Spiritual Development Theory and Internationally Mobile Students

Abstract

Students come to a university with a diversity of religious, spiritual, and secular backgrounds and identities. This theoretical perspective explores the relevance of spiritual development theory for understanding and supporting internationally mobile students’ holistic development. Spiritual development theorizing in higher education student affairs is analyzed across the landscape of three waves of student development theory with particular attention to implications for practice.

Internationally mobile students are a culturally and religiously broad category of students worldwide. In many ways, their pluralism is indicative of higher education institutions today. This theoretical perspective analyzes the relevance of spiritual development theory for internationally mobile students, with particular attention to implications for practitioners. It fills a gap between scholarship on international students, which has tended to focus on acculturation, language acquisition, and intercultural skills to the exclusion of other aspects of development (Mesidor & Sly, 2016; Smith & Khawaja, 2011), and spiritual development theory, which historically privileged the experiences of White Christian domestic students in the United States (Coyle, 2011; Small, 2020). By internationally mobile students, the author refers to traditionally aged undergraduates who attend international universities outside of their passport country for the entirety of their degree (International Organization for Migration, 2020; UNESCO, 2015), of which there are over 4 million such students worldwide.

As a critical internationalization studies (Stein, 2021) scholar-practitioner writing on spiritual development theory, it is important to note that as a White Christian American, I hold racial, citizenship, and religious identities that are privileged in many academic contexts. My experiences working as an expatriate have informed my empathy for internationally mobile students and my interest in decolonizing theory and practice.

An Introduction to Relevant Student Development Literature

After clarifying key terms, I examine the three waves of student development theory (Abes et al., 2019) to analyze theories’ potential for applicability to the spiritual development of internationally mobile students. A clear limitation is that much of this has emanated from North America, where the student affairs profession originated.

There is no consensus among student affairs scholars on the relationship between spirituality and religion (P. E. King & Boyatzis, 2004). Religion is popularly understood as belief systems and practices associated with specific traditions, but postcolonial scholars have asserted that the term is a tool of colonialism (Masuzawa, 2005; Peterson & Walhof, 2002) that privileges Western epistemologies in higher education (Edwards, 2018; Small, 2020). Multiple scholars (Astin et al., 2010; Chickering et al., 2006; Love, 2001) argue for spirituality as an aspect of holistic student development. The two leading definitions of spirituality in student development research are (a) a capacity for self-transcendence in something greater and (b) a depth of self-awareness in relation to others or the divine (P. E. King & Boyatzis, 2004). I attempt to honor the ways that theorists have understood these terms and, henceforth, refer to students’ religion, spirituality, and secularism, including nonreligion, by the acronym RSS (Snipes & Manson, 2020).

First Wave

First wave theorists have emphasized linear cognitive development based on samples of students that, until more recently, have not included internationally mobile students. Some of the earliest scholars to apply Piagetian cognitive development to religion were Elkind and Goldman (Gottlieb, 2006), who studied religious thinking through stories, beliefs, and prayer. Kohlberg’s work on moral development (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977) influenced two of his students to propose respective theories of religious judgment and faith (Gottlieb, 2006), of which Fowler’s stages of faith development (1974, 1981) marked the field’s first spiritual development theory. Fowler described prescriptive stages that culminated in a commitment to abstract principles (Cartwright, 2001). He asserted the theory’s universalism despite testing it on predominantly White Christian and Jewish men (Fowler & Dell, 2006), which seriously limited its generalizability. Scholars also have advanced theory about students’ moral development and judgment (P. M. King & Kitchener, 2004; P. M. King & Mayhew, 2004).

Second Wave

Second wave student development theories have been more interpersonal and multidimensional. They have purposefully included context (Perez, 2019) and the experiences of social groups (Abes et al., 2019), and they have explicitly connected spirituality and culture (Tisdell, 2003). S. D. Parks (2008) added an interpersonal dimension conceptualized as both “intimate and ultimate” (p. 5), and relationship and transcendence were determined essential to spiritual development (Cartwright, 2001). Love and Talbot (2009) offered a model of three interrelated processes accessible to internationally mobile students: seeking identity wholeness, connection with community, and existential purpose. They emphasized transcendence via connection with family, humanity, the universe, or the divine, broadening spiritual development theory to a variety of religious and nonreligious students. In keeping with the second wave quality of nonlinearity, spiritual development is conceptualized as a transformative, liminal “process of moving forward and spiraling back” (Tisdell, 2003, p. 93).

Though not expressly spiritual development theories, the competency-based intercultural maturity model (IMM; King & Baxter Magolda, 2005) and reconceptualized model of multiple dimensions of identity (RMMDI; Abes et al., 2007) have relevance for internationally mobile students. In the IMM, King and Baxter Magolda (2005) conceptualized intercultural maturity as moving from externally based values and beliefs to an ability to shift between multiple perspectives. The RMMDI (Abes et al., 2007) treated religion as one dimension among many with potential for shifting salience. Its authors assumed self-authorship (Kegan, 1994) as an individual project (Perez, 2019) embedded in social contexts. Alternatively, Pizzolato et al. (2012) asserted the importance of community in their interactional model of self-authorship.

Mayhew and Rockenbach (2021) proposed an interfaith learning and development framework (ILDT) through which students’ worldviews are understood to be cyclically self-authored in interaction with religiously plural contexts. The research on which it is based was intentionally inclusive of diverse RSS identities and international students. While the model prioritizes context and interaction, it frames religion primarily as belief and self-authorship as individualistic (Mayhew et al., in press; Nielsen et al., 2022), which are not reflective of all RSS communities.

Third Wave

Third wave theorists have questioned assumptions (Perez, 2019), acknowledged critical themes of power and intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1994/2005), and sought expansive explanations, aiming to effect social change (Abes et al., 2019). They have conceptualized spirituality as beyond cognition (Gottlieb, 2006) or as an intrinsic capacity (Benson et al., 2003) that may be paradoxical to rationality (Hay et al., 2006), rooted in indigenous or spiritual ways of knowing. Such authors (Dei et al., 2016; Shahjahan, 2010; Zine, 2004) have exposed invisible dominant narratives, advocated for equity on behalf of diverse RSS students, drawn attention to the structural privileging of Christianity in the United States (Small, 2020) as an issue of epistemic justice (Anderson, 2012), and highlighted the importance of religious culture (Edwards, 2018) alongside belief in student affairs scholarship. Future proposed spiritual development theories should expect to face scrutiny through this lens.

As an example of third wave theory, Benson and Roehlkepartain’s (2008) youth spiritual development theory was intentionally multicultural and multireligious in design. The researchers defined spirituality as an “intrinsic human capacity for self-transcendence” (Benson et al., 2003, p. 205) involving belonging, awakening, and ways of living, which they described as embedded in culture, beliefs, practices, identities, and significant life experiences. Importantly for internationally mobile students, their construct of spirituality was widely validated by RSS representatives and tested across 60 countries (Benson et al., 2012), making it the most global approach to spiritual development theory building to date. The researchers identified common student spiritual development profiles across cultures and found that students experience spiritual development regardless of religiosity, asserting it as a core human development process.

Analysis

For theory to meaningfully inform practice, scholars and practitioners must ask what theories miss as well as what they capture. Second and third wave inclusive and nonlinear theories seem to best suit a religiously diverse student population. Those such as the RMMDI and IMM that grapple with multidimensionality and navigating competing value systems are likely to speak to the complexity of students’ cross-cultural experiences. Internationally mobile students are apt to experience development as embodied and dynamic, to find themselves in power-laden RSS contexts, and may move among religious cultures with liminal ways of knowing and being. Encouragingly, we are seeing more theories like the ILDT and youth spiritual development theory that are context aware, interactional, and broadly inclusive.

However, scholars of student development theory have warned of the dangers of extending Western constructs beyond the cultures where they were first developed (Perez, 2019; Pizzolato et al., 2012). Professionals should maintain a healthy suspicion of unsupported universalist claims and continue the third wave trend of questioning what assumptions are embedded in theories, and who they are true for. For internationally mobile students who share a theorist’s paradigm, the assumptions may be appropriate, but for others they may cause harm. The meaningful unit of identity in some religious cultures may be the family or community, for which theory based on individual self-authorship would be a mismatch. In other contexts, a theory which emphasizes cognition or belief may undervalue the role of praxis and relationship. Care should be taken to ensure the model applied fits the student’s worldview through a contextual, multitheory approach (Baxter Magolda, 2009) that centers diverse students and their own experiences of their spirituality. This theoretical overview is intended to serve as a resource for practitioners. I recommend a decolonizing approach (Shahjahan et al., 2021; Vázquez, 2015) that involves representatives of indigenous knowledges in local contexts such as RSS councils.

Curiously, discussion of the soul, variously referred to as the core self, atman, or essence, whether individual or collective, distinct from or integrated with the divine, is conspicuously absent from much of student affairs spiritual development theorizing, with the exception of explicitly Christian spiritual development. This absence is striking given the field’s emphasis on relationship and transcendence. It may be evidence of a persistent academic secular cognitive bias (Shahjahan, 2010), a compelling argument for RSS compositional diversity within practitioner and research teams. Theorists who wish to center students should ask, “What do diverse students understand to be the purpose of spirituality?” Until scholars can encounter spirituality on the terms of RSS students and their indigenous knowledges, the enterprise of theory building risks epistemic injustice. Happily, encountering and seeking to understand the perspectives of diverse students is a daily opportunity for practitioners.

Implications for Practice

Caring for students’ spiritual connection and transcendence is aligned with the field’s values of holistic development and student support. Love and Talbot’s (2009) takeaways for practitioners are apt: reflecting on and making space for one’s own spirituality, being open to spirituality and religiosity in students, and seeking training. Student affairs and services professionals often have limited exposure to spiritual development theory. Practitioners should pursue self-reflexivity regarding their own spiritual influences, journeys, and biases and dialogue about the claim that spiritual development is an intrinsic human capacity that applies to all students regardless of religiosity. Colleagues can consider together the following questions: What might justice mean for students’ spiritual ways of knowing and being? What would challenge and support look like in this area? How might orientation, community building, wellness, student success, conduct, or career development be informed by spiritual development theory? Viewing students’ RSS commitments and communities as assets and forms of cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) might help staff to imagine new possibilities. All can advocate for formal recognition of RSS identities in diversity statements, policies, demographic and climate assessments, and implicit bias trainings.

Equity-minded supervisors can prioritize training practitioners in how to create brave spaces and facilitate interactional diversity (Luo, 2021; Rockenbach et al., 2017) in socially just ways (Edwards, 2016; Small, 2020). Leaders can cultivate referral partnerships, such as worldview councils, and look for ways to support ethnic groups on campus that function as sites of religious culture and belonging (Edwards, 2018). Those interested in creating a theory-to-practice culture can prioritize work time and budgets for staff to read and discuss recent publications, such as in the Journal of College & Character, the Journal of College Student Development, and recent books on the topic (Correia-Harker et al., 2019; Joshi, 2020; Small, 2020; Snipes & Manson, 2020), or join relevant professional organizations, such as Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education’s (NASPA) Spirituality and Religion Knowledge Community or the International Association of Student Affairs and Services (IASAS). Forthcoming scholarship on interfaith champions (Staples & Knight, 2020) articulates typologies that can help leaders identify their roles.

Student development theorizing that recognizes all students as spiritual beings, supports community and interaction, centers diverse students’ RSS identities, and honors indigenous and spiritual ways of knowing can and should be part of our professional knowledge base. If we accept that our role is to challenge and support internationally mobile students, let us exercise the spiritual virtue of humility to acknowledge that there is room to learn and grow in this area of holistic student development.

Disclosure Statement

The author is a member of Matthew J. Mayhew’s College Impact Lab (COiL).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Renee L. Bowling

a

Renee L. Bowling ([email protected]) is a PhD candidate in educational studies at the Ohio State University. She is currently studying worldview diversity education at global liberal arts colleges and universities: https://u.osu.edu/bowling-187.