THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION, TRANSITION, AND RETENTION1 BOOK REVIEW Men and Masculinities: Theoretical Foundations and Promising Practices for Supporting College Men’s Development. Edited by: Daniel Tillapaugh and Brian L. McGowan (Eds.) Published by: Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2019, 235 pages Reviewed by: Jessica Hale, Ed. D., Faculty, English and College Readiness, Washtenaw Community College Men and Masculinities: Theoretical Foundations and Promising Practices for Supporting College Men’s Development, edited by Daniel Tillapaugh and Brian L. McGowan, offers higher education students, staff, and faculty a “how-to manual of sorts” for supporting the development of college men (p. 13). According to the authors… ..if you’re interested in making inroads to help college men see that there are other options beyond hegemonic masculinity, if you want to help men come together and be curious about their gender identity, if you want to help men navigate and problematize the way masculinity is socialized in the world, then this is exactly the book you may need. (p. 16) The editors, Daniel Tillapaugh and Brian L. McGowan, both affiliated with the Coalition on Men and Masculinities (an entity group within ACPA - College Student Educators International) bring a wealth of knowledge to the text, and the text’s two dozen contributing authors offer a diverse set of voices. The text is comprised of 11 chapters organized into three parts: theoretical foundations (Chapters 1 and 2), program design (Chapters 3, 4, and 5), and specific program content and delivery (Chapters 6-11). Also included is a foreword by Ryan E. Barone, an introduction by the editors, and an afterword by Tracy Davis. Chapter 1, authored by Daniel Tillapaugh, D. Chase J. Catalano, and Tracy Davis, addresses three theoretical approaches to working with college men (positivist, constructivist, and critical and post-structuralist) and how each perspective “will influence how one practices, designs, and develops policy” (p. 26). To connect these different approaches to practice, the authors use the Gender Box Activity to explore sample facilitation from each theoretical perspective. In Chapter 2, Brian L. McGowan, Daniel Tillapaugh, and Frank Harris III discuss student development theory as a way to understand the experiences and development of college men. The authors explore the three wave framework introduced by Jones and Stewart (2016), the model gender majority myth, and the research related to the developmental experiences of understudied college men (men of color, Trans* men, sexual minority men, and men with disabilities). According to the authors, as scholarship shifts to more critical and post-structural understandings of men and masculinities, it will be increasingly important to understand “the ways power, privilege, and oppression influence college men’s lives and how their college environments, such as institution types, peer groups, and geographical domains, affect some of these dynamics” (p. 50). Building campus coalitions on men and masculinities is addressed in Chapter 3 by Keith E. Edwards, 2VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 Zak Foste, and Chris Taylor. The authors present readers with seven issues for consideration: accounting for your own identities and learning, goals and framing, different models, logistics, developmental readiness, sustainability, and systemic accountability. Of particular interest to readers may be the discussion of different models (including resource libraries, student organizations, peer educators, committees or program groups, retreats, regional conferences or coalitions, and offices or centers) and logistical aspects (timeline, members, funding, meeting logistics and structure, and programming). In Chapter 4, authors Kyle C. Ashlee and Rachel Wagner present a programming model for working with men and masculinities developed from the I-MMDI (Jones & Abes, 2013) and intersectional theory (Crenshaw, 1991; Dill and Zambrana, 2009). According to the authors, this model “facilitates students’ meaning-making capacity by centering the experiences of marginalized groups, complicating social identity, unveiling power, and promoting social justice” (p. 79). Sample formats, audiences, and learning outcomes are identified. Chapter 5, written by Lucas Schalewski, Brian Lackman, and Jamie Utt, focuses on outcome-based assessment and evaluation for programs and services that address men and masculinities on campus. A six phase assessment cycle is presented and sample assessment work is presented (using the Taking Off the Masc program as a model). The six phases include identifying goals, developing learning and program outcomes, designing assessment methods, collecting and analyzing data, communicating findings, and refining and changing the program/service. In Chapter 6, Pete Paquette and Vernon A. Wall discuss how to develop men’s retreats. The goal, according to the authors, should be for “men to explore and deconstruct masculinity” as well as focus on “identifying and celebrating healthier masculinities” (p. 113). The authors review the related literature and then offer suggestions for how to identify campus needs, design curriculum and learning outcomes, and consider tasks related to implementation and logistics. The next chapter, authored by Wilson Kwamogi Okello and Stephen John Quaye, explores intergroup dialogue as a process for healing the “divisions in society caused by patriarchy” (p. 131). Black feminist theory is explored and the technique of embodied autocritography is introduced as an intervention that may help men share narratives of their experiences (through writing and movement) with “hegemonic masculinity, patriarchy, heterosexism, and misogyny as a way to point out their transgressions, blind spots, and complicities” (p. 138). The authors of the chapter engage in a sample dialogue (adapted for text) to illustrate the process. Chapter 8, by Taj Smith, Vern Klobassa, and Cristobal Salines, Jr., focuses on men’s peer education and mentoring programs. The chapter begins with a brief literature review and then highlights a variety of men’s programs including performance groups, peer health programs, support groups, men of color academic and mentoring initiatives, as well as residence life and fraternity programming. Strategies for institutional acceptance, recruitment, and intersectionality are addressed, as well as possible approaches for facilitator and mentor identification and training. Chapter 9 aims to “provide guidance to the student affairs practitioners interested in developing, teaching, and collaborating to incorporate men and masculinities topics into credit-bearing courses and other curricular- type activities” (p. 166). Author Jason Laker addresses the importance of men and masculinities programs, programmatic context and tone, gender-informed professional practice, and critical reflection in developing effective men’s programs. Strategies for including men and masculinities in the curriculum (in student affairs, gender studies, general education, and internships) are discussed and sample course schedules or assignments are provided. Chapter 10, penned by Cameron C. Beatty, Jonathan A. McElderry, and Jason J. Dorsette, explores THE JOURNAL OF COLLEGE ORIENTATION, TRANSITION, AND RETENTION3 comprehensive initiatives and programs for men. The chapter begins with a discussion of the historical intersections of gender, race, and identity for college men, giving special attention to the development of Black boys as well as sexual- and gender-minority men. Building on the men’s programming framework of Davis and Laker (2004), the authors offer recommendations for designing programs for marginalized college men. Two examples of comprehensive co-curricular men’s programs aimed at Black and Latino college men are discussed (Mizzou’s Black Men’s Initiative and Oregon State University Distinguished Scholars Initiative, respectively). In the final chapter, author Z Nicolazzo addresses contemporary issues facing college men and the study of masculinity. The author discusses disembodying masculinity, unlearning cissexism, recognizing how epistemologies influence practice, moving beyond words to campus action, exploring gender analysis in other fields, centering programs on the most marginalized students, avoiding prescriptive solutions, and thinking critically about what we know about gender analysis. This chapter is a call to action to “seek liberation and justice for the most vulnerable, whether we see them on college campuses or not” (p. 202). As a professional resource, this text is timely and valuable. As noted by Tracy Davis in the afterword, “student affairs professionals can no longer complain that there is nothing available to assist them with designing and evaluating effective programs and practices regarding men and masculinities” (p. 209). This text is, indeed, a “how-to manual of sorts” for students or practitioners looking to support the development of college men (p. 13). The book not only offers a theoretical framework, but also sample programs, activities, learning outcomes, rubrics, and guidance on how to create programming that fits the campus context. This text would be strengthened by the inclusion of data related to persistence and retention in highlighted programs. Additionally, a discussion of how to scale up programs would be beneficial. Finally, a more thorough discussion of how student affairs professionals “grapple with complexities associated with creating even more education efforts for a population of students that already benefits from patriarchy” (p. 85) would have added to the value of the text. As low retention and success rates for men of color, and incidences of violence on college campuses (sexual and otherwise) continue, higher education professionals must address hegemonic masculinity on their college campuses. This text provides avenues through which to engage with this issue immediately and through the lens of intersectionality. In the words of the editors, “This work is crucial. Your efforts are needed more than ever. Go forth and do good work” (p. 16). 4VOLUME 28 NUMBER 1 References Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299. Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in the theory, policy and practice (pp.1-21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univeristy Press. Jones, S.R. & Abes, E.S. (2013). Identity development of college students:Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jones, S.R. & Stewart, D.-L, (2016). Evolution of student development theory. New Directions for Student Services, 154, 17-28. Davis, T. L., & Laker, J. (2004). Connection men to academic and student affiars programs and services. New Directions for Student Services, 107, 47-57.