From the Co-Editors
This issue of the Journal unmistakably reflects the view of research, articulated by NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising (2008), “as scholarly inquiry into all aspects of the advising interaction, the role of advising in higher education, and the effects that advising can have on students …” and the NACADA strategic goal to “expand and communicate the scholarship of academic advising” (NACADA, 2014b, ¶3) as well as the purpose of the NACADA Journal “to advance scholarly discourse about the research, theory, and practice of academic advising in higher education” (NACADA, 2014a, ¶1). The articles in this issue include qualitative and quantitative empirical research, theoretical perspectives, explanations about the role of advising in students' academic lives, the reported perceptions of advisors regarding their vocation, and descriptions of implications for advising practice across several student cohorts.
Amy Milsom and Julie Coughlin used qualitative grounded theory methodology to determine factors that resulted in satisfaction levels for undergraduates' major choices; this article departs from the typical research involving factors leading to major selection. According to this study, common themes related to satisfaction emerged regardless of the major chosen. Milsom and Coughlin provide implications for the utilization of career advising when working with students deciding upon and completing a major.
Extrapolating from the literature suggesting that a strong positive bond between the student and university positively affects retention, Jörg Vianden and Patrick Barlow investigated the relationship between students' perceived quality of academic advising and their reported levels of loyalty to their institutions. Results of this quantitative inquiry demonstrate a positive relationship between perceptions of academic advising quality and student loyalty. The authors also identified several demographic characteristics related to positive perceptions of academic advising.
Satisfaction with servant leadership as a specific approach to academic advising constituted the basis for a quantitative study by W. Kohle Paul and Colleen Fitzpatrick. Utilizing hierarchical multiple regression analysis, the authors found positive correlations between servant leadership and student satisfaction with advising; they found that specific factors exerted the greatest impact on student satisfaction.
Two articles concern international students in different contexts. Emily Newell performed a cross-review of literature concerning transition issues experienced by student-athletes, international students, and international student-athletes. She found commonalities in the literature about reported concerns of these three different but related student cohorts, and she combined those findings into a set of suggested practices for academic advisors working with international student-athletes.
Yi “Leaf” Zhang used a qualitative, phenomenological research design to understand advisors' experiences when communicating with international students in a community college setting. Specifically, she used intercultural communication competence as a multidimensional construct to guide her analysis. She discussed her findings on academic advisors' knowledge, attitudes, motivation, and skills in advising international students as well as explained the implications for advising practice, policy, and future research.
The issue concludes with a phenomenological study by Sharon Aiken-Wisniewski, Joshua Larson, Anna Johnson, and Jason Barkemeyer, who surveyed NACADA members on their perceptions of the role(s) of advisors. To understand respondents' view of the advising occupation, definitions of their own advising career, and perceptions of a profession in relation to advising, the authors asked two specific questions: “How do advisors describe the occupation of advising?” and “How do advisors describe a profession?” Findings show a lack of uniformity for reported academic advisor responsibilities, the articulated concepts of profession within the context of advising, and the view of power in the advising role.
In conclusion, we recognize the service of several NACADA Journal Editorial Board members completing their tenure with this issue. Terri Peters of Marywood University, Janet Schulenberg of the Pennsylvania State University, and Charity Welch, formerly of Suffolk County Community College, are all outstanding professionals whose excellent work positively influenced the quality of the Journal through their manuscript reviews, feedback on issues, and overall dedication to the publication. In addition, we recognize the extended service of Jessie Carduner from Kent State University as a member of the Journal Editorial Board in two roles: as Bibliography Editor from 2006 through 2012 and as a manuscript reviewer from 2012 through 2015. In the former role, Jessie conducted thorough reviews of recently published literature (professional journals as well as scholarly books) to include in an annotated bibliography in each printed copy of the Journal. In 2012, when Journal bibliographies were discontinued, Jessie graciously remained on the Editorial Board to review submitted manuscripts for consideration for publication. The time and effort expended by Jessie to perform these tasks were enormous, and we thank her for her contributions.
