The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2 - 16

Rachael H. Stark * Sharon K. Anderson

thing, as opposed to me yelling at all of them.
Another RA, Genevieve, shared the following:
That's the only time I feel uncomfortable,
because I want to cut them some slack or a
break. And sometimes I don't always hold
them accountable as I should. But any other
people in the building, I'll set them straight;
really quick, I'll hold them accountable. But
when [they're] mine, I have [a] really hard
time.
Other participants mentioned holding their
own residents to a higher standard than they
did the other residents in the building. Tim
commented,
I think when I say I hold them to a higher
standard, I think it's because I view them
as mine. And it's a part of me, and they're
kind of like anyone who's on my ﬂoor . . .
the rest of the building knows, "Oh, okay;
you're [his] resident . . ." But I feel that I've
given them, not a leeway, but I've given them
an enhanced experience . . . And because
I've opened that door for them, for them to
reply with, "Oh, I'm going to get drunk in the
dorms, and I'm going to smoke weed, or I'm
going to do this or that . . ." it's like, "No,
you're better than that."

Cluster Two: Decision-Making Factors
The second cluster that addressed the research
question reﬂects how participants thought
through their decisions on discipline. Participants talked about certain policies that were
worthy of pursuit, while others were not. Five
subclusters composed this overall cluster: situations that require confrontation, major versus
minor violations, alcohol safety decisions,
resident attitude, and consequences of documenting residents. Participants used the terms
major violations and minor violations to describe

what was and was not worthy of confrontation.
Participants would confront students only
under certain circumstances, and they considered a resident's attitude and what the resident
might have to lose before they documented
policy violations.

Participants made it clear that
there were varying levels of
policy violations. Participants
used the terms major violations
and minor violations; however,
what deﬁned a minor violation
was not necessarily universal.

Situations that require confrontation. Participants spoke about how they determined
when to confront a policy violation. A common
distinction was that if something was affecting
the other residents, they would be more apt to
confront it. Kate shared,
Affecting other people, it's more important [to
confront it]. For me noise violations or things
of that nature, or rowdy residents that affect
people who are say, studying for exams . . .
That I'll take really seriously . . . As opposed
to maybe people who are quietly in their
rooms maybe violating policy, but . . . I'm not
aware of . . . I wouldn't go pursue someone
who's being quiet if I suspected that they
had alcohol, over someone who is being very
rambunctious about it.

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 42, No. 2