In my PhD program, there are two classes notorious for being extremely difficult.
Nope, not the methods classes, which were challenging in their own rights.
The classes we all loved to dread were 550/600* and adult development.
*Leadership theory in practice or something like that. It's listed online as integral leadership theory, but I don't think that was its name when I took it. It has two numbers, one for the master's students and one for the doctoral students.
550/600 is the first course that all leadership studies students, master's and doctoral, take. We all took it together, 70-80 of us, plus 10-15 teaching assistants, in one big lecture-style room. It started when our professor, Dr. Monroe, would enter the room, perch on a stool at the front and say, "Where would you like to begin?" And then we'd follow the predictable patterns of any Tavistock teaching situation, and Terri would sprinkle in theory, exactly when examples of it surfaced, known as case-in-point teaching. The course was a jolt into the academic study of group dynamics. It gave us a framework and language we'd use throughout our time in the program... and in social situations when we are gathered together.
Adult development, on the other hand, was a small course, 10-15 doctoral students. It was only offered in the summer, spanning nearly 40 hours in about 2.5 weeks. We could take the course any year in the program, so it loomed over us at the end of each spring term, daring us to come up with reasons we couldn't make it work that year... or just weren't ready to take it.
Dr. Green taught adult development, and like Dr. Monroe, many of us got the feeling that they could see through our defenses, sometimes right into our souls, which was humanizing and also terrifying. Like in 550/600, we were meant to learn theory--a lot of theory--and to apply it.
In the smaller, more intense course, it could feel like we were exposing our inner selves, including our weaknesses, something we were not supposed to show in a competitive academic environment, to our colleagues. In each section of the course, people shared deeply, and it was not uncommon for tears to surface at least once each class. For people uncomfortable showing their emotions (hi!), it was quite intimidating.
There's a bit of an unspoken rule that personal stories shared and ideas discussed in 550/600 stays in that room. I am going to respect that and focus the rest of this post on one theory that was a small bit of the content yet really caught my attention: third space theory.
Homi K. Bhabha created third space theory in the context of postcolonial India. (This is different from--yet related to--third space theory in terms of home/work/third space). His work focused on how in bringing two different cultures together, newness emerged. This does not mean the newness is "good" or "bad," it just was. The British colonists forcefully influenced Indian culture, and Brits living in India were influenced by Indian culture. The collision resulted in hybrid culture: a third space. It also resulted in actual humans born into that hybrid culture: children of Brits and Indians. Those existing in this hybrid culture resulted in abilities to more concretely define each culture and the hybridity (the third space), particularly for those permanently existing in that hybridity. Then, connections between each element (each culture and the hybridity), in recognizing each, results in yet additional third spaces, in an infinite process of naming, othering, and learning about the relationship between.
In the weeks following adult development, I grew fascinated by this idea: identifying entities, naming them, creating an other, and then exploring the third space between entities, seeing what emerges, naming it, etc. It occurred to me that much of higher education has been created in unintentional third spaces. Universities started with the duality of faculty and students. Then, faculty realized students needed additional support for life services (a need that emerged), so they took on in loco parenties. Then, higher ed service professionals emerged, separate from faculty. This space then demonstrated the need for students to learn life skills outside of the classroom (a need that emerged), and the field of student affairs was created.
These changes were not intentional applications of third space and thus were not created with attention to oppression and justice, as Bhabha described in colonial/postcolonial contexts. When this idea of cocreation is applied intentionally, change can be transformational and just. In particular, justice in third space requires that in any interaction, both people involved have equally valid things to offer and receive. For example, student affairs professionals have years of education and experience. Students, on the other hand, are the ones who are the targets for places, services, programs, etc., which means their ideas for and experiences of those places, services, programs, etc. matter. Both parties have valid information to share and receive from their roles. To intentionally engage in a just third space, student affairs professionals, from their positions of power, must show humility and curiosity in every interaction. In doing so, they can cocreate places, services, programs, etc. that are informed by student affairs professionals' knowledge and experiences AND by students' opinions and experiences--allowing what is truly needed to emerge from the interaction.
So. That's it. That's the article.
I worked on it for an independent study, though I didn't quite finish it. I've been working on it periodically for 4 years, each time thinking that my writing is quite good but it's not done yet.
Well, it's finally done.
And I submitted it.
I'll update when I hear back.
