The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1 - 46

Maureen E. Wilson * Amy S. Hirschy * John M. Braxton

Common residence life functions include
the hiring, training, evaluation, and supervision of student and professional staff; educational programming; academic programs
and support; assessment; student conduct;
conﬂict resolution; and safety. Housing functions include, but are not limited to, room
assignments, billing, contracts, facility management, housekeeping, maintenance, and
conference services. Some HRL departments
have their own units for human resources,
payroll, information technology, budgets,
dining, and marketing. External vendors may
provide housekeeping, maintenance, food
service, and security. Campuses may also
have housing that is privately developed and
managed. HRL may be a unit within a division of student affairs or business affairs or
may report jointly to both units (Fotis, 2013).

AMBIGUITY AND AUTONOMY
Prior research has established the ambiguity and autonomy held by a wide range of
higher education professionals including
presidents (Fleming, 2010), academic deans
(Bray, 2010), faculty (Braxton & Bayer, 1999;
Braxton, Proper, & Bayer, 2011), institutional
advancement ofﬁcers (Caboni, 2010), graduate teaching assistants (Hellend, 2010), and
admissions ofﬁcers (Hodum & James, 2010).
Likewise, housing and residence life professionals (HRLPs) also face much ambiguity
in their day-to-day roles and function with a
great deal of autonomy. HRL clients include
students and their families, professional and
student staff, the HRL unit, the institution,
and vendors.
Braxton (2010) argued that professionals
might make idiosyncratic and unconstrained

decisions when there is no conduct code or set
of informal rules. In HRL, these choices have
potential to harm the welfare of students, staff,
and other clients, so formal conduct codes or
norms are crucial for safeguarding them.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to learn what
administrative behaviors HRLPs deem as
unacceptable. With this knowledge, administrators, graduate preparation faculty, and
professional association leaders can reinforce
acceptable professional norms that protect
the welfare of students, staff, and other HRL
clients. Results may also inform other functional areas in student affairs that have signiﬁcant student contact. Bray (2010) stressed
the importance of studying college administrators and their behavioral expectations, and
this study responds to that call. This is the
ﬁrst study to examine behavioral norms in a
student affairs context.

NORMATIVE STRUCTURES
Norms emerge from a variety of situations
that HRLPs have experienced directly or indirectly as undergraduate or graduate students,
day-to-day dealings with other HRLPs, and interactions with the college or university community. When people engage in a particular
pattern of behavior, those behaviors become
typical or expected and thus normative (Opp,
1982). Norms also transpire from others' behaviors (Demsetz, 1967). Some behaviors
evoke approval because of beneﬁts derived
from them whereas others result in harm and
elicit disapproval (Horne, 2001).
The perceptions of peers and their beliefs
regarding behaviors that violate established

THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENT HOUSING

The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Journal of College and University Student Housing - Volume 43, No. 1