Part of the reason we chose to have information completely de-identified (no first or last name, no birthday, no I.D. number) is because any identifying information is unnecessary for our purposes. It would in no way benefit our research or our assessment. Therefore even if it had not made the IRB a more streamlined process, we would still have specifically requested to have the data de-identified. In addition to no benefit coming from identifiable information, having identifying information could quite easily become harmful to current and past Penn State students since GPA will be included in that data. Personally, it did not even initially occur to me to include names or Penn State ID numbers since those were so irrelevant to our assessment.
We discussed ethics and professional standards in our Introduction to Student Affairs class last fall and compared NASPA and ACPA’s standards as well as lined them up to our programs learning outcomes. What I remember from that discussion is that since our program was designed so intentionally, our outcomes are very much in sync with the professional standards. What that tells me immediately, without further reviewing the standards set forth by NASPA and ACPA, is that my internship will also align with professional standards since it fulfills many parts of the CSA Learning Outcomes.
In the ACPA Standards it states that as student affairs professionals, we “will maintain and enhance professional effectiveness by continually improving skills and acquiring new knowledge” (1.3). Our assessment of LEAP is doing just that; aiming to improve a program by learning more about how it is working. Even further, we are supporting standard 3 from ACPA in supporting our institution and a program which has the capability of improving student outcomes across our university. The NASPA were much briefer than those set forth by ACPA and I again feel that my work with LEAP, and the reasons for the office embarking on this project completely hold up the standards from NASPA.
While many pieces of both sets of standards seems a bit like common sense (do not conduct sexual relationships with students; do not discriminate based on race, gender, etc.; avoid conflicts of interest; and generally demonstrate responsible behaviors) it is also important that they have been plainly stated. By doing this, the profession has further legitimized itself as well as created space for professional growth among the persons who choose to pursue it as a career. One of the things that stuck out to me in both standards was about upholding the mission of the employing institution. No matter what the position, it is important as a professional to only work at an institution whose mission you can uphold. Institutional fit is important not just for students being educated but also for employees. In order to me to, with good conscious, support students fully at an institution I know that I will need to feel that I can support their mission and that in turn the institution will support me.