Running head: THEORY PAPER #2

Theory Paper #2

Anna Crow

Seattle University

SDAD5400 - Student Development Theory, Research, and Practice

Dr. Erica Yamamura

THEORY PAPER #2 1

Analysis

Yosso, Ferdman & Gallego, and Chickering & Reisser all have created theoretical

frameworks that are practitioner based and applicable.

Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth(CCW) theory focuses on a different kind of

wealth that people of color posses in place of cultural capital. Cultural capital is the nuanced way

many people who are white and financially able to maneuver through society. Yosso focuses on

aspirational, familial, social, navigational, resistant, and linguistic capital. CCW assists Student

Affairs practitioners in supporting students with diverse backgrounds and skill sets.

Ferdman and Gallegos (2001 & 2012) Latino racial identity theory addresses the racial

identity development of Latino individuals. This theory emphasizes that race is secondary to

culture, this complicates the racial identity. These six orientations consist of the racial identities:

White Identified, Undifferentiated/ Denial, Latino or Other, Subgroup- identified,

Latino-identified. Individuals move about the orientations in regards to their racial identity in

reference to the “Latino” identity. This is applicable to student affairs professionals as the

identity of Latino students may be diverse as well as evolve.

Chickering and Reisser(1993) focus on identity development through the lense of an

individual who is attending a university. This identity theory focuses on the seven vectors of a

young person’s identity development: developing competence, managing emotions, moving

through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal relationships,

establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity. The theory is a standardized

way for student affairs practitioners to evaluate and build on student's identity development.
THEORY PAPER #2 2

Synthesis

Across Yosso, Ferdman & Gallego, and Chickering & Reisser’s three theories,

there are many commonalities and downfalls that come into play when addressing their

applicability. The key components to the three theories is that they are all identity informed and

rely on internal belief systems. The weaknesses include lack of intersectionality and

generalizability to a wider population of students.

Yosso, Ferdman & Gallego, and Chickering & Risser all demonstrate that identity

informs an individual's navigation of society. The premise of CCW lies on that people of color

have other forms of capital and those values do not come into line with that of dominant society.

This indicates that people of color navigate society in different ways than dominant society

acknowledges. Ferdman & Gelledo’s Latino identity theory emphasises the diversity of self

identity that an individual can identify with as Latino. These self identities are beyond what a

person knows as race and sometimes culture.

Chickering & Reisser’s identity development theory’s greatest strength is that is a

practitioner's theory in that it gives a solid jumping point for practitioners of traditional age and

housed students at four year institutions a structure on how to program based on the individual’s

stage. However, Chickering’s greatest strength is also its downfall. This model was developed

with the “traditional” student in mind. In context of this model, the traditional student is between

the ages of 18-22 and lives on campus. This does not apply to many students in institutions of

higher education, therefore, its up to the practitioner to adjust the theory to apply to their students

or utilize a more appropriate theory.

THEORY PAPER #2 3

Additionally, CCW, and Latino racial identity have similar weaknesses. These three

theories were designed with a very specific individual in mind to apply the theory to, however,

these three theories are significant to many different people. The lack of applicability is a

weakness because many people do not identify within these parameters of a specific identity. In

addition to the narrow applicability, these three theories do not address intersectionality beyond

Ferdman & Gallegos race and cultural.

Intersectionality is not addressed in the three theories as they are all specific and created

for specific identities. Yosso (2005) focuses on people of color and the cultural community

wealth that comes with being apart of those communities. However, there is no mention of the

other dynamics of a person besides being apart of that community. Ferman & Gallegos (2001 &

2012) Latino racial identity theory focuses on individuals who identify as Latino and Chickering

& Reisser’s (1993) theory is based off of students in housing, at traditional higher education

setting as a traditional age. Regardless of their shortcomings, these theories can all be reimagined

as if they were intersectional or designed for a broader student body.

An example of Yosso’s CCW being reimagined is adding other aspects and identities of

an individual to the cultural wealth that they bring. For example, an individual who is

transgender and a person of color brings a lot of community cultural wealth that Yosso describes

but can also bring other variants of that cultural wealth, such as navigating government entities

for an ID with the correct personal information on it or navigating employment attainment and

retention. These are all skills that the white and cis and dominant society do not have to face.
THEORY PAPER #2 4

Reflection

All three of these theories are highly applicable. Throughout this course and specifically

with these theories, I have been able to create ways in which I can apply these theories. These

theories have themes of a specific population that informed them, however, the ideas and spirit

of the theory can still be applied and used in practice. The greatest understanding I have gained

in examining these theories is that the essence and spirit can be captured and utilized to better

practices.

It would be inappropriate to place myself on Yosso’s CCW or Ferdman & Gallegos’

Latino racial identity theory, however, I can apply them both to work with my students and better

my own practice in student affairs. Since Chickering and Reisser’s theory is not racially specific

or specifically for students of color, I am able to place myself along that theory. Chickering and

Reisser’s vectors are are a scaffold but not necessarily a progression (1993). In my own learning

about student development theory, I am between the fifth and sixth vector of establishing identity

and developing purpose. I place myself here because I did not have any strong theoretical

background before taking Student Development Theory. I knew that student affairs practitioners

based practices and programs off of theories, however, I was unaware of the various kinds of

theories that are put into practice. Right now, I am establishing my identity because I now am

aware and able to apply these theories to my student affairs practice.

CCW, Latino racial identity, and Chickering & Reisser identity development theory all

have elements of self development. This allows for self reflection and understanding of where I

am in my professional practice journey. When looking at CCW, I am able to appreciate different

forms of wealth individuals have, regardless of if this wealth is derived from dominant society.
THEORY PAPER #2 5

Additionally, I believe it is important to celebrate these differences of strength among the

student community in general and learn from each other’s strengths. CCW encourages

practitioners to find the ways in which their students thrive and navigate through their everyday

lives(Yosso, 2005). Understanding where students come from, celebrating the differences, and

encouraging learning from others who are different are all ways in which I can support students

of color and students of diverse cultural backgrounds.

Ferdman and Gallegos Latino Identity theory really breaks down the black/ white binary

for me. Often, as a white practitioner and person, there are moments where I get caught up in the

black/ white racial binary. This theory calls out that race, culture, and identity are very

complicated intersections for many people, specifically people who are Latino (2001 & 2012).

This understanding of the complications of identity and an individual's journey toward

understanding their own identity within those intersections is an important aspect of reflection

for practitioners.

The primary way I will incorporate the theories into my practice to support diverse

students is adjusting Chickerings & Ressier’s theory to fit all students who do not fall under the

“traditional” student model. The identity development model could apply to commuter and full

time working students in diverse ways, such as providing programming that is available to

students beyond the late night hours housing and student activities put on programming.

Additionally, taking into consideration that many of the nontraditional students are also parents

and caretakers, their support for academics and development looks much different. Utilizing

Chickering and Reisser’s model as a guide to where individuals are in differentiated aspects of

their development is the most useful way to make this theory applicable to the most students.
THEORY PAPER #2 6

References

Chickering, A.W. & Reisser, L. (1993). ​Education and Identity​ (​2nd ed.​) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Ferdman, B. M., & Gallegos, P. I. (2001). Racial identity development and Latinos in the United

States. In C. L.​ ​Wijeyesinghe & B. W.Jackson, III (Eds.), ​New perspectives on racial

identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology​, 32– 66. New York: NYU

Press.

Ferdman, B. M., & Gallegos, P. I. (2012). Latina and Latino ethnoracial identity orientations: A

dynamic and developmental perspective. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson, III

(Eds.), ​New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging

frameworks ​ ​ edition)​, 51– 80. New York: NYU Press.

(2nd

Patton, L.D., Renn, K.A., Guido, F.M., & Quaye, S.J. (2016). ​Student development in college:

Theory, research, and practice (3rd edition)​. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Yosso, T.J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race discussion of community cultural

wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-82.