Response to Research Questions 160 Conclusion 196 CHAPTER 6: Discussion 197 Revisiting History 197 Reconnecting the Conceptual Framework 203 Implications for Practice 206 Implications for Policy 207 Future Research 208 Closing Remarks 209 APPENDICES 211 vi REFERENCES 252 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Visual image of the Framework Quadrants of Prohibited Conduct: in loco parentis, legalisms, academic misconduct, and off campus 6 2. Image Representing Saldaña’s (2016) Coding Guidance: the largest or broadest selection are the policies; then narrowed down to the codes, next the categories; finally the themes. Image Representing Policy Coding Process: the largest or broadest selection is the handbook/bulletin text; then narrowed down to the policy summaries and quotes, next the first cycle of emerging codes, and the second cycle of categories; finally the themes, which are patterns 92 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.
Numbers of Policies and Codes in Each Era of the Institution 94 2. Numbers of Coded Categories in Each Era of the Institution 95 3. Numbers of Codes within Themes and Categories by Era 96 4. Names of Themes and Associated Categories of this Study 100 5.
Numbers of Codes in the Limit and Oversight Theme and Associated Categories 101 6. Numbers of Codes in the Academic Expectations Theme and Associated Categories 121 7. Numbers of Codes in the Unlawful Actions Theme and Associated Categories 136 8. Numbers of Codes in the Off-Campus Oversight Theme and Associated Categories 151 9.
Numbers of Codes within Each Theme per Era 184 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the members of my committee. Deborah Worley who guided me, challenged me, and provided me support on the roller coaster of this journey. Joshua Cohen for sharing his expertise in clear input and feedback. Joshua Hunter for his expertise in research and providing challenges that strengthened my work and understanding.
Cara Halgren for her content expertise, knowing well the dynamic roles student conduct professionals have and the function of student misconduct policies. Secondly, I would like to thank the two individuals who directly assisted with this study. Emily Frazier who debriefed my findings as a seasoned student conduct practitioner. Trista Raezer-Stursa who debriefed my findings as a historian of MSUM.
Next, I wish to thank the faculty who provided instruction for the courses that allowed me to discover new meanings and stretch my understanding of higher education and research: Dr. Margaret Healy, Dr. Jeffrey Sun, Dr. Daniel Rice, Dr.
Deborah Worley, Dr. Cheryl Hunter, and Dr. Finally, I want to thank my support network and sanity keepers. You have been the best cheerleaders, care givers, and supporters.
Most especially Jesse who was always steadfast in supporting me, Michael and Blair who were (mostly) patient and encouraging, Beatrice for always believing, Jennifer for making this process less lonely, Anna and John for always showing up, and to all family members and nannies who watched, entertained, fed, took fishing, picked up from a meet-up on the highway, and cared for our kids. x ABSTRACT An institution of higher education holds certain beliefs about the personal growth of students while they are enrolled. The behavior prohibited within the student misconduct policies reflect the norms within the larger society as well as the expectations specific to the learning environment within the institution. Students adhering to the expectations defined in these policies are perceived as embracing these beliefs, which enhances the character and resulting community member the student becomes upon graduation.
In an opportunity to understand and resolve the concern of having an overly legalistic published policies for student misconduct, this qualitative study reviewed the content of codes of student conduct and published rules for students at Minnesota State University Moorhead from the start of the college through the span of 120 years. The evolution of the institution and student misconduct policies was studied through qualitative historical document analysis of archived student handbooks and annual catalogues and bulletins at the institution within the noted timeframe of 1887 through 2007. Using this design allowed for the holistic understanding of the data given the researcher’s professional knowledge, the setting of the college, and the evolution of the institution. The findings included evidence of the dynamic evolution of policies; an increased proportion of policies that reference criminal law, state statute, and federal law; and the changes in policies that reflect the contextual landscape changes of the institution.
In the advent of “model codes”, this study provides a framework for student conduct practitioners to conduct a review of the student misconduct policies on a college or university campus. xi Chapter 1 Introduction and Background of the Study Higher education institutions have a set of policies that provide expectations for student behavior, often identified as prohibited conduct policies within a code of student conduct or an honor code. These policies identify prohibited behaviors in the classroom and on campus in an effort to ensure there is an environment for all students to learn and to promote normative behavior within the campus community. There are policies similar to laws, such as “do not steal,” while other policies are specific to the learning environment, such as “no cheating.” In part, misconduct policies set a tone and convey to students some beliefs of the institution while providing the framework for the community standards of the campus.
As Blimling (2006) summarizes: Standards and policies universities have adopted are the embodiment of institutional values. They are the attributes institutions expect in their graduates. The role of student conduct affairs professionals who work with student conduct is quite literally that of a moral and ethical teacher of institutional and societal values. x) An institution of higher education holds certain beliefs about the personal growth of students while they are enrolled.
The behavior prohibited within the policies reflect the norms within the larger society as well as the expectations specific to the learning environment within the institution. Students adhering to the expectations defined in the misconduct policies are perceived as embracing these beliefs, which enhances the character and resulting society member the student becomes upon graduation. Often conduct policies are published in student handbooks, in course catalogs, and other prominent documents and web pages held by the institution. These policies were historically 1 printed in handouts provided to students at the start of the term of their enrollment at the institution.
More recently, colleges and universities publish these policies within printed and printable brochures limited to the code of student conduct and on institutional web pages for current students. The content of the code and the details of policies may be regulated by stakeholders outside of the institution; for example, a university may have to adhere to the policies that are governed by the system or oversight body the university is part of. As such, these policies need to be articulated in the code of student conduct at the institution. Administrators typically update and revise institutional policies for student conduct concerns.
Some of these reviews occur on an annual basis while others occur much less often, such as every two, five, or ten years due to the oversight of approving bodies like a Board of Trustees or state legislators’ involvement. Furthermore, federal law and oversight offices may create a need for institutions to change or update policies. In addition, there are many stakeholders as part of the campus community who are invested in the policies written for students, which can have an impact on the time a review takes. For example, a Board of Trustees or state legislators may have a specific timeline or review cycle for policies established; as such, the code of student conduct review may be scheduled and delayed due to other priorities.
Other institutions may have more flexibility in the authority of making changes and have an annual review that is held on campus in consultation with campus community members in a briefer timeline. Statement of the Problem It is known that colleges during the eighteenth century in the United States had policies of established rules for those who were enrolled (McDaniel Moore, 1976). As Danells (1997) noted: 2 Fearing the unbridled expression of the natural depravity of their charges, the early colonial college trustees, presidents, and faculties set about shaping the moral character and social manners of their students through long and detailed codes of conduct and rigid scheduling (p. The existence of a code of student conduct is important as it provides expectations of behavior and protections for student who may be accused of violating any of these expectations (Bach, 2003).
The policies within the code historically provided a reflection of institutional values and acted as a guide in setting a tone for the learning environment desired at the institution (Bach, 2003; Lake, 2009). There is some guidance for institutions of higher education to move to simpler codes that focus on the intent of supporting the student learner to grow and develop outside of the academic classroom (Dannells, 2009; Hoekema, 1996; Lake, 2009; Lake, 2011; Lake, 2013; Lancaster, 2006).