Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 2 (1) 2014, 93–96 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.14426/jsaa.v2i1.52 AFRICAN MINDS www.jsaa.ac.za Manning, K., Kinzie, J., & Schuh, J. H. (2014). One size does not fit all: Traditional and innovative models of student affairs practice. (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Ellen M. Broido* Book review This book, an update of a 2007 edition, describes eleven models of student affairs practice, divided between ‘traditional’ and ‘innovative’ types. The authors, all respected scholars of student affairs and higher education, draw from several sources to describe and differentiate these models, including extensive historical and theoretical grounding, their own experience, and data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the related DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practice) study, which described universities that had both higher than predicted NSSE scores and graduation rates. The book is organised into four sections. The first contains chapters that introduce the book and its organisation, provide an overview of theories of engagement and the NSSE and DEEP studies, and present a brief but detailed history of student affairs in the United States and how student affairs work has been organised. In the second and third sections the authors provide an overview of the 11 models of student affairs practice. Each group of related models is grounded in its historical, philosophical, and/or theoretical context, defining features, and strengths and weaknesses. Chapters conclude with discussion questions enabling readers to consider how their organisation embodies each model. The authors make clear that the models rarely exist in the pure types described in this text, and that multiple models may co-exist simultaneously in different offices or units of a student affairs division. In the second section, the authors discuss six ‘traditional’ models. These include two models focused on students’ out-of-class experience (Extra-curricular and Co-curricular); two administratively centred models (Functional Silos and Student Services); and two that are learning centred (Comprehensive and Adversarial and Seamless Learning). The authors also include typical organisational charts for each of these models, helping the reader to differentiate between similar models. In the Extra-curricular model, student affairs staff are outside of and unrelated to the academic curriculum and function as administrators whose focus is students’ psychosocial development. In the Co-curricular model, student affairs administrators see themselves as educators, working in parallel (but not in collaboration or conjunction) with faculty. * Associate Professor, Higher Education and Student Affairs, Bowling Green State University, USA. Email: ebroido@bgsu.edu 94 Journal of Student Affairs in Africa | Volume 2 (1) 2014, 93–96 | 2307-6267 | DOI: 10.14426/jsaa.v2i1.52 Administrative models have a focus on fiscal management, strategic planning and retention, rather than student development or learning. The authors describe the Functional Silos model as decreasing student engagement and therefore to be avoided. The Student Services model meets the transactional needs of students in convenient, accessible ways that can heighten students’ satisfaction with the institution. Learning-centred traditional models are presented as either Competitive and Adversarial or Student Learning-focused. The Competitive and Adversarial model is not actually competitive or adversarial to academics, but operates independent of the academic mission, lacking coordination or collaboration with faculty or academic affairs. The authors also recommend avoiding this model. By contrast, in the Student Learning model every university employee “can contribute to student learning” (p. 124); students affairs units in this model often report to the senior academic officer, rather than to the president. In the third section of the book the authors introduce five “innovative” models, three Student-Centered models (Ethic of Care, Student-Driven, Student Agency) and two Academic-Centered models (Academic-Student Affairs Collaboration and Academic- Driven). In the Ethic of Care model, students are presumed to have deficits (in academic or social preparation, finances, or self-concept) that student affairs professionals remediate through individualised interactions. By contrast, the Student-Driven and Student Agency models presume a high level of student skill and initiative, and policies are designed to increase student engagement. In the Student Agency model students take “[full] responsibility for student life and perform as full, equal partners with faculty and staff in their efforts” (p. 145). The two Academic-Centered innovative models are Academic-Student Affairs Collaborative model and the Academic-Driven model. The Collaborative model is discussed in detail and has more examples than other models in this book. Grounded in calls for student affairs engagement in students’ learning, student affairs organisations embodying the Collaborative model are tightly coupled with faculty, and the relationship between student and academic affairs is based on mutual respect and understanding and shared responsibility for many programmes and services. In the Academic-Driven model, students and faculty generate most programming, with student affairs in a secondary, supportive role. The authors do not clearly identify what makes these models innovative, other than being new. The authors claim that both Student-Centered and Academic-Centered models work best at institutions that are “small, private, not-for-profit [and] quite selective” (p. 153), meaning most institutions must use traditional models. The final two chapters of the book are new to this edition, the first focusing on theories and causes of organisational change and the second outlining specific ways in which student affairs units might reframe their work, particularly using assessment to bring human, financial, and physical resources (facilities) into alignment with the institutions’ missions and changing student bodies. The greatest utility of this book to practitioners lies in the discussion questions at the end of each chapter, the book’s ability to expand readers’ conceptualisation of their Ellen M. Broido: One size does not f it all: Traditional and innovative models of student affairs practice 95 work, and the final assessment instrument, which allows readers to rate their organisation’s demonstrations of features of each of the 11 models. All of these will let readers consider the ways in which each model is evident at their institution and the implications of each model for their unique organisational dynamics and student body. The book’s strong grounding in student affairs history in the USA and theory will provide a basic introduction to those unfamiliar with the topic. The book would benefit from a clearer definition of the concept of a model, more examples linked to real and named institutions, and more information about how much the innovative models are hypothetical and how much they exist as described. Greater attention to how the traditional models evident at the vast majority of universities can support the engagement and graduation of their students would also strengthen the text.