Interview Strategies for Assessing Self-Authorship ... · September/OctOber 2007 vOl 48 nO 5 493...

nt rv tr t f r n lf th r h p: n tr t n nv r t nt n n nB xt r ld , r B., , P tr . n

J rn l f ll t d nt D v l p nt, V l 48, N b r , pt b r t b r200 , pp. 4 08 ( rt l

P bl h d b J hn H p n n v r t PrD : 0. d.200 .00

F r dd t n l nf r t n b t th rt l

Access provided by Lakehead University (13 Aug 2016 21:15 GMT)

http : .jh . d rt l 22 6

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/221316

September/OctOber 2007 ◆ vOl 48 nO 5 491

Interview Strategies for Assessing Self-Authorship: Constructing Conversations to Assess Meaning MakingMarcia B. Baxter Magolda Patricia M. King

This article presents two interview strategies used to assess college students’ developmental growth toward self-authorship. We illustrate that self-authorship is a foundation for achieving manycollege learning outcomes and argue that designing practice to promote self-authorship requires understanding how to assess it. We offer a brief overview of the concept of self-authorship, explore the basic tenets of assessing self-authorship, and describe in detail two self-authorship interview strategies. The conversational nature of the interviews creates a learning partnership between interviewer and interviewee that serves the dual role of assessment and developmental intervention. Challenges and benefits of using these interview strategies to assess and promote self-authorship will help readers judge their utility in future research and practice.Interestindesigninghighereducationlearningenvironmentstopromoteself-authorshipisontheriseinlightofnationalreports’descriptionsoflearningoutcomesforthe21stcentury.TheAssociationofAmericanCollegesandUniver-sities’(2006)statementonAcademic Freedom and Educational Responsibility espouses thatcollegeshouldenablestudentstobe“farmoreawareofthecomplexityoftheissuesatstakeand farbetterable toground theircommit-mentsinanalysis,evidence,andcarefulconsid-eration of alternatives” (p. 11). Greater Expectations, A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College(AssociationofAmerican

Colleges&Universities,2002)callsforinten-tional learners who “are integrative thinkerswhocanseeconnectionsinseeminglydisparateinformation and draw on a wide range ofknowledgetomakedecisions”(p.21).Learning Reconsidered: A Campus Wide Focus on the Student Experience(Keeling,2004)advocatescognitivecomplexity,interpersonalandintra-personalcompetence,civicengagement,andhumanitarianism among desirable learningoutcomes. How can educators effectivelyrespondtothecallsmadeinthesereportsinwaysthathelpstudentsachievetheseoutcomes?Wearguethatthefirststepistounderstandthe developmental foundation that makesachievementoftheseoutcomespossible.Theconstructofself-authorship(BaxterMagolda,2001;Kegan,1994)providesarichconceptuallens for understanding the development ofcomplex epistemological, intrapersonal, andinterpersonalcapacitiesassociatedwithstudentdevelopment and maturity in effectivelynavigatingadultrolesandresponsibilities. In this article, we offer a constructive-developmental perspective on assessing self-authorship,highlightthebasictenetsofthisapproach,andexploreindepthtwointerviewstrategiesbeingsuccessfullyusedtoassessself-authorship inyoungadults.Wealsoaddresshowtheseinterviewstrategiescanfunctionasdevelopmentalinterventions.First,weofferashortsummaryoftheoryandresearchonself-authorship, noting how this model lays a

Marcia B. Baxter Magolda is a Distinguished Professor in Educational Leadership at Miami University in Oxford,

OH. Patricia M. King is a Professor in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the

University of Michigan

492 Journal of College Student Development

BaxterMagolda&King

foundationforeducationalpracticedesignedtopromoteself-authorship.

The DeveloPMenT anD ProMoTion of SelfauThorShiPRobertKegan(1994)articulatedtheconceptofself-authorshipasthefoundationofmanyofthedemandsmodernlifeplacesonadults.Hedescribedself-authorshipas:

an ideology, an internal identity, a self-authorshipthatcancoordinate,integrate,actupon,orinventvalues,beliefs,convic-tions,generalizations,ideals,abstractions,interpersonalloyalties,andintrapersonalstates.Itisnolongerauthored bythem,itauthors them and thereby achieves apersonal authority. (p. 185, italics inoriginal)

Research confirms that this ability toauthor one’s thinking, feeling, and socialrelatingis inherentinsuccessfulfunctioninginadult life (BaxterMagolda,2001;Kegan,1994). For example, intercultural maturityrequiresthecapacitytousemultipleculturalframes, the ability to construct an internalsense of identity that is not threatened bydifference, and the capacity to engage ininterdependent relationships (Kegan, 1994;King&BaxterMagolda,2005).Synthesizingvariousnationalreportsoncomponentsof21stcentury higher education, Baxter Magolda(2004c) concluded that self-authorship wasalso the foundation for achieving manycontemporarycollegelearningoutcomes. Self-authorshipencompassesandintegratesthree dimensions of development: episte-mological, intrapersonal, and interpersonal(Kegan,1994).Theepistemologicaldimensionof development refers to how people useassumptions about the nature, limits, andcertainty of knowledge to decide what tobelieve (Kitchener,1983;Perry,1970).Self-authored persons assume knowledge is un-

certainandjudgedinlightofevidencerelevanttothecontext;theyactivelyconstruct,evaluate,and interpret judgments to develop theirinternalbeliefsystems(BaxterMagolda,2001;Kegan, 1994).Thus the cognitive maturitycalledforinintegratingdisparateinformationto make decisions requires a self-authoredbeliefsystem(BaxterMagolda,2004c).Howpeopleuse assumptions aboutknowledge tocraft beliefs is closely related to how theyconstructtheiridentities,ortheintrapersonaldevelopmental dimension (Abes, Jones &McEwen, 2007; King & Baxter Magolda,1996).Justascomplexknowledgeconstructionrequires integrating disparate information,complexidentityconstructionrequiresintegrat-ingvariouscharacteristicstoformacoherentidentity (Jones & McEwen, 2000). Self-authoredpersonshavetheabilitytoexplore,reflect on, and internally choose enduringvalues to form their identities rather thandoingsobysimplyassimilatingexpectationsofexternalothers(Kegan,1994).Theythenusethisinternalidentitytointerpretandguidetheir experiences and actions.This internalidentitythatisnotoverlydependentonothersisacrucialaspectofstandingupforone’sownbeliefs (an aspect of cognitive maturity).Similarly, it is a crucial aspect of maturerelationships (the interpersonal dimension)that require respect for both self and other.Self-authoredpersonshavethedevelopmentalcapacityforinterdependence,ortheabilitytorespectone’sownandothers’needs,negotiatemultipleperspectives,andengageingenuinelymutual relationships (Kegan, 1994).Thus,self-authorshiponallthreedimensionsreflectsthe integrated developmental capacities thatare inherent in the cognitive, identity, andrelational maturity required for collegegraduates to be effective workers, parents,familymembers,andcitizens(BaxterMagolda,2004c).


Interview Strategies for Assessing Self-Authorship

The Journey Toward Selfauthorship

Multipletheoriesofcollegestudentdevelop-ment suggest that many students have beensocializedtodependonexternalotherssuchas authorities and peers for their beliefs,identity,andrelationshipconstructions.Theyoften see knowledge as certain and acceptauthority’s knowledge claims uncritically,whichleavesthemnointernalbasisformakingjudgments (BaxterMagolda,1992;Belenky,Clinchy,Goldberger&Tarule,1986;King&Kitchener,1994;Perry,1970).Theirrelianceon peers and others for approval yields anidentitythatissusceptibletoexternalpressurerather than one based on internally chosenvalues (Abes & Jones, 2004; Chickering &Reisser, 1993; Josselson, 1987). In relation-shipswithsignificantothers,theseindividualsoften sacrifice their own needs to meetperceivedexpectations(Gilligan,1982;Kegan,1994)orrelyonsocialconventionsasthebasisfordecisionmaking(Kohlberg,1984).Usingthiscombinationofassumptionsandchoices,studentstendtofollowexternalformulasforgainingknowledge,establishingidentity,andengaginginrelationshipswithothers(BaxterMagolda,2001).Collegeexperiencesusuallychallengethisauthoritydependencebyinvit-inglearnerstodeveloptheirownpurposesandmeaning. The resulting tension betweeninternal and external influence marks acrossroads (Baxter Magolda, 2001) wherelearners struggle to sort through multipleperspectivestochoosetheirownbeliefs.Theyrecognizetheneedtoestablishtheiridentityinternally and to extract themselves fromoverlydependentrelationships,butbothtasksaremoreeasilyrecognizedthanaccomplished.Participants in Baxter Magolda’s (2001) 20-yearlongitudinalstudyspentmostoftheir20sworkingtheirwaythroughthecrossroadstoachieveself-authorship.Kegan(1994)notedthatonehalftotwothirdsofthepersonsinhis

researchhadyettoachieveself-authorship. Self-authorship is possible, albeit notprevalent, incollege.Pizzolato(2003,2004,2005)foundthatdissonanceandprovocativeexperiences prompted college students whowereathighriskforwithdrawalfromcollegetobegin to internallydefine their goals andidentities.Torres’s (2003,Torres & BaxterMagolda,2004)longitudinalstudyofLatino/acollegestudentsrevealedthatearlyexperiencewithdiversityandracismpromptedthemtobe more open to multiple perspectives.Similarly,Abes’s(2003;Abes&Jones,2004)longitudinal study illustrated that lesbiancollegestudents’experienceofdiscriminationofferedanopportunityforthemtoself-authortheir identities and beliefs.These studiessuggest that dissonance and experiences ofdiscrimination help students recognize amismatch between external influences andtheir internalvoicesandstimulate reflectionon how to grapple with and reconcile thismismatch.Thusadversity,ifaccompaniedbysupport, can promote the journey towardself-authorship. However, the potential for promotingself-authorshipincollegefarexceedsthedegreetowhichithasbeenprevalentamongcollegestudents, perhaps due to the need for moreintentional support for what Kegan (1994)callsthechallengingcurriculumofadultlife.We turn next to current efforts to promoteself-authorship during college; this sets thestage for using interview strategies to assessandpromoteself-authorship.

Current efforts to Promote Selfauthorship in CollegePromoting development involves respectingstudents’currentmeaningmakingandusingit as a startingpoint to identify appropriatechallenges that prompt students to considermorecomplexperspectives(BaxterMagolda,2004b;Kegan,1994;King&BaxterMagolda,


BaxterMagolda&King

1996).Thus, designing educational practicetopromoteself-authorshipnecessitatesassess-ing students’ current epistemological, intra-personal, and interpersonaldevelopment. Inturn,judgingtheeffectivenessofeducationalpracticeinpromotingself-authorshiprequiressome means of assessing students’ develop-mentalprogress. Effortstoprovideintentionalsupportforcollege students to develop self-authorshipshow promise.The Learning PartnershipsModel (LPM), which emerged from BaxterMagolda’s participants’ stories about condi-tions that enabled them to develop self-authorship, has been successfully used indiverse settings to promote self-authorshipduring college (Baxter Magolda & King,2004).The model proposes creating suchconditions through supporting learners’currentdevelopmentbyvalidatingtheirabilitytoknow,situatinglearningintheirexperience,anddefininglearningasamutualprocess.Itsimultaneously challenges learners towardtransformation by portraying knowledge ascomplexandsociallyconstructed,emphasizingselfascentraltoknowledgeconstruction,andsharing authority and expertise in mutualconstruction of knowledge.The LPM hasservedastheframeworkforasemester-lengthcultural immersion program (Yonkers-Talz,2004),ahighereducationgraduateprogram(Rogers,Magolda,BaxterMagolda,&KnightAbowitz,2004), anhonorscollege (Haynes,2006),a4-yearwritingcurriculum(Haynes,2004), a 2-year core curriculum coursesequence(Bekken&Marie,2007),anurbanleadershipinternshipprogram(Egart&Healy,2004),andanacademicadvisingprogramforstudents in academic difficulty (Pizzolato,2006;Pizzolato&Ozaki,2007).Ineachcase,studentsmadeprogresstowardself-authorship,althoughthedegreeofprogressvarieddepend-ing on their initial meaning making, theintensityofthechallenges involved,andthe

durationoftheexperience.TheLPMhasbeenused in conjunction with other models toguide a diversity course (Hornak & Ortiz,2004)andcommunitystandardsinresidentiallife (Piper & Buckley, 2004); in both casesprogresstowardself-authorshipoccurred.Themodelhasbeenusedinlargerscaleeffortsinfacultyandcurriculumdevelopment(Wildman,2004) and the reorganization of a studentaffairsdivisiontowardalearningorganization(Mills & Strong, 2004). Collectively theseeffortsunderscorethepotentialforpromotingself-authorshipduringcollege. Educationalpracticesthatareintentionallydesigned to foster self-authorshipholdgreatpromise for higher education’s success inhelpingstudentsachievecontemporarylearn-ing outcomes. To realize this potential,assessingprogressonself-authorshipiscrucial.Wenowturntobasicpremisesregardinghowto assess the complex phenomenon of self-authorship and a detailed discussion of twointerview strategies that have been usedsuccessfully to do so in higher educationsettings.

BaSiC TeneTS of aSSeSSing SelfauThorShiPRobertKegan(1994)portraysdevelopmentas“theevolutionofconsciousness,thepersonalunfolding of ways of organizing experiencethatarenotsimplyreplacedaswegrowbutsubsumed into more complex systems ofmind”(p.9).Thecomplexityofthisevolutionrequires a complex approach to assessment.Numerousconstructive-developmental theo-rists have worked extensively to access theunderlyingmeaning-makingstructuresbehindintellectual (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992;Belenkyetal.,1986;King&Kitchener,1994;Perry,1970),ego(e.g.,Loevinger&Wessler,1970),andmoral (e.g.,Gibbs&Widaman,1982;Gilligan,1982;Kohlberg,1984;Rest,Narvaez,Bebeau,&Thoma,1999)develop-



ment.MostoftheseeffortsemphasizePiaget’sflexibleandinquisitivemethodclinique(Gibbs&Widaman)orexploreill-structuredproblems(King&Kitchener).AsKing(1990)noted,assessmentiscomplicatedbecauseindividualsoften use more than one meaning-makingstructure at a time, andprefer (recognize asbetter)statementsusingreasoningstructuresthataremorecomplexthanwhattheyareabletoproduceindependently.Thesecomplicationsarealso inherent inassessing self-authorshipas it incorporates similar dimensions ofdevelopment.

Selfauthorship as a ConstructiveDevelopmental PhenomenonTheories of self-authorship reflect a con-structive-developmental tradition (Kegan,1982,1994).Thistraditionholdsthathumansactivelyconstructtheirperspectivesbyinter-pretingtheirexperiences(i.e.,constructivism)and that these constructions formmeaning-makingstructuresthatevolveovertime(i.e.,developmentalism).Piaget’s (1950)workoncognitivestructuresstandsatthecoreofthistraditionandmanytheoriesofcollegestudentcognitivedevelopmentincorporatehisnotionthatdevelopmentoccurswhendissonancewithone’s current meaning-making structurepromptsconsiderationofnew,morecomplexstructures(BaxterMagolda,1992;Belenkyetal., 1986; King & Kitchener, 1994; Perry,1970).Kegan(1982)extendedthisnotiontoanintegratedviewofdevelopmentinwhichepistemological, intrapersonal, and inter-personal dimensions of development areinterwoven. Recent research reveals thatdissonance in any of these dimensions caninitiatedevelopment(Abes,2003;Pizzolato,2005;Torres,2003). Workinthistraditionispredicatedonthepremise that people approach and interprettheir experiences using particular meaning-making structures (e.g., external formulas,

crossroads,self-authorship)tomakesenseof,orinterpret,theirexperiences.Kegan(1982)emphasizedthatindividualsmakemeaninginthespacebetweentheirexperiencesandtheirreactionstotheexperiences—“theplacewheretheevent isprivatelycomposed,madesenseof,theplacewhereitactuallybecomesaneventforthatperson”(p.2,italicsinoriginal).Tounderstandandassessthesemeaning-makingstructures,researchersmustlearnhowpeoplemade sense of an experience andwhat con-structionsoftheworld,self,andothersundergirdthatinterpretation.Tofurthercomplicateassessment,ineachmeaning-makingstructurethereareelementsindividualsareawareofandhave control over (what Kegan calls object)and elements that have control over them(whatKegancallssubject).Objectis“distinctenoughfromusthatwecandosomethingwithit” (Kegan, 1994, p. 32); subject “refers tothoseelementsofourknowingororganizingthatweareidentifiedwith,tiedto,fusedwith,or embedded in. We have object; we aresubject” (Kegan, 1994, p. 32, italics inoriginal).Forexample,relationshipsareoftensubject for college students because they soclosely identifywithwhat theirpeersexpectof them. Although they can articulate theirpersonalneeds(ofwhichtheyareawareandhave control), they can be unaware of thedegree to which how they construe peerrelationshipsdictatestheiridentity,decisions,and actions.Thus assessing the meaning-makingstructuresinthejourneytowardself-authorship requires unearthing both objectandsubjectaspectsofmeaningmaking.

implications for assessing SelfauthorshipKegan(1994)usestheSubject-ObjectInterview(SOI;Lahey,Souvaine,Kegan,Goodman&Felix,1988)toassessself-authorship.TheSOIis based on two discoveries from his earlierresearch:thetypesofcontentareasthatreveal


BaxterMagolda&King

subject-object informationand thenecessitythat the interviewee have ready access toreflections about these areas. Productivecontentareasincludeanger,anxiety,success,orchange.Ifaskedgoodprobingquestionstoexplorehowtheyexperiencedthesephenom-ena, interviewees could explain how theyconstructed their sense of self. Intervieweeswhowereactivelyexperiencingproblemshadready access to this self-referential material,whereaspeoplewhowerenotactivelyexperi-encingproblemsdidnot.Thus,theSOIbeginswithaskingintervieweestorecordnoteson10cardswiththewords“anger,anxious/nervous,success, strong stand/conviction, sad, torn,moved/touched, lost something, change,importanttome”(Laheyetal.,p.291)to“fill”the respondent with self-referential materialfortheinterview.Oncetheinterviewbegins,theintervieweechooseswhichcardstoexplore,and only a few cards are actually discussedbecause the key to conducting a qualityinterview is accessing the meaning-makingstructure underlying any experience theintervieweeregardsasimportant. Anotherkeycharacteristicof theSOI isthe complex role of the interviewer (Laheyetal.,1988).Becauseeachrespondentproducesunique material, the interviewer constructsquestionsinthecontextofwhattherespondentintroduces.Theinterviewer’sprimarytaskisto explore how the interviewees constructthemselves to yield the interpretations theinterviewees share.To achieve this task, theinterviewer must listen actively to identifyquestionsthatwilllocatetheboundariesoftheinterviewee’s assumptions about knowledge,self,andrelationships.Askingaboutareasinwhichapersonisstrugglingismorelikelytoyieldinformationaboutthatperson’s“leadingedge”ofdevelopment(theboundaries)ratherthan those areas in which the individual issettled(thecentraltendencyortypicalwayofresolvingissues).Anunderlyingpremiseofthis

strategy is that there is variability in anindividual’s repertoire of responses and thattheinterviewershouldexplorethisrange.Prod-dingintervieweestodigintotheirassumptionsrequiressympatheticandsupportivelisteningto letthemknowthatthe interviewerheardandunderstoodwhattheyalreadyshared.Thissort of listening is crucial to building therapportthatassistsintervieweesinsubstantiveself-reflection. Manyofthecoreassumptionsinherentinthe SOI are consistent with constructivistperspectives on qualitative interviewing anddevelopmentalassessment.Theconstructivistparadigm,whichdescribesrealitiesasmultiple,socially constructed, context-bound, andmutually shaped by the interaction of theresearcherandparticipant(Lincoln&Guba,2000), is consistent with basic tenets of anintegratedviewofdevelopment toward self-authorship.Anindividual’sparticularmeaningmakingisofparamountimportance(Kegan,1982; Rubin & Rubin, 2005) from thisperspective. Constructive-developmentaltheoristsoftenemphasizetappingintoreal-lifesituationsandallowingintervieweestochoosethe context and content of the interview toelicittheiruniquemeaningmaking.Similarly,afocusonmeaningmakingcontentistypicalin constructivist-developmental research toaccess meaning constructed in particularcontexts.Acknowledgingthattheinterviewisacontextformeaningconstructioninandofitself, constructivist researchers regard theinterview as a partnership in which theinterviewer and interviewee engage in aconversation to construct meaning (BaxterMagolda, 2004a; Kvale, 1996; Rubin &Rubin).Constructive-developmentalresearch-ershaveused various formsofunstructured(Fontana&Frey,2000)orinformalconver-sational (Patton,2001) interviews toengageinterviewees inexploringassumptionsaboutknowledge,self,andrelationswithothers(e.g.,



BaxterMagolda,2001;Belenkyetal.,1986;Perry,1970).Theseinterviewsreflectrespon-sive interviewing inwhich“the researcher isrespondingtoandthenaskingfurtherques-tions about what he or she hears from theinterviewees rather than relying on prede-terminedquestions”(Rubin&Rubinp.vii).HolsteinandGubrium’s(2003)activeinterviewalso reflects this interpretive practice asinterviewerandintervieweeproducemeaningthroughtheirinteraction. Thiscursoryoverviewofself-authorshiptheoryandconstructivistinterviewingrevealsthecomplexityofassessinghumandevelopmentin general and self-authorship in particular.Thiscomplexityhashamperedeffortstoassessself-authorship through questionnaires.Pizzolato’s (2007) 24-item Self-AuthorshipSurvey(SAS),constructedbytranslatingthethreedimensionsofself-authorshipintoskillsets,revealsthedegreetowhichrespondentsagreewithhowcloselythestatementsreflecttheir typical ways of thinking and acting.Coupledwithanexperiencequestionnairethatallows respondents towritenarratives aboutimportantexperiences,theSASassessesbothself-authoredreasoningandaction.Pizzolato(2007)reporteddilemmasinthisassessmentprocess includingrespondentswritingaboutdecisions in which their actions were con-strained by others and using language thatmade it difficult to ascertain self-authoredreasoning.CreamerandLaughlin(2005)andLaughlinandCreamer(2007)usedanopen-endedinterviewandaquestionnairetoassessself-authorshipinthearenaofcareerdecisionmaking among college women.They foundthat the interview revealed how studentsconstructed their consultation with othersaboutcareerdecisions,whereasthequestion-naire provided information about those thestudentsconsulted.Thusacquiringsufficientdetailtoidentifyunderlyingmeaning-makingstructuresmayrequireinterviewapproaches.

Thebasictenetsofself-authorshiptheoryandconstructiveinterviewinghavealsoguidedtwointerviewstrategiesdevelopedtoassessyoungadultdevelopmentlongitudinally.Wediscusseachofthesenexttoofferreadersexamplesofstrategies to assess self-authorship in youngadultpopulations.

STraTegieS To aSSeSS SelfauThorShiP: Two exaMPleSexample 1: Baxter Magolda’s longitudinal Selfauthorship interviewTheoriginalinterviewBaxterMagolda(1992)used in her longitudinal study assessedepistemologicaldevelopment.Thiswasappro-priatetotheinitialportionofthestudy’sfocuson the role of gender in epistemologicaldevelopment. Baxter Magolda started theinterview with a version of Perry’s (1970)broad opening question, asking participantsto describe their most significant learningexperienceoftheyearasawaytoinvitethemto frame the conversation. Exploring whyparticularexperienceswereimportantyieldedassumptions about the nature, limits, andcertaintyofknowledge.Additionaltopicsusedtopromptconversationincludedparticipants’expectations of instructors and peers inlearning, how learners’ learned best, whatcocurricular experiences promoted learning,and how they had handled any conflictinginformation they had encountered. Thislearningfocuswaseffectiveduringthecollegephaseofthestudy,butparticipantsfounditless useful after their graduation when theywanted to talk about a broader range ofexperiences. Participants’ request to talk about theirpost-collegeexperiencemorebroadlychangedthefocusofthestudyfromtheone-dimensionalfocusonepistemologytoamultidimensionalfocus that included intrapersonal and inter-personaldevelopmentandeventuallyyieldedapictureofself-authorship(BaxterMagolda,


BaxterMagolda&King

2001).Givingparticipantsgreaterfreedomofexpressionyieldedaninformalconversationalinterview (Patton, 2001) that began withparticipantsofferingasummaryofthepreviousyear,thenproceedingtoshareexperiencestheyfeltwere significant.Abandoning the earlierconversation topics in favor of probes thatencouragedparticipantstomakemeaningoftheirexperiencesallowedtheirmostimportantconcernstoemergefreely.Theseconcernsorreflectionsmakeupthebulkoftheapproxi-mately 90-minute interview. Follow-upquestions to deepen understanding of thedevelopmentunderlyingthesereflectionselicita description of the experience, why it isimportant to the participant, and how itaffectedherorhim.Everydayconversationalquestionssuchas“tellmemoreaboutthat”or“helpmeunderstandwhyyoureactedinthatway”helpparticipantsclarifyandmakeexplicittheir meaning.The closing segment of theinterviewisatimeforparticipantstoaddanyother observations they wish to share, talkabouthowtheircurrentperspectivesrelatetothose shared in the previous year, and askquestionsabouttheproject. During their 20s, participants werestrugglingwith threemajor questions:HowdoIknow,whoamI,andwhatrelationshipsdoIwantwithothers(BaxterMagolda,2001).Most encountered the crossroads at whichothers’ expectations of them and their ownemergingvaluesconflictedduringtheirearly20s. Free flowing conversation about thecontextsinwhichthesetensionsoccurred(e.g.,advanced education, employment, personaland community life) and how participantshandledthesetensionsenabledBaxterMagolda(2001) to identifypossiblepathways towardself-authorship, the nature of the threedimensionsofself-authorship,andtheenviron-mental characteristics that promoted self-authorship.AnexampleinterviewexcerptinwhichAndrewtalksabouttheimpactofhis

mother’s death reveals the richness of parti-cipants’reflections:

I just found myself in so many wayschanged,justthewayIapproachedandreactedtothings.IthinkIdeeplychangedbecausemyMomwasprobablymybestfriend.Formeitwasjustadrasticchangeinmylife,evenjustbeyondlosingafamilymember. It’s kind of hard to pinpointexactlywhatitmademedo.ButIthinkitoddlyenoughmademerealizethatI,inaway,hadnobodyelsetoleanonandIhadto,Iguess,pickmyselfupbymybootstraps.Myfather’sstillalive.HewasnevertheonethatI’dleantoforsupport.So I found myself going a lot more tointernal support, congratulating myselfforagoodjob,anddoingthingstopleasemyself rather than to please somebodyelse. If I got a B on something, but Ithought I had done a good job, I wasmuchmorecomfortableandabletodealwithitbecauseIknewIhadgivenitmybest. I guess in away I just felt, “Well,that’s just one other person’s opinion.”Pushing myself internally made the A’scomeeasierbecauseImighthavesetmyownpersonal standardshigher. It’skindofhardtopinpointexactlyhowitaffectedme.(BaxterMagolda,2001,p.130)

ThelossofhismotherpushedAndrewtoturninward.Althoughhecouldhaveshiftedtohisfatherforsupport,hewasabletotakeup that responsibility himself. Even in thisextremelyshortexcerptitispossibletoseehowAndrewinterpretedthisexperienceandwhatitmeantforhowhecametoviewhimselfandtheworld. Baxter Magolda’s Self-Authorship Inter-view(2001)invitesparticipantstoidentifythecontentfortheinterviewandsharereflectionsin areasof importance to them.This allowsformultiple,context-boundrealitiestoemergeastheinterviewerlistenstoeachindividual’sunique meaning making perspective.Theinterviewerworks inpartnershipwith inter-



viewees to explore the epistemological,intrapersonal,andinterpersonalassumptionsbehind their reflections. Encouraging theintervieweetoexploreissuesdeeplymeanstheinterviewermustoccasionallyrefineorreframequestionsthathaveyieldedsuperficialresponsestoassesswhethertheintervieweewillproducemoresubstantiveresponseswithsuchencour-agement.This kind of questioning is mostsuccessfulwhenthereissufficientrapporttosustainthechallengeofnotbeinglet“offthehook”bygivingasuperficialanswer.Duetothe 20-year duration of this study, rapportbetween the interviewer and participants isstrong and superficial responses are rare.Additionally,participantsfeelacommitmenttohelpothersunderstandtheirexperiencesinways that will assist future generations ofcollegestudents. Variations of Baxter Magolda’s Self-Authorship Interview (2001) arebeingusedto longitudinally assess the effects on self-authorshipofaculturalimmersionexperience(Yonkers-Talz,2004)andanurbanleadershipprogram (Egart & Healy, 2004). In theseinstances, interviewers have substantiverelationships with participants that increasethe effectiveness of the interview strategybecause participants are willing to reflectdeeplyandsharetheirperspectivesopenly.Thisinterviewstrategyalsoservesasthefoundationfrom which the interview strategy for theWabash National Study of Liberal ArtsEducation was constructed, representing anopportunitytoexploretheeffectivenessofthisapproachwheninterviewersandintervieweeshavenopriorrelationship.

example 2: The wabash national Study of liberal arts education interview

TheinterviewportionoftheWabashNationalStudyofLiberalArtsEducation(WNSLAE;fundedbytheCenterofInquiryintheLiberal

ArtsatWabashCollege)isintendedtotracehow students develop on seven liberal artsoutcomes as well as the underlying journeytowardself-authorship.TheoverallWNSLAEstudy focuses on the development of sevenoutcomes associated with undergraduateliberal arts education and the educationalconditions and experiences that foster theseoutcomes (Blaich & King, 2005). “Theoverarchinggoalofaliberalartseducationistoprovidestudentswiththenecessaryskillstoconstructlivesofsubstanceandachievement,helpingthemtobecomewisecitizens”(Centerof Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at WabashCollege, 2007b). Outcomes identified ascentral to wise citizenship include: effectivereasoningandproblemsolving,inclinationtoinquire and lifelong learning, integration oflearning,interculturaleffectiveness,leadership,moralreasoningandcharacter,andwell-being(seeCenterofInquiry intheLiberalArtsatWabashCollege,2007a,fordefinitionsoftheseoutcomesandKing,KendallBrown,Lindsay&VanHecke,inpress,forhowtheseoutcomeswerechosen).Theseoutcomesareinterrelatedandgrowthononeislikelytoaffectgrowthonanother.Thethreedimensionsofdevelop-ment—epistemological, intrapersonal, andinterpersonal—are inherent in students’growthontheseoutcomes.Wisecitizenship,the culmination of complexity on theseoutcomes,requiresself-authorship.

ConCePTual founDaTion of The wnSlae inTerviewStudentscometothecollegeexperiencewithuniquecharacteristicsincludingtheirpersonalhistories and meaning-making structures.Thesecharacteristicsmediatetheeducationalexperiences they choose (e.g., curricular,cocurricular, personal life) and how theyengage inthoseexperiences, includingthosethat are required rather than chosen. Howstudentsengageinexperiencesmediateshow


BaxterMagolda&King

they make sense of them to inform theirunderstandingofknowledge,self,andsocialrelations. For example, a student with lowself-confidenceandnointernalvoicewilllikelyengageinalearningexperiencefeelinginferiortoauthorityfigures,whichinturnresultsininterpretingwhattheauthorityfiguresaysanddoesas“true”or“right.”Students’interpreta-tions of experience determine their growthtoward epistemological, intrapersonal, andinterpersonalmaturity.Justaswearguedearlierin this article that self-authorship is thefoundation of contemporary learning out-comes, we conceptualized self-authorship asthefoundationundergirdingthesevenliberalarts outcomes. The WNSLAE interviewstrategywascraftedtoelicitstudents’character-istics,thenatureoftheeducationalexperiencestheyviewedassignificant,andhowtheymadesenseof thoseexperiences.Ourapproach totheinterviewtakesintoaccounttheintegratednatureofthethreedevelopmentaldimensionsaswell as the integratednatureof the sevenliberalartsoutcomes.Collectively,thesedatarevealed students’ progress on the threedevelopmentaldimensions,thesevenoutcomes,andinterconnectionsamongdimensionsandoutcomes(BaxterMagoldaetal.,2007).

underlying Structure of the interview ConversationWeorganizedtheinterviewintothreesegmentsto give respondents maximum freedom toidentifyrelevantcontentyetenableinterviewerstoelicitinformationabouttheconditionsthatfoster growth on the seven outcomes, wisecitizenship,andself-authorship.Theinterviewisorganizedto“trigger”responsesrelevanttoouroverarchingpurposebutdoesnotcontainastructuredsetofquestionsforeachoutcome.Although an interview strategy is outlinedhere,themainsegmentsoftheinterviewareconstructed “in situ”—as the conversationunfolds.The opening segment (following

standardinformedconsentpreliminaries)wasguided by our interest in how students’entering characteristics (i.e., ways of con-structing knowledge, self, relationships;personal history) affect achievement of ordevelopmenttowardself-authorshipandwisecitizenship.Theinterviewerinvitesrespondentstosharetheirbackgroundasawaytobecomebetter acquainted. If necessary, intervieweesareaskedtoshareexpectationstheybroughttothecurrentcollegeyearandeventuallytheconversationturnstotheextenttowhichthoseexpectationsmatchedwhattheyexperiencedthus far.Throughout this segment,which isintendedtotake20to30minutes,interviewersaskforclarificationandelicitmeaningmakingwith conversational prompts such as “Howso?”or“Helpmeunderstandmoreabouthowthatexperiencedidn-’tmatchwithwhatyouexpected.” Thesecond,andprimary,portionoftheinterviewaddressesourinterestintheeduca-tional experiences students regard as key totheirdevelopmenttowardself-authorshipandwise citizenship and why these particularexperiencesarerelevant.Interviewersseektounderstand how students make meaning oftheseeducationalexperiences(theinteractionof their personal meaning making and theeducationalexperience)toachieveordeveloptoward self-authorship and wise citizenship.Interviewersdonotintroduceself-authorship,wise citizenship, or the seven outcomes butinsteadinvitestudentstoidentifymeaningfulexperiencesthatcontributetotheirgrowthincollege.Theythenengagestudentsinconver-sation,askingstudentstodescribetheirexperi-ences; explain how they made sense of theexperiences; anddiscusshow the experienceaffectedthewaytheydecidewhattobelieve,howtoviewthemselves,andhowtoconstructrelationswithothers.Possibleways to assistintervieweesinreflectingontheirexperiencesinclude asking about their most significant



experience, their best or worst experiences,challenges or dilemmas they encountered,situationsinwhichtheywereunsureofwhatwasright,theirsupportsystems,conflictsorpressures theyencountered,and interactionswith people who differ from them.Theseprobeshelpkeepthefocusonhowthestudenthascometounderstandtheseexperiencesasawayofaccessinghisorhermeaning-makingstructures. When the previous segment comes to anaturalcloseortimeisshort,theinterviewershiftstotheclosingsegmentoftheinterviewfortheremaining15to20minutesofthe90-minute interview.This segment elicits therespondents’synthesisoftheirexperiencesandmeaningmaking.Theinterviewersummarizessome of the content of the interview, theninvitesrespondentstoconsiderhowtheyare“puttingitalltogether”orwhattheyaretakingawayfromtheyearthathasjustbeendiscussed.Possiblewaystoassistrespondentsinthistaskincludeexploringhowtheircollectiveexperi-enceshaveshapedwhattheybelieve,whotheyare, and how they relate to others; whatinsights they are taking away from theircollectiveexperiences;whattheygainedfromthepastyear;theimplicationsorconsequencesoftheirinsightsfromthepastyear;issuestheseexperiencesraise;andhowthisyear’sexperiencehashelpedthemconsidertheirhopesforthecomingyear.Theconversationcloseswithonelastinvitationtoshareanyotherobservationsand the opportunity to ask questions abouttheproject.

use of the wnSlae interviewWehaveusedthisinterviewstrategyinboththecrosssectionalpilotstudyandsubsequentlongitudinalstudyfortheWNSLAE.Thepilotstudy was conducted in 2005 with 174students;thissampleincluded65.5%first-andsecond-year students, 34.5% seniors, 66%women,and80%Caucasiansattendingfour

institutionsthatdifferedbytype(acommunitycollege, a liberal arts college, a regionalcomprehensive university, and a researchintensiveuniversity)andbysize(enrollmentsrangedfrom1,300to39,000).Basedonthesuccessofthisinterviewstrategyinthepilotstudy,wethenmadesomeminorrevisionsandused it in the first year of the WNSLAElongitudinalstudywith315first-yearstudentson six campuses across the nation.Trainedmembersoftheresearchteamconductedtheinterviewsonsiteateachoftheparticipatingcampuses. As designed, the interviews were con-structed within context and thus varied byinterviewer and interviewee.The three seg-mentsworkedeffectivelytoelicitdataonstu-dentcharacteristics,meaningful experiences,and participants’ interpretations of thoseexperiences. Rich data also emerged aboutgrowthonthesevenoutcomes(althoughnoteveryparticipantspoketoeveryoutcome)andself-authorship.The short interview excerptthatfollows,whichreflectsapproximatelyonepageofa24-pageinterviewtranscript, illus-trates the degree to which the intervieweeself-authors what she believes, how she seesherself, and how she interacts with others.Afterexploringtheinterviewee’sexperienceinaclassonalternativemedicine inwhichshestruggledtobeopen-minded,theintervieweevolunteered that she was concerned aboutbeingmoreopen-mindedatcollegeandwasfindingthatshewasexpressingherselfmore.Thatledtothisexchange:

Interviewer(I):Yousaidcominghereyouwerealittleapprehensiveandthatmaybeyou were doing it [being more open-minded]moreherethaninhighschool.Whatdoyouthinkmakesyouwillingtodoitmore?

Student(S):YeahIthinkitmightevenbegrowingup.Umm,IthinkinhighschoolIcan’t say that Iwasafraidof,ofgoing


BaxterMagolda&King

against what people thought, but itdefinitelywasn’tsomethingthat—ImeanunlessIfelttrulyvery,verystronglyaboutsomethingwhichIdidn’t,Idon’tthinkIfeltthatstronglyaboutreallyanythinginhighschool.Umm,Ijustdidn’thaveanyreasontoandforthemostpart,Imean,notalways,butItendtoagreewiththemajorityorIdon’t,youknow.SoIthinkitwaskindofachallengeheretotaketheobscureviewpointsbecauseI,Iknewthatsomewhere on campus someone didbelieve that. Umm and I was reallyinterestedtofigureoutwhyorwhat,whatsupportedthat,so...yeahIthinkitwasprobably just growing up and feelingstrongly about something and under-standingthatotherpeoplereally—Iguessinhigh school Inever saw anyonewhofeltthatstronglyaboutanythingbuthereyouseeitallthetimeandit’s,it’skindofhardtodealwithbutit’sreallyrefreshingtoo,so....

I:Soitsoundslikeinhighschoolitwasalittlebitmorebecauseofthehomogenouskindofgroup?

S:YeahIthinkso.Yeah.

I:Andsohavingpeopledifferentthanyouherehasallowedyoutoexploreyourownpositionsalittlemore.

S:Ohyeah,even,evenpeoplethatwereof,ofdifferentraceorethnicityatmyhighschoolbasicallyhavethesameviewpoints.They’re—how everybody’s parentsworkforthechemicalplantanditwasavery,very religious, very Republican town.UmmandIfeellikeevenifyoudisagreedwithit,evenyouwerelikeDemocraticordidn’tbelieveinGod,youtendednottosayanythingjustbecausetherewassuchanoverwhelmingmajoritythatitwouldreallymakeyoufeellikeanoutsider.AndI think I did probably feel that way acouple times but again I didn’t feelstronglyenoughaboutwhatIbelievedintoreallymakeanissueoutofitandIjustfeltlikeitwouldpass.AndIthinkonce

I gothere, I saw thatpeople youknowhad the same views but weren’t afraid,kindoflikeIwasandIthinkitwasreallyjustamatterofgrowingupand[being]willingtostandupforwhatIthought,so....

I:Sohowhasthisenvironmentsupportedyourabilitytodothat,tothink,tospeakuporto...?

S:Ithink,honestlyIthinkseeingeveryoneelse do it has helped. Especially as afreshmanummIyouknowyouseeotherpeopleyouknowbeingwillingtotalkandyou say, well I, I agree with you and Ithinkitsparksupalotofconversations.Ithinkpeoplearemoreopentohearingdifferent views even if they don’t agreewithit.Andnot,noteveryone,ofcoursebutIknowIfeelmoreopentolisteningto different views and I think a lot ofpeoplearelikethatsoIfeellikeyouwon’tjust be disregarded because you havedifferent views by any means. Umm, Ithinkthat’swhatmakesthisschoolwhatit is, is its differences and its variousculturalaspectsandthingslikethat.SoIthinkit’sdefinitelyalotmorewelcomedthanitwouldhavebeen.(B02)

This student understands multiple per-spectivesexist,andshedesiresto learnwhatsupportsvariousviewpoints.Exploringdiverseviewpointswasnewtoherbecausethesewerenotprevalentinherhighschoolenvironment.Herdescriptionofnotdisagreeingwithothersinhighschooltoavoidbeingmadeanoutsiderandfeelingabletodisagreeincollegebecauseit was welcomed conveys her reliance onexternal others for her sense of herself.Cognitively,sheisopentoexploringknowl-edgeclaimsandestablishingherownviews.Intrapersonally and interpersonally, she stillreliesontheexternalenvironmenttoenableher to express herself.This iswhy shefindspeoplefeelingstronglyaboutsomethinghardtodealwithbutalsorefreshing.Assheexplains



elsewhere in the interview, her interest inunderstandingdiverseperspectivesledhertoassumeleadershiprolesinsupportofcampusdiversityefforts.Herobservationsaboutherreactionstoencounteringdifferentperspectivesinhighschoolandcollege,alongwithhernewleadershiprolesindiversitycontexts,suggestthat she is moving toward interculturalmaturity.Thuseveninthisveryshortexcerpt,hermeaningmakingonallthreedimensionsand the intercultural effectiveness outcome(one component of wise citizenship) isevident. Thegroundedtheoryanalysis(Charmaz,2006) conducted on these data support theutility of the interview in eliciting students’meaningmakingonthesevenoutcomesandself-authorship (King, inpress). In thepilotstudy,fouroverarchingthemesemergedamongtheexperiencesthatresultedindevelopmentalgrowth.Theeffectsoftheseexperienceswerecharacterized as promoting: (a) increasedawareness, understanding, and openness todiversity;(b)explorationandestablishmentofthebasisforone’sbeliefs,choices,andactions;(c)developmentofasenseofself/identitytoguideone’schoices;and(d)increasedaware-nessandopennesstotakingresponsibilityforone’s own learning (Baxter Magolda et al.,2007). Inaddition,passages throughout thetranscriptsconveyedstudentinvolvementwithactivitiesthatresultedingrowthontheliberalarts outcomes. For example, there wereprevalentreportsofconfrontingmoraldilem-masaroundalcoholanddrugs,challengesinrelationships,andacademichonesty;thewaystudentsthoughtabouttheseissueswasstrong-ly related to theirmeaningmaking assump-tions(Lindsay,King,DeGraw,Barnhardt,&Baxter Magolda, 2007). For example, somedealt with these dilemmas by maintainingvalues from their upbringing (relying onexternal formulas). Others applied moralsselectively or in ways that served their own

needs,unabletobalanceother’sneedsorrightsintotheequation,butawaretheyweredoingso (mixtureof external and internal).Feweraddressedthemoraldilemmastheyfacedbyacknowledging considerations of treatingothers fairly, the difficulty of balancingcompetingneeds,orbasingtheirdecisionsonaffirmedprinciplesofconducttheyhadsetforthemselves. Similarly, the way studentsunderstooddifferencesinpoliticalaffiliation,religion,socioeconomicclassandacrosscul-turesalsoreflectedtheirunderlyingassumptionsaboutknowledge, identity,andrelationships(i.e.,meaningmaking) (Barber,DeGraw,&King,2007).Thus,althoughinterviewersdidnotexplicitlyaskaboutanyoftheoutcomes,anempiricallyderivedportraitoftheoutcomesemerged. Similarly, although we did notinquire explicitly about self-authorship, thedatarevealedapproachestostudentmeaningmakingthatreflectedthevariousphasesofthejourneytowardself-authorship.

iMPliCaTionS for PraCTiCe anD reSearChThese two interviewstrategiesareuseful forseveralpurposes:toassessself-authorshipasabasis for designing practice, to assess thedevelopmentaleffectsofpractice,toconductresearch on self-authorship, and to engagestudents in developmental conversations. Inthissection,weofferseveralobservationsfortheconsiderationofthoseinterestedinusingself-authorship interviews for any of thesepurposes.

assessment ChallengesA major challenge in these interviews isworking mutually in a partnership with theintervieweetoelicitthebestpossibledescriptions of how interviewees understand theirexperiences.Thus,inordertoproducerelevantdata,itisessentialtogivetherespondenttime,space, and encouragement to describe and


BaxterMagolda&King

interpret their experiences.The interviewermust follow the respondent’s lead, whichmakes the conversation unpredictable; thisrequiresattentiveflexibilityonthepartoftheinterviewer, who needs to understand thegroundingforthisstrategy,trusttheprocess,andbeabletoadapttopotentialvagariesthatmightarise.Thelackofstructurethataffordstherespondentthisreflectivespacecanmaketheinterviewer,andsometimestherespondent,uncomfortable. Interviewers are sometimestempted to ask additional questions to fillsilencesinwhichtherespondentisreflectingbefore speaking. Interviewers are also some-times tempted to complete respondents’sentenceswhentheyappeartobestrugglingtoarticulatetheirthinking.Inturn,respondentssometimes hesitate and ask for additionalclarificationbecausetheyareconcernedthatthey may not give the interviewer relevantinformation. For example, when Kyle, astudentinBaxterMagolda’s(1992)longitudinalstudy,wasaskedtodescribehowhe learnedbest,hesaid:“I,asafreshman,amstilllearninghow to learn in college coursework, andthereforedonotfeelthatIcouldbehandingoutadvicetoanyoneonthissubjectmatter”(p. 273). Kyle did not trust his ability toprovide meaningful information. Building apartnership in the research interview toovercomethesedilemmasiscrucialtoenableadialoguethatrevealsmeaningmaking. Active listening is essential because theinterviewer must attend to the responses tofigure out how to guide the conversationtowardmeaningmaking.Theinterviewermustalso have an in-depth understanding ofmeaningmakinginordertohearitemergingand coax it out into the dialogue naturally.Respondentsoftendescribewhat tookplaceinaparticularsituationinsteadofwhatsensethey made of this series of events. Promptssuchas,“Whatdidyoumakeofthesituation?”or“Tellmealittlemoreaboutwhyyoufound

that frustrating” invite respondents tomovebeyond a description ofwhat took place towhytheyinterpreteditthewaytheydid.Todo this effectively, the interviewer must becomfortable asking why or probing forreflection that the respondent may need tothinkaboutinordertorespond.Interviewersneed to be aware that articulating one’sreflectionscanbeintellectuallystrenuous,takestimetoverbalize,andmaynotbestatedclearlyonthefirstattempt.Listeningpatientlyandrespondingwithencouragementareimportantskills interviewersmustpractice in this role.Active listening of this sort takes mentalenergy.At the same time, the interviewer istrying to balance focusing the interview onrelevant topics and encouraging the respon-dents’ meaning making to surface. In theWNSLAE pilot study, interviewers weresometimes preoccupied with whether thedialogue would produce meaningful dataabouttheoutcomesof liberalartseducationbecause the questions did not explicitly askabout these outcomes.Althoughwe learnedthat the interviews did produce meaningfuldataabouttheoutcomes,theinterviewersweresometimesfocusedonthispotentialconcernduring the interviews, to the detriment ofelicitingdeeperinterpretationsofexperiencesfrom the students.Training interviewers toconduct self-authorship interviews involvesaddressingallofthesedilemmas. Another major challenge in interviewassessment occurs in the interpretation andsynthesis of interview data. Because eachinterviewiscreatedinsitutogiverespondentsmaximumfreedomtoexpressthemselves,notwo are alike. Coding self-authorship inter-viewsrequiresidentifyingmeaningfulunitsofconversation, labeling those units to conveytheiressenceintermsofmeaningmaking,andsortingthe labeledunits intocategories thatportray the key themes of the interviews(Charmaz,2003,2006;Patton,2001).These



keythemesformthebasisforcreatingatheory(e.g.,aboutyoungadultdevelopmentinBaxterMagolda’s(2001)longitudinalstudyorabouthow liberal arts educational experiencesmediateself-authorshipandoutcomeachieve-ment in the WNSLAE). This process ofinterpretation,oftenreferredtoasgroundedformal theory (Charmaz, 2006), is laborintensive and highly subjective despite thesystematic process through which multipleresearchersunitize,code,andcategorizedata(seeBaxterMagolda,2004aforaresearcher’sstrugglewiththisprocess).Extensivetraininginthisapproachisnecessarytoproducehigh-quality interpretation and data synthesis.Althoughthetimerequiredfortrainingandinterpreting data may initially make thesestrategies unattractive for assessing self-authorshipinroutinepractice,ourexperiencetraininggraduate studentsandotherprofes-sionals to conduct interviews and interpretdata in theWNSLAEsuggests that it isnotonly possible, but that doing so is a goodinvestmentrelativetothequalityofdataaboutthenatureandeducationalimpactofstudents’experiences.

Selfauthorship interviews: Conversations with a Developmental effectDespite these challenges, self-authorshipinterviews clearly hold benefits for studentsparticipating in these conversations.Thenatureoftheseinterviewsoffersrespondentsanopportunitytoreflectontheirexperiencesin ways that are atypical in everyday life.Processing their experience and consciouslyreflectingonitcanbringinsightstolightthatstudentsmightnototherwisehavediscovered,asevidentinthisemailtooneoftheWNSLAEinterviewers:

Ihadareallygoodtimeattheinterviewaswell.IalmostwantedtoaskiftherewasanychanceIwouldbecalledinagainforthestudyforanyfurtherquestions.Itwas

just that exciting! It also helped me seesome things that I forgot about myself,like that I believed in always helpingothersandmakingthemsmileasakid.Idothatnowanywayalmostsubconsciously,butbackthenitwasamuchbiggerdealcause I was such a big shy guy. Whowould’veguessedthatnowthough,causeI felt like I ran my mouth a mile perminuteatthatinterview!

Students in the pilot of the WNSLAEresponded so favorably to the reflectiveopportunitiesintheinterviewsthattheauthorsconstructed a Conversation Guide to assisteducatorsattheirinstitutionstocontinuetheseproductiveconversations(BaxterMagolda&King,inpress).Educatorscanusethisguidetoengagestudents inmeaningful reflectionsabouttheireducationandlives.Eitheroftheseinterviewstrategiescanbeusedasadevelop-mental conversation. Academic advisors,faculty,andstudentaffairseducatorsineveryrealm of student life can invite students toshareexperiencesthatareimportanttothem,particularlythoseLaheyetal.(1988)definedas“ripe”content—experiences that involvedchange,success,anxietyorchallenges.Inmanycases, students meet with an educator todiscussachallenge(e.g.,disciplinaryviolation),achange(e.g.,majororcareerchange),orasource of anxiety (e.g., identity crises orrelationshipissues).Constructingtheseconver-sationsusingtheinterviewstrategiesdescribedhere can make these routine conversationsopportunitiesforpromotingself-authorship. Theinterviewstrategieshighlightedhereare interventions themselves. Although thismaybedisconcerting to researcherswhodonotwish thephenomenaunder study tobecontaminatedbytheresearchprocess,thisisacceptedaspartoftheprocessinconstructive-developmentalinterviewing:Theprocessitselfaffectsdevelopmentbecauserespondentsareactively reflecting on their experiences and


BaxterMagolda&King

reflection contributes to development. Forsomeparticipants,talkingabouttheirexperi-encesoffersafirstopportunitytoverbalizehowtheyseetheworld,howtheydefinethemselves,and how they relate to others; for otherparticipants,theinterviewisthestimulusforconstructingmeaningtheyhaven’tconstructedbefore.Intheseways(andasnotedbyseveralparticipants), the interview itself may be asignificantlearningexperience.Forexample,Nedshared:

I don’t often get the opportunity forsomeonetoaskthesetoughquestionstofigureoutmyframework.Itisveryparallelto discussions with my close friend—atthebeginningIhadnoideawhatI’dsay;then I recognize things that I need tothinkmoreabout.(BaxterMagolda,2001,p.344)

Thiscommentrevealsthatself-authorshipinterviews model the Learning PartnershipsModel(BaxterMagolda,2004b)bycreatingtheconditionsnotedabovethatareconduciveto promoting self-authorship: Interviewersvalidatestudentsasknowersbyofferingrespectfortheirinterpretations,theysituatelearninginthestudents’experiencebyaskingrespon-dentstosetthecontextforwhatisimportant,andinterviewersportrayknowledgeascomplex

by asking the respondent to explain thenuancesofhowtheycametotheirparticularinterpretationorperspective.Questionsabouthow the respondent came to experiencesomethingaparticularwaysuggestthatselfiscentral to knowledge construction. Finally,mutual construction takes place throughouttheinterviewastheinterviewerreflectsbacktherespondents’ideastocometoamorethor-ough understanding.Thus these interviewsmodelthedynamicsofpracticethatpromoteself-authorship.Atthesametime,theyenableboth learners and educators to gain insightsinto learners’ meaning making that may beused to enhance the quality of educationalexperiences.Theseconversationshelplearnersprocess their experience and give educatorsaccesstothekindofeducationalexperiencesthatcanbeofferedtopromoteself-authorship—and those that don’t.Thus these interviewconversationscanbeusedbothtoassessandpromotestudentdevelopmentandincreasethelikelihood of college students achievingdesirablelearningoutcomes.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to

Marcia B. Baxter Magolda, Distinguished Professor,

Educational Leadership, 300D McGuffey Hall, Miami

University, Oxford, OH 45056; [email protected]

referenCeSAbes, E. S. (2003). The dynamics of lesbian college students’

multiple dimensions of identity. Unpublished doctoraldissertation,TheOhioStateUniversity.

Abes,E.S.,&Jones,S.R.(2004).Meaning-makingcapacityand the dynamics of lesbian college students’ multipledimensionsof identity.Journal of College Student Develop-ment, 45(6),612-632.

Abes,E.S.,Jones,S.R.,&McEwen,M.K.(2007).Recon-ceptualizingtheModelofMultipleDimensionsofIdentity:Theroleofmeaning-makingcapacityintheconstructionofmultipleidentities.Journal of College Student Development, 48(1),1-22.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2002).Greater expectations: A new vision of learning as a nation goes to college.WashingtonDC:Author.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2006).Academicfreedomandeducationalresponsibility.Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 92(2),6-13.

Barber,J.P.,DeGraw,J.,&King,P.M.(2007,April).StudentLearning through Diverse Interactions: Perspectives on Religion and Politics.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago,Illinois.

BaxterMagolda,M.B.(1992).Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development(1sted.).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

BaxterMagolda,M.B.(2001).Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development.Sterling,VA:Stylus.



BaxterMagolda,M.B.(2004a).Evolutionofaconstructivistconceptualizationofepistemologicalreflection.Educational Psychologist, 39(1),31-42.

BaxterMagolda,M.B.(2004b).LearningPartnershipsModel:Aframeworkforpromotingself-authorship.InM.B.BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.37-62).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

BaxterMagolda,M.B.(2004c).Self-authorshipasthecommongoalof21stcenturyeducation.InM.B.BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.1-35).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

BaxterMagolda,M.B.,&King,P.M.(Eds.).(2004).Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship.Sterling,VA:Stylus.

BaxterMagolda,M.B.&King,P.M(inpress).EngagingStu-dentsinReflectiveConversationstoPromoteSelf-Authorship:AConversationGuide.Peer Review 10(1).

BaxterMagolda,M.B.,King,P.M.,Stephenson,E.,KendallBrown,M.,Lindsay,N.K.,Barber,J.P.&Barnhardt,C.(2007, April). Developmentally Effective Experiences for Promoting Self-Authorship.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago,Illinois.

Bekken,B.M.,&Marie,J.(2007).Makingself-authorshipagoalofcorecurricula:TheEarthSustainabilityPilotProject.InP.S.Meszaros(Ed.),Advancing students’ intellectual growth through the lens of self-authorship, New Directions for Teaching and Learning (pp.53-68).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N., &Tarule, J.(1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Blaich,C.,&King,P.M.(2005,January).Student Achievement of Liberal Arts Outcomes: A Study of Claims and Causes.Presentation at theAnnualMeetingof theAssociationofAmericanCollegesandUniversities,SanFrancisco.

Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College.(2007a).Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education.Retrieved March 29, 2007 from http://liberalarts.wabash.edu/cila/nationalstudy

Center of Inquiry in the Liberal Arts at Wabash College.(2007b). Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education liberal arts outcomes.RetrievedJuly16,2006,fromhttp://liberalarts.wabash.edu/cila/home.cfm?news_id=2338

Charmaz,K. (2003).Qualitative interviewingandgroundedtheoryanalysis.InJ.A.Holstein&J.F.Gubrium(Eds.),Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns(pp.311-330).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Charmaz,K.C.(2006).Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Chickering,A.W.,&Reisser,L.(1993).Education and identity, second edition.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Creamer,E.G.,&Laughlin,A.(2005).Self-Authorshipandwomen’scareerdecision-making.Journal of College Student Development, 46(1),13-27.

Egart,K.,&Healy,M.(2004).AnurbanleadershipInternshipprogram:ImplementingLearningPartnerships“unplugged”fromcampusstructures.InM.B.BaxterMagolda&P.M.

King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.125-149).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000).The interview: Fromstructuredquestionstonegotiatedtext.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nded.,pp.645-672).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Gibbs, J., & Widaman, K. F. (1982). Social intelligence: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Haynes, C. (2004). Promoting self-authorship through aninterdisciplinary writing curriculum. In M. B. BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.63-90).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Haynes,C.(2006).Theintegratedstudent:Fosteringholisticdevelopment to enhance learning. About Campus, 10(6),17-23.

Holstein,J.A.,&Gubrium,J.F.(2003).Activeinterviewing.In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Postmodern interviewing (pp. 67-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Hornak, A., & Ortiz, A. M. (2004). Creating a context topromote diversity education and self-authorship amongcommunitycollegestudents.InM.B.BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.91-123).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Jones,S.R.,&McEwen,M.K.(2000).Aconceptualmodelofmultipledimensionsofidentity.Journal of College Student Development, 41(4),405-413.

Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Keeling,R.P.(Ed.).(2004).Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience.WashingtonDC:NationalAssociationofStudentPersonnelAdministrators&AmericanCollegePersonnelAssociation.

Kegan,R.(1982).The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

King,P.M. (1990).Assessingdevelopment fromacognitivedevelopmental perspective. In D. Creamer & Associates,College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s(pp.81-98).Alexandria,VA:ACPAMedia.

King,P.M.(inpress). Invitingcollege students toreflectontheircollegiateexperiences.Liberal Arts: Journal of the Gaede Institute for the Liberal Arts at Westmont.

King,P.M.,&BaxterMagolda,M.B.(1996).Adevelopmentalperspectiveonlearning.Journal of College Student Develop-ment, 37(2),163-173.

King,P.M.,&BaxterMagolda,M.B.(2005).Adevelopmentalmodelof interculturalmaturity. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6),571-592.

King,P.M.,KendallBrown,M.,Lindsay,N.K.,&VanHecke,J.R.(inpress).Liberalartsstudentlearningoutcomes:Anintegratedperspective.About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience.


BaxterMagolda&King

King,P.M.,&Kitchener,K.S. (1994).Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, andepistemiccognition.Human Development, 26,222-232.

Kohlberg,L.(1984).Essays on moral development. Volume 1. The philosophy of moral development. New York: Harper &Row.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Lahey,L.L.,Souvaine,E.,Kegan,R.,Goodman,R.,&Felix,S. (1988). A guide to the Subject-Object Interview: Its administration and interpretation: Available from: Subject-Object Research Group, 201 Nichols House, HGSE,Cambridge,MA02138.

Laughlin,A.,&Creamer,E.G.(2007).Engagingdifferences:Self-authorship and the decision making process. In P. S.Meszaros(Ed.),Advancing students’ intellectual growth through the lens of self-authorship. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (pp.43-52).SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.

Lincoln,Y.S.,&Guba,E.G.(2000).Paradigmaticcontroversies,contradictions,andemergingconfluences.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nded.,pp.163-188).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Lindsay, N. K., King, P. M., DeGraw, J., Barnhardt, C., &Baxter Magolda, M. (2007, April). How College Students Interpret Moral Issues and Experiences: A Mixed Methods Study. PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation,Chicago,IL.

Loevinger,J.,&Wessler,R.(1970).Ego development: Volume I.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Mills,R.,&Strong,K.L.(2004).Organizingforlearninginadivisionofstudentaffairs.InM.B.BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educator for self-authorship(pp.269-302).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Patton,M.Q.(2001).Qualitative research & evaluation methods(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Perry,W.G.(1970).Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme.Troy,MO:Holt,Rinehart,&Winston.

Piper,T.D.,&Buckley,J.A.(2004).CommunityStandardsModel:Developinglearningpartnershipsincampushousing.In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.185-212).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Piaget,J.(1950).The psychology of intelligence(M.Piercy&D.Berlyne,Trans.).London:Routledge&KeganPaul.

Pizzolato,J.E.(2003).Developingself-authorship:Exploringtheexperiencesofhigh-riskcollegestudents.Journal of College Student Development, 44(6),797-812.

Pizzolato,J.E.(2004).Copingwithconflict:Self-authorship,coping, and adaptation to college in first-year, high-riskstudents. Journal of College Student Development, 45(4),425-442.

Pizzolato,J.E.(2005).Creatingcrossroadsforself-authorship:Investigating the provocative moment. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6),624-641.

Pizzolato,J.E.(2006).Complexpartnerships:Self-authorshipand provocative academic advising practices. NACADA Journal, 26(1),32-45.

Pizzolato, J. E. (2007). Assessing self-authorship. In P. S.Meszaros(Ed.),Advancing students’ intellectual growth through the lens of self-authorship, New Directions for Teaching and Learning (pp.31-42).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Pizzolato,J.E.,&Ozaki,C.C.(2007).Movingtowardself-authorship:Investigatingoutcomesoflearningpartnerships.Journal of College Student Development, 48(2),196-214.

Rest,J.R.,Narvaez,D.,Bebeau,M.,&Thoma,S.J.(1999).Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Rogers,J.L.,Magolda,P.M.,BaxterMagolda,M.B.,&Knight-Abowitz,K.(2004).Acommunityofscholars:EnactingtheLearningPartnershipsModelingraduateeducation.InM.B.BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partner-ships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.213-244).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Rubin,H.J.,&Rubin,I.S.(2005).Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Second edition.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Torres, V. (2003). Factors influencing ethnic identitydevelopmentofLatinocollegestudentsinthefirsttwoyearsof college. Journal of College Student Development, 44(4),532-547.

Torres,V.,&BaxterMagolda,M.B.(2004).ReconstructingLatinoidentity:Theinfluenceofcognitivedevelopmentonthe ethnic identity process of Latino students. Journal of College Student Development, 45(3),333-347.

Wildman,T. M. (2004).The Learning Partnerships Model:Framing faculty and institutional development. In M. B.BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partnerships: Theory and models of practice to educate for self-authorship(pp.245-268).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Yonkers-Talz,K.(2004).Alearningpartnership:U.S.collegestudents and the poor in El Salvador. In M. B. BaxterMagolda&P.M.King(Eds.),Learning partnerships: Theory and models to educate for self-authorship (pp. 151-184).Sterling,VA:Stylus.

Date post:	22-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Interview Strategies for Assessing Self-Authorship ... · September/OctOber 2007 vOl 48 nO 5 493...

Documents