journal_vol49no3 - 84

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
There are several limitations to consider in the current study. First, one must note that
the CALSSCP instrument was initially developed to ascertain the practices and beliefs
of those whose full-time work is student conduct adjudication. Besides demographic
questions beyond the 40 items, no changes were made between the administration of
the survey to student conduct staff in the fall of 2019 and to residence life staff in the
spring of 2022. There are several questions on the instrument that do not explicitly ask
for responses to the items within the framework of respondents' conduct adjudication
duties, but rather are more general and ask about reactions and impacts from one's
job in general; participants may have completed the CALSSCP with a more holistic
mindset of the full scope of their responsibilities. Therefore, it is not certain that the results
reported by residence life staff are a true representation of their experiences with
judicialization. Future investigation into this subject matter should consider adapting
the CALSSCP with specific regard to the multiple job responsibilities of residence life
staff-including community building, conduct adjudication, conflict resolution, and
facilities management-to understand the specific aspects of their work that lead to
critogenic harm and therefore impacts on their well-being.
While the study allowed participants to write in their response to " Gender, " the researcher
coded all answers as either " female " or " male " or " other/choose not to answer "
(for answers that were left blank or included such gender identities as " genderqueer, "
" non-binary, " " trans-masculine, " etc.). Only 8% of the current study's respondents
were then categorized as " other/choose not to answer, " and this sample proved too
small to make any meaningful deductions about the lived experiences of residence life
staff who identify outside of the male-female binary. Additionally, this study did not
invite the participant to identify a racial or ethnic identity. Representation of the spectrum
of genders and racial identities in a future study would more clearly reveal the
ways that the well-being of diverse individuals is impacted by concerns about litigation
and judicialization.
The findings that women's well-being was impacted more strongly by concerns
about litigation than were men's perhaps reveal that women feel they have less control
over their work, believing that colleagues and others with whom they work are
more responsible for workplace litigation. Connecting these findings with Kobasa and
colleagues' (1982) model of hardiness, in which commitment, control, and challenge
serve to buffer an individual from stress, one may infer that teaching the importance of
these personality traits, perhaps in single-gender environments, may promote healthier
responses to stressful events. Such professional development could help women
strengthen hardiness characteristics that allow them to build resilience and reframe
the possibility of litigation from being threatening to being stimulating. Grönlund's
(2007) findings infer that a woman with greater control can mitigate the effects of a
high demand and high strain job, typically in " education, health care, and service positions "
(p. 490), and possibly even generate greater gains.
Volume 49, No. 3 * 2023 81
journal_vol49no3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of journal_vol49no3
