NODA Journal Fall 2007.indd


FALL 2007  •  VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 63

Editor’s Note
Denise L. Rode

 The seminal theories of early student development theorists such as William 
Perry, Nevitt Sanford, and Arthur Chickering formed the basis for practice among 
the orientation directors of the 1970s and 1980s. As is commonly known, most of 
the first theories were developed from research and practice with predominantly 
White, male, and privileged individuals and organizations.  
 According to Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller (2004), “These early theories, based 
on universal assumptions about development, did little to address personal or 
cultural differences that might influence an individual’s growth and development 
(gender, race, racial identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social class)” (p. 39). 
Since that time, some of the original theories have expanded to become more 
inclusive while in other cases new theories and models have evolved that are more 
inclusive of groups traditionally underrepresented in higher education. 
 Pope, Reynolds, and Mueller (2004) warn against applying theories in a 
simplistic or reductionistic way (p. 37). They point out that 
 the fact that a theory is based primarily on one population does not 
 inherently make it a flawed theory. Nor does the fact that the theory is 
 questioned and evaluated and perhaps even found wanting in some areas 
 make it a flawed theory. It is simply a theory that may be more useful with the 
 population upon which it is based. The most influential theories…need 
 in-depth exploration of their ability to incorporate and make meaning of the 
 unique experiences of underrepresented groups as well as their ability to 
 furnish necessary conceptualizations, tools, and strategies for working in a 
 diverse setting. (pp. 37-38)
 It is in this spirit that the following reprinted article on the theory of William 
Perry is offered. Although the author (Robert P. Wanzek) retired from his role as 
an orientation director 20 years ago, the Perry theory continues to be used as a 
model for student orientation leader selection, training, and supervision on his 
former campus. However, this rich theory is also supplemented by knowledge from 
second- and third-generation theorists and interpreters such as Clyde Parker, L. Lee 
Knefelkamp, and Carol Widick (for their creation of the concept of development 
instruction) and Carol Gilligan (a pioneer in the area of women’s moral and 
ethical development) as well as by newer theories of racial, ethnic, sexual, gender, 
and class identity.
 While Perry’s theory still has much value to offer practitioners in orientation 
and transition, the multiculturally competent professional will seek to 
“individualize theories so that that they have meaning for the individual 
person or context” rather than using them to stereotype or pigeonhole individuals 
or organizations (Pope, Reynolds, & Mueller, 2004, p. 45). As aptly summarized by 
Strange and King (1990), “the goal of using theory effectively is to create a campus 



64  THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION AND TRANSITION

environment that advances…growth. To translate theory using various methods, 
models, and techniques is the work of the student affairs professional.”

References
Pope, R. L., Reynolds, A. L., & Mueller, J. A. (2004). Multicultural competence in  
 student affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Strange, C. C., & King, P. M. (1990). The professional practice of student 
 development. In D. G. Creamer (Ed.), College student development: Theory 
 and practice for the 1990s (pp. 9-24).  Alexandria, VA: American College 
 Personnel Association Media.