ERIC EJ1161690: Think about It: Philosophy and Dialogic Advising

2017·0.11 MB·English

by  ERIC

Think About It: Philosophy and Dialogic Advising
Ann Lieberman Colgan, West Chester University of Pennsylvania
Effective advising requires practitioners to en- ‘‘Theoretical Foundations of Academic Advising’’
gage in analysis of theory and practice. Philo- wherein they advocate for a ‘‘paradigm expansion’’
sophical underpinnings regarding notions of self (p. 28) of normative theories of advising to include
can shape the advising encounter and determine metaphoric, narrative, and dialectic theories as
the level of receptiveness of advisors toward the needed (pp. 30-32). The best academic advisors
whole student. A brief review of Western philos- weave methodologies and practices with delibera-
ophies of the self provides context for Martin tion, making determinations about when to pre-
Buber’s radical dialogic philosophy of the self. scribe degree requirements, adhere to appreciative
Buber offered a foundation for an overarching or developmental techniques, or engage in intru-
theory of advising and addressed the selection sive tactics. ‘‘Advisors have license to draw upon a
and timing of particular advising methods in wide array of theoretical perspectives . . . they have
response to students. His idea of the dialogic self, the obligation to resist adopting only one theoret-
I-You, consists of powerful, relational encounters ical perspective because the phenomenon of
with the other. Advisors bring an openness to academic advising is so very complex’’ (Habley
students’ contextual reality so an advisor is & Jordan, 2008, p. 32). Advisors may mix methods
immersed in a student’s world for that moment reflexively, but a new theory of advising permits
by applying dialogic advising. advisors to think flexibly about the knowledge they
presume to possess and their perceptions regarding
[doi:10.12930/NACADA-15-045]
students and situations. Furthermore, although they
KEY WORDS: advising philosophy; Buber, advocate application of multiple advising perspec-
dialog; dialogic advising; ideas of the self tives, Hagen and Jordan did not address the issue
of advisor discernment about the effectiveness of
All humans engage in communication, many one methodology or theory over another.
with mixed success. On the basis of inherent or In addition, many advising professionals expe-
ingrained communication skills or techniques, rience institutional or departmental pressure to
often acquired without formal education or train- meet with as many advisees as possible and work
ing, some demonstrate the ability to undertake efficiently by focusing on degree requirements.
accurate, meaningful, and reciprocal information The nature of these interactions typically involves
transmission essential for academic advising. an advisor–student dyad, two people interacting for
Furthermore, the capacity to assess the proper the purposeful benefit of one. Heidegger (2013)
communication or advising techniques contributes indicated that humans understand reality within the
to the greatest chance to connect successfully with context of their own experiences: ‘‘To think being
each student. However, advisor training in effective means to endure the differentiation in questioning
interactions varies widely. Some are flung into a and to experience the differentiation as the
work position with limited prior guidance while inceptual distinction’’ (p. 110). In other words,
others receive extensive graduate preparation; different personal experiences shape what individ-
indeed, key competencies are developed only after uals come to think about distinct existences.
these educators arrive on campus. Even the best To communicate with students effectively, an
front-loaded training cannot address all the behav- academic advisor must bridge the gap between her
iors, practices, and beliefs of effective advisors; or his understanding of a student’s distinct existence
once engaged in the trenches of academic advising, and experience of historical and functional under-
the best practitioners review and analyze their standing, a task complicated by distracting external
sessions with students and colleagues. Successful tensions. Buber’s (1996) dialogic philosophy of the
academic advisors engage thoughtfully in a self provides a conceptual foundation for a theory of
feedback process of theory and practice. advising and addresses the question of how an
The longstanding standard in advising-prepara- advisor knows a student’s needs and determines the
tion literature, Academic Advising: A Comprehen- effective techniques and styles, as well as the timing
sive Handbook (Gordon, Habley, & Grites, 2008), to use them, to meet those needs. Dialogic advising
which includes Hagen and Jordan’s chapter on the explains how to apply the hermeneutic theory
66 NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017
Dialogic Advising
advocated by Champlin-Scharff (2010). Using (hereafter, I-You), depending on the nature of the
Buber’s notion of dialectic self, I-You, advisors interaction. Because humans always experienced
comprehend a student’s sense of self and his or her their ‘‘selves’’ in relationship, all knowledge and
responses to experiences and environments. Appro- experience of self emerge out of ongoing dialog
priate advising choices may feel intuitive, but in with others/it. In Buber’s portrayal, ‘‘There is no I
fact, advisors respond to dozens of cues from as such but only the I of the basic word I-You and
students and shape their advising selves in direct the I of the basic word I-It’’ (p. 54). The other half
response to the other—the student—a relationship of Buber’s pair only can be You, experienced in
that Wright (2014) called intersubjectivity (p. 149). total, or It, experienced functionally.
As a result, advisors may know the best way to help Buber’s (1996) revolutionary idea differed from
students because of their unconscious response to many Western philosophies, which contrast one’s
the entirety of the data presented by students, but self with everything else. Western thinkers have
they may remain unaware of how they know this struggled with the idea of human aloneness, or
information. The cues shape and influence the self, singularity, since classical times. Ancient philoso-
or I, of the attuned so that in the moment of phers viewed the self as an essential component of
addressing a student’s need, the advisor derives individual human existence that requires personal
confidence from the full engagement with the or solo reflection to comprehend (Heehs, 2013).
student as You. Because of the implicit, critical Socrates’s ideal man was self-aware and self-
communication during interactions with students, critical (Frogel, 2016, p. 93), but not necessarily
advisors who develop confidence in the validity of other-aware. In contrast, Buber felt that the
their own understanding of and response to students admonition to ‘‘know thyself’’ really meant set
facilitate streamlined and clear comprehension oneself apart from others (pp. 13-14). Buber was
experienced by both the advisor and the student. more concerned with relating to You and entering
Many academic advisors proceed with philo- into You’s truth of the moment than with logical
sophical assumptions that they spend little time facts or truths.
examining; for example, they may assume reality The ancient Roman philosopher Seneca con-
has an objective existence outside of self, such that nected self-perception to self-preservation, but the
selves are silos of experience and interpretation. capacity to identify self with ever-broadening
Using dialogic advising, practitioners can breach circles of others would, ideally, lead to treating
the aloneness of self and student. To place Buber’s people ‘‘as parts of the same whole to which the
(1996) theory in context, I selected a few subject belongs—in a way, a morally good person
philosophies to review because of their possible conceives of other people as herself’’ (Toivanen,
embeddedness in advising. In the remainder of the 2013, p. 360). According to Seneca, recognizing
article, a short explanation of the two types of others as self does not equate to experiencing the
dialectics described by Buber leads to an analysis self of others. Rather, it echoes the Biblical
of the applicability of his dialogic theory of self to admonishment to do unto others as we would have
the advising relationship and ties philosophy to them do unto us, and it delineated a personal
experience. Three scenarios provide examples of separation and an assumption of fundamental self-
dialogic advising, and practical implications and interest that was addressed explicitly.
suggestions for further development of the theory The selves imagined by the ancients demanded
of dialogic advising are given in conclusion. scrutiny, moral reflection, examination of the soul,
and evaluation of the impact of one’s behavior on
Philosophy others. St. Augustine felt humans remained
Martin Buber was an Austrian, Jewish, existen- essentially unknowable because they were fash-
tial philosopher, 1878–1965, whose most re- ioned in the image of a transcendent, incompre-
nowned work, I and Thou, first appeared in hensible God (Marion, 2011, pp. 30-31). Augus-
1923. His oracular style made the original text tine hinted at the idea of self as completed in
laborious, but his insights offer much for academic relation with another in the religious context of
advisors, and numerous translations make his work relating to God. Buber (1996) also discussed a
accessible. Buber claimed that the primary expe- relationship with God, but for him, relationships
rience of self was relational—usually with mother with others whom he encountered as You inter-
or other parental figure; hence, according to him, sected with his relationship with the ‘‘eternal You’’
all subsequent experience of self was dyadic, or (p. 123). Perceived this way, any relationship,
paired. He labeled the pairs I-It or I-Thou including those developed through advising,
NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017 67
Ann Lieberman Colgan
becomes sublime because interactions with others some casual resemblance to Eastern philosophies,
connect each to the universal. such as Buddhism, that negate self. According to
Much later, French philosopher Rene Descartes Fink (2012), Buddhism includes the idea, radical
famously proved the existence of his self, but his by Western standards, that a subjective self does
conceptualization entailed epistemology rather not exist; instead, while conscious, the self that
than relation to other selves; his work involved a experiences the world is illusory (p. 291). In this
thinking rather than a relational self. The personal, regard, Buber framed the experiential self very
logical self of Decartes’s Meditations neither differently from Eastern philosophies; he consid-
seemed to interact with nor need others. Buber ered all knowledge as self-emerged from ongoing
might have found Descartes’s deep need for dialog with You or It such that self is transformed
analysis alienating. Focused more on relation than but retains centrality.
causation, Buber (1996) did not discard reason but
Martin Buber’s Dialog
believed that relating to You improved outcomes
even in scientific, political, and economic arenas Buber (1996) declaimed:
(pp. 97-98). As a tool for reasoning, Descartes has
much to offer, but as a guide to the relational nature The attitude of man is twofold in accordance
of the selves participating in advising, Descartes’s with the two basic words he can speak. The
self offers more isolation than connection. basic words are not single words but word
Jean Jacques Rousseau saw self as an entity that pairs. One basic word is the word pair I-You.
should develop freely to the extent that no harm The other basic word is the word pair I-It. . . .
come to self or society; hence, to him, self stands Thus the I of man is also twofold. (p. 53)
in opposition to all else. Rousseau’s concern with
personal liberty and self-actualization stressed I is always part of You or of It. Buber described
exploration that could include the nature of others, It as having boundaries, as experienced on the
but it often pitted individual needs against social surface of interactions. The It is necessary but
structures such as the education system (Peckover, limited, so the I paired with the It is also limited
2012, pp. 91-92). His ideas of self-preservation (Wright, 2014, p. 152). You has no boundaries but
referred not to the continuation of life but to the hints at the infinite in engaged relation with the
continuity of one’s self to include the nature of the other. The functionality of It remains essential to
other. In an important difference with that of Buber advising and to many other human exchanges, but
(1996), Rousseau’s view of self built a paradigm of Buber would assert that persons need not abandon
separation and did not enable the shaping inter- the knowledge and experience of It in relating to
penetration of another to form one’s self. You.
Perhaps closest to Buber’s (1996) conception of Buber’s (1996) stance on I, You, and the other
self, Levinas (Peperzak, Critchley, & Bernasconi, comports with Champlin-Scharff’s (2010) herme-
1996) described an ethical relationship to the other: neutic theory formed on the basis of Heidegger’s
‘‘The relationship with the other (autrur) puts me philosophy. Rather than frame the advisee as It, as
into question, empties me of myself and empties a specific set of course and major requirements, or
me without end, showing me ever new resources’’ a particular class standing or subset of needs,
(p. 52). Respectful recognition and revelation of hermeneutic theory involves understanding ‘‘how
other, hinting at the infinite, forms the core of advisees find significance and make meaning in
Levinas’s work and certainly relates to a mind-set the world within which they exist over time’’
consistent with advisors interacting with students. (Champlin-Scharff, 2010, p. 59). This subjective
Many other philosophers expressed concern with viewpoint emerges within a relationship in which
notions of self, but they cannot all be included in full engagement with the other yields a sensation
this summary; nevertheless, this partial review of shifting perspective, such that advisors see the
places Buber’s notions of self in context. world through their students’ eyes. I-You, Buber’s
The Western ideas discussed differ somewhat basic word pair, applied to advising means the
from the Eastern philosophy articulated through advisor’s I-self requires the advisee’s You. ‘‘The
Buddhism. The Western focus on rationalism and concentration and fusion into a whole being can
logic places each person connected to society and never be accomplished by me, can never be
to other individuals as a self-interested solo agent accomplished without me. I require a You to
who also presumes the self-interest of others. become; becoming I, I say You’’ (Buber, p. 62).
Buber’s (1996) dialogic philosophy of the self bore Seemingly mystical, in the moment of I-You
68 NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017
Dialogic Advising
engagement, I and You are the same self; thus, I purpose driven, functional, quantitative, analytical,
truly knows You in that moment. These encounters, and objective. They incorporate a necessary
even if brief, can inform advising decisions detachment between self and other. Advisors
whether or not advisors are aware of the intense enmeshed in I-It interactions are still involved in
relationship. dialog, but the objectivity of the It creates a
Although the immersion in the other appears to transaction that unavoidably renders the other into
subsume individuality, one’s essential self engages something acted upon, experienced in a specific
in dialog. Buber’s (1996) mystical description of fashion.
encountering You reflected the totality of the Some students desire a prescriptive, task-focused,
engagement: ‘‘Neighborless and seamless, he is checklist approach to academic advising, but
You and fills the firmament. Not as if there were advisors must make evaluations on the basis of
nothing but he; but everything else lives in his experience regarding whether to engage more
light’’(p. 59). Buber encountered You so holistically thoroughly. Buber (1996) claimed that individual
that You is comprised of everything in that moment, selves differ as they move between I-It and I-You
but such an overwhelming, mystical experience dialogs, and he had a marked preference for the
would have limited utility in advising encounters, wholeness of combined realities. Buber evidently
which retain established purposes. The self Buber disdained unremitting I-It, ‘‘O mysteriousness
brought to the dialog with You must understand, at without mystery, O piling up of information! It, it,
the time of the encounter, the totality of the universe it!’’ (p. 56). Someone encountering another as You
generated by and through dialog with You, but that ‘‘appears as a person and becomes conscious of
self can still behave and think functionally. ‘‘This itself as subjectivity. Persons enter into relation to
does not mean that the person ‘gives up’ his being- other persons’’ (p. 112). The ego-centered self
that-way, his being different; only, this is not the separated from You and fueled the encounter with
decisive perspective but merely the necessary and usefulness, but the relational self-encountering You
meaningful form of being’’ (p. 114). In other words, was ‘‘touched by a breath of eternal life’’ (p. 113).
while my self may form something new and unique Both have a place in academic advising, but the
in each encounter with the other, I retain the advisor who shares a dialogic encounter with You
integrity of my person, a unique individual engaged experiences a richer, more inclusive engagement
in a true, shared moment with another unique with a student, which then supports better advice
individual, and together we comprise a self. That that is based on that person’s whole truth. The
openness to the other can help advisors determine advisor cycling through I-You and I-It dialogs with a
how best to help each unique student, and it student absorbs the advisee’s narrative and recon-
generates a paradigm expansion of the type siders prescriptive methods when the student’s story
advocated by Hagen and Jordan (2008). suggests a need for intervention (Hagen, 2008, pp.
Furthermore, others have recognized require- 17-18). For Hagen (2008), applying narrative or
ments of an advising dialog that benefits students; hermeneutic theory to advising requires a ‘‘leap of
advisors’ egos must contract to make space for the imagination’’ (p. 19); however, Buber’s I-You
greater awareness of student needs. For example, precludes the need for such a leap because the
the self- and other-awareness required of a servant advisor’s self comprehends the other in that moment
leader promotes greater empathy and can result in through openness to the fragile humanity and the
effective persuasion and aid to students to students totality of communication provided by the student.
because advisors’ expanded worldviews ‘‘inform Buber suggested attention to the entirety of a student
their own perceptions’’ and offer additional insight and the verbal cues, to the aversion of eyes and
(Paul, Smith, & Dochney, 2012, pp. 59-60). subtle body language, to revealed and hidden
Similarly, Champlin-Scharff (2010) advocated histories, to the whole, vulnerable, fascinating
tucking away the list of fixed questions and package of a person.
solutions and instead encouraged engaging in
‘‘organic conversation,’’ a genuine dialog, which Dialogic Advising in Practice
will ‘‘allow students to reveal their contextualiza- Academic advising incorporates personal inter-
tion,’’ (p. 63) their lived realities at that moment. action, of course, but also record keeping, policy
Advising cannot fully abandon the prescriptive. imparting, grade tracking, and other decidedly
The self that interacted with and upon an It nonmystical tasks. For the purposes of following
‘‘appears as an ego’’ which ‘‘sets itself apart from through the necessary details, advisors apply I-It
other egos’’ (pp. 111-112). I-It interactions are interactions to the mundane. Those practicing in
NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017 69
Ann Lieberman Colgan
some fields of knowledge, such as science, math, I-You consists of powerful, authentic relational
and business, rely heavily on the I-It mode of interactions that enable people to encounter each
understanding the world, so advisors from or other. The dialogic relationship can transpire with
working in those disciplines may bring their objects, animals, texts, and people, and this
intellectual training that values concrete, reproduc- encounter encompasses the other holistically.
ible, known factors to the interaction. However, a Engaging the other as You permits advisors to
predominantly I-It orientation may inhibit acknowl- use Champlin-Scharff’s (2010) four concepts of
edgment of the lived humanity of the student hermeneutic theory: ‘‘interpretation, connected-
because advisors must prioritize institutional, depart- ness, world, and time’’ (p. 61). Those moments of
mental, or logistical goals. Functional demands may shared existential perception (Champlin-Scharff, p.
impede mindful advising and recognition of obscure 63), which an advisor might chalk up to intuition,
student cues. Prescriptive advising relies heavily on consist of an openness to students’ realities such
communication of details, but for some institutions that an advisor is immersed in a student’s world for
or departments, discussion often consists of an eight- that moment. ‘‘Through effectively listening,
semester curriculum guide handed to first-year clarifying, and interpreting, a practitioner can
assess and understand what a student is really
students, who are then expected make sense of the
trying to say’’ (Clark, 2009, p. 142) about deep
sequences and attain success. Possible consequences
personal issues and their impact on academics,
of overusing I-It dialog include underdeveloped
which results in advising choices. To cultivate an I-
faculty or advisor connections with students, with
You encounter, advisors must minimize their
the correlated potential loss of retention caused by
deepest assumptions and barriers of ego, which
lack of engagement; missed chances to reinforce
act as personal defenses that impede true compre-
positive student behaviors and intellectual relation-
hension of others. According to Buber (1996), ‘‘the
ships that might engender excitement with chosen
more a human being, the more humanity is
disciplines; and advisor burnout caused by the
dominated by the ego, the more does the I fall
unremitting repetition involved with primarily meet-
prey to inactuality’’ (p. 115). Personal ego, with its
ing institutional, rather than human, needs.
burden of history, can interfere with the formation
Missed opportunities to encounter others pre-
of an I-You self. To accomplish the vulnerable state
vent advisors from modeling values about the
of minimal ego, the advising session must revolve
genuine humanity of other members of communi-
around the student’s needs not the advisor’s agenda,
ties. When I-It dialogs form the majority of
and any negativity the student brings to the session
advising encounters, students also incorporate a
rarely originates with the advisor.
potentially rigid conception of advising and
Buber (1996) sounds esoteric, but he offered
learning. I-It may impress upon students the lesson
conceptual tools for reimagining advising relation-
that regulations and officialdom matter more than
ships in ways in which students feel genuinely
engagement with their own learning and with
known. Advisors can listen with their eyes: Relaxed
others in their environments; it suggests that
focus on the student enables advisors to pick up cues
degrees and education consist of discrete categories
missed when selecting from the menu of progress-to-
to be covered. I-It may inhibit students’ dialogic
degree questions with the corresponding narrow
encounter with content, the faculty, and the student range of correct answers. An I-You encounter permits
body while prioritizing a narrow, institutional an interaction without regard to overarching objec-
definition of success. I-It is not inherently negative, tives or time, location, or other externalities such that
but both types of dialog belong in advising, and advisors encounter only the student. Clark (2009)
advising practitioners must examine their practices asserted that practitioners need to feel comfortable
and assumptions to ensure that they are prepared to encompassing students in ‘‘unconditional positive
regard the whole student. Kuh (2008), for example, regard’’ (p. 144) and prioritize the human interaction
emphasized, ‘‘every advising contact is a precious by avoiding the incredible distractions of multitasking
opportunity for meaningful interaction’’ (p. 79). By during the meeting (p. 145). Advisors must deliber-
engaging with the whole person, advisors can ately neglect the internal timekeeper, which insists
determine the advising methodology, intervention, that the meeting last no longer than 15 or 30 minutes.
or activities that best meet that student’s needs. By One cannot engage fully with You when focused on
applying dialogic advising, practitioners come to minutia and externalities. Furthermore, in paying
understand the timing and reasoning for making attention to the whole student, the advisor dare not
specific methodological choices. neglect the commonplaces of that student’s life: Does
70 NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017
Dialogic Advising
he or she need to work? What socioeconomic and of degree requirements and generating a list of
education background does the student bring to the necessary upcoming courses. When a second-year
institution? Have previous interactions between the student, Mark, indicated uncertainty about suc-
student and education professionals been positive? cessfully completing the rigorous, required chem-
The answers to these questions do not define the istry sequence needed for his pre-med path, John
student but inform, and possibly shape, the advising suggested Mark visit the Counseling Center to
relationship, on the basis that ‘‘advising is a cultural decide whether he had identified the proper major;
and culture-bound activity’’ (Kuh, 2008, p. 81). John suggested that Mark needed to determine
‘‘Advisors should begin each interaction by whether he ‘‘had what it took to succeed.’’
identifying where and how the advisee interprets The I-It advising interaction involves John’s
and makes sense of things’’ (Champlin-Scharff, spreadsheet more than his students such that his
2010, p. 63). Dialogic advising permits the advisor level of engagement with students remains
to focus only on the student as You and to superficial, and his knowledge of them ‘‘is
internalize the student’s sense of the world and, if mediated by concepts and categories’’ (Wright,
briefly, the student’s experience of self. The 2014, p. 152). Many students succeed despite
relevance of prescriptive recommendations springs their advisors’ limited engagement and simple
from the coherence of them to the student’s context broadcasting of information, but John’s routine
(Champlin-Scharff, 2010). Practitioners of all types practice closes the door to potentially enriching
of advising can and do engage in I-You dialogic exchanges and risks diminishing students’ con-
exchange, and the relationship that ensues encour- nections to their learning. Because of the
ages advisors to blur the lines of the differing constraints and expectations of John’s institution
advising practices on the basis of professional and his own preferences, his dialogic advising
determinations perceived to work best for that mainly involves the It of students.
student at that moment. Rather than address students What might have enabled John, in his current
as finite sets of component needs, the best advisors situation, to acknowledge Mark’s needs? Could
routinely engage with the whole student and John be motivated to redirect Mark because of his
selectively use different approaches. ‘‘Even as a own cognitive dissonance regarding prioritizing
melody is not composed of tones, nor a verse of perceived institutional and program needs? Fur-
words, nor a statue of lines—one must pull and tear thermore, could the needs of all constituents have
to turn a unity into a multiplicity—so it is with the been met in this scenario? Because developmental
human being to whom I say You’’ (Buber, 1996, p. and prescriptive advising need not be mutually
59). exclusive, how could John have implemented I-
During dialogic advising, student and advisor You dialogic advising to transform his current
construct a reality in the space between them. advising practices?
Although Wright (2014) asserted that I-You en-
counters must be reciprocal (p. 152), students need Questioning to Know
not be as open to relating to You as advisors need to Monica, an advisor meeting with a first-
be; rather, advisors can engage the student as You by semester student, Jamal, sensed his agitation
opening up to the other to participate in students’ during the course of their conversation through
actualities. Moreover, because of the reciprocity of the answers he gave freely and fully to her
advising, students encounter You whether or not questions. Deliberately pursuing a low-key ap-
they expect to do so. proach, she inquired about Jamal’s academic
experience, and because Jamal’s answers indicated
Examples of Applied Dialogic Advising
satisfaction and engagement, she then led the
Insuffciency of I-It Without I-You conversation in a natural way to his social and
John, a faculty advisor in a science department emotional situation. ‘‘What are you doing to be
at State U., makes clear that his priority is involved on campus?’’ ‘‘How are things going with
reminding students to do well enough in their your roommate?’’ Relieved by her open interest,
courses to persist in the required sequence. The Jamal revealed problems with his roommate that
dean of John’s college has instructed him to focus presented safety issues, and he further expressed
on shortening students’ time to degree. As a surprise that the advising meeting proved an
consequence of John’s goals and the dean’s appropriate place to raise this topic. Monica,
mandate, 15-minute advising appointments consist however, calmly expressed her dismay that Jamal’s
of checking the student’s current courses off the list roommate threw scissors and other sharp objects
NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017 71
Ann Lieberman Colgan
toward Jamal, and by showing her concern, she to switch directions, so rather than suggesting
justified Jamal’s discomfort with the situation, academic remediation, Sherwin instructed her to
which he had been reluctant to broach. When withdraw from the class.
Monica led Jamal to the office of the Director of How do advisors avoid discounting those
Residence Life and helped him to change rooms, flashes of insight that feel baseless but have real
Jamal recognized that his advisor understood his foundation in I-You dialogic observations of real
suppressed concerns and felt validated. information, the data points rooted in students’
Monica typically addresses all areas of stu- experiences of self? Can I-You dialogic advising
dents’ lives during advising sessions by evaluating be used to surmount possible barriers of gender,
their responses to open-ended questions. She also class, race, and ability? If they can, how so?
embraces the meaning students assign to their
experiences by adopting the principle ‘‘always only Implications for Practice
one being . . . Nothing else is present but this one, Dialogic advising acts as a philosophical and
but this one cosmically’’ (Buber, 1996, p. 83). practical tool. Many students come to advising with
Despite the brevity of her dialogic encounters with preconceived notions of the types of interactions
You, they create an extraordinary impact on her that will take place. However, advisors attuned to
capacity to engage students. You need not abandon the knowledge and experi-
How can dialogic advising help advisors ence of the It of their programs, courses, institutions,
discern the most appropriate degree of interven- or even the It of the student to both meet students’
tion? What characteristics of the dialogic relation- perceptions of need and their actual need. Rather,
ship made Jamal trust Monica and reveal concerns advisors routinely select from a variety of tech-
he had not fully acknowledged even to himself? niques to help a particular student at a specific
moment in his or her academic career. Engagement
Turning Insight into Action in I-You dialectic with the student enables advisors
A developmental advisor, Sherwin, tried to to ascertain the best way to reach the student and to
help a student, Jackie, regain momentum in her confirm the applicability of that advising commu-
Psychology 100 class, and she sat quietly nication for the student.
agreeing with his suggestions for improving her Reflection on the philosophical underpinnings
grade. As Sherwin reviewed active reading of advising practice can improve advisors’ capac-
techniques, he recognized subtle cues of indiffer- ities for flexing notions of self and permit the
ence typical of a student who has already given practice of dialogic advising. Meeting students as
up. Despite her external expressions of attentive- participants in the selves created by I-You
ness, the absence of other body language, such as encounters creates a dialectic of equals (Hagen,
very slight squinting around the eyes, alert 1994, p. 88) and fosters communication on
movements of the head, and verbal agreements, multiple levels, which leads to the best advising.
provided subtle behavior indicative of disinterest In addition, Buber’s (1996) acknowledgement that
that he was not consciously noticing. I-You people in communication continuously cycle
engagement alerted Sherwin to the dissonance between I-You and I-It can help advisors navigate
between her voiced agreement and her reflexive between unguarded altruism and functional direc-
actions. With his receptivity to You, to the tives. Awareness of students as You enables
student’s whole life, he caught the flickering advisors to shed preconceptions and to determine
image of Jackie sleeping through her very early when to bridge advising methodologies. Buber’s
first class. Insight like Sherwin experiences, like a dialogic philosophy of the self supports and
flash of a memory, feels and looks like intuition, magnifies the ‘‘simple conversation’’ advocated
but in fact, it stems from his dialogic receptivity by Champlin-Scharff (2010) for appreciating
to information on multiple levels, including to students’ contextual meaning making (p. 64).
Jackie’s own experience of self. Surprised by the Careful attention to the whole student, and to the
revelation, Sherwin asked, ‘‘You stopped going to wholeness of the student, should guide advising
class, didn’t you?’’ I-You encounters enable practice. Opening oneself to the other in a dialog of
participants to encompass the other without engagement, even temporarily, results in a sharing
feelings of otherness, to have genuine, full of self that lends critical insight to advisors.
comprehension that feels personal. Jackie admit- As an overarching theory of advising, dialogic
ted that she had quit attending the course. advising continues as a work in progress. Many
Encountering Jackie’s truth allowed her advisor advisors already implement the practices described
72 NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017
Dialogic Advising
as dialogic, but they ascribe to it the term intuition. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.),
Acknowledgment of dialogic advising as a practice Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook
enables advisors to support a robust epistemology of (pp. 17–35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
understanding students on multiple levels by Heehs, P. (2013). Writing the self: Diaries,
deepening comprehension of the ways people come memoirs, and the history of the self. New
to know. I welcome additional contributions to the York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
ongoing project of developing philosophical under- Heidegger, M. (2013). The event (R. Rojcewicz,
pinnings through descriptions of various advising Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University
methodologies: The best advisors share, for brief press. (Original work composed 1941-1942,
moments, in selves with their students and should published posthumously in 2009)
trust the advising choices that this information Kuh, G. D. (2008). Advising for student success.
compels them to make. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley, & T. J. Grites
(Eds.), Academic advising: A comprehensive
References
handbook (pp. 68–84). San Francisco, CA:
Brown, T. (2008). Critical concepts in advisor Jossey-Bass.
training and development. In V. N. Gordon, W. Marion, J. (2011). Resting, moving, loving: The
R. Habley, & T. J. Grites (Eds.), Academic access to the self according to Saint Augustine.
advising: A comprehensive handbook (pp.
The Journal of Religion, 91(1), 24–42.
309– 322). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Paul, W. K., Smith, K. C., & Dochney, B. J.
Buber, M. (1996). I and Thou (W. Kaufmann,
(2012). Advising as servant leadership: Inves-
Trans.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
tigating the relationship. NACADA Journal,
(Original work published 1923)
32(1), 53–62.
Champlin-Scharff, S. (2010). Advising with
Peckover, C. (2012). Realizing the natural self:
understanding: Considering hermeneutic theo-
Rousseau and the current system of education.
ry in academic advising. NACADA Journal,
Philosophical Studies in Education, 43,84–94.
30(1), 59–65.
Peperzak, A. T., Critchley, S., & Bernasconi, R.
Clark, M. R. (2009). Microcounseling skills. In
(Eds.), (1996). Emmanuel Levinas: Basic
A. L. Reynolds (Ed.), Helping college stu-
philosophical writings. Bloomington, IN: In-
dents: Developing essential support skills for
diana University Press.
student affairs practice (pp. 131–168). San
Toivanen, J. (2013). Perceptual self-awareness in
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Seneca, Augustine, and Olivi. Journal of the
Fink, C. K. (2012). The ‘‘scent’’ of a self:
History of Philosophy, 51(3), 355–382.
Buddhism and the first-person perspective.
Wright, T. (2014). Self, other, God: 20th century
Asian Philosophy, 22(3), 289–306.
Jewish philosophy. Royal Institute of Philoso-
Frogel, S. (2016). Descartes: Truth and self-
phy Supplement, 74, 149–169.
deception. Philosophy, 91(1), 93–108.
Gordon, V. N., Habley, W. R., & Grites, T. J.
(Eds.). (2008). Academic advising: A compre-
Author’s Note
hensive handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass. Ann Lieberman Colgan encountered Buber
Hagen, P. L. (2008). Imagination and interpreta- while completing her EdD, Gratz College, in
tion: Academic advising and the humanities. Jewish Education and Jewish History. She is
NACADA Journal, 28(2), 14–20. interested in advising philosophy and commu-
Hagen, P. L. (1994). Academic advising as nication and is currently Interim Director of
dialectic. NACADA Journal, 14(2), 85–88. Pre-Major Academic Advising at West Chester
Hagen, P. L., & Jordan, P. (2008). Theoretical University of Pennsylvania. She can be reached
foundations of academic advising. In V. N. at [email protected].
NACADA Journal Volume 37(1) 2017 73