A Case Study

A Case Study
Jason Makowsky
Indiana Wesleyan University

Submitted for CSA 552: Process of Adult Development
Azusa Pacific University
Dr. Carol Lundberg


Case Study
Grant is a trustworthy leader. He is loved by all on his staff and as a senior others look up to him and his decision making ability. Tonight, after heading home to his dormitory apartment, Grant stops his hall director and asks if they can talk. His countenance reveals that he is wrestling with something big. Grant begins to explain how his relationship with his girlfriend of five years, who he is now engaged to, has never been satisfying. He admits that he thinks that he should break off his engagement of eight months and wants his hall director’s advice. The hall director questions whether Grant just needs to take a break from her, or if his mind is made up? Whichever, he claims he is positive he cannot marry his fiancé. Despite the counsel, Grant decides to drive to his fiancé’s house and meet with her and her family to call off the wedding. The news is not received well. The family is angry and his fiancé is crushed. After hours of discussing the issue, Grant and his fiancé both agree this is the best decision even though others will not understand. He returns that Monday and updates everyone on how things went. Rumors have already begun on the small campus and many people are angry with him and do not understand, but Grant holds to his decision with little support from others.

Abstract
What makes the above situation interesting to this author is the courage Grant took in defying all social norms by breaking off his engagement. This paper will discuss Grant’s story employing insights from Schlossberg’s (1984) Transitions theory as well as Chickering’s (1969) theory on Identity Development. Further discussion will determine whether the theories were useful in helping understand Grant’s developmental process and where the theories failed to lend expertise.

Discussion
Chickering’s revised vectors (Chickering & Reisser, 1993) define the third vector as moving through autonomy toward interdependence. This transition-like vector describes what Grant was faced with in the above case study. He not only made a defining decision contrary to popular opinion, but also worked out the ramifications of the decision in a broader community. He realized that many more people were involved in the wedding day than just himself and his fiancé. He involved her parents in the discussion which illustrated his understanding of the inter-connected nature of his dilemma. Grant clearly showed autonomy and emotional independence typical of vector three likely having arrived there by years of processing this decision. Gray (1999) would compare Grant’s years of processing to the male temperament to go into their cave while sorting problems out. He says, “Men become increasingly focused and withdrawn [when dealing with stress]” (p. 29). Grant’s months of earlier processing, and recent processing with his resident director, revealed his transition through autonomy. Grant showed signs of movement into Chickering’s fourth vector by the way he and his fiancé came to consensus on this issue. The fourth vector describes one who is tolerant of others' views and displays “…the ability to accept individuals for who they are, to respect differences, and to appreciate commonalities” (Reisser, 1995, p. 509).

One interesting result of Grant’s maturation during this time is how his faith development blossomed amidst the crisis. One would assume his decision, in the face of such disapproval, would cause Grant to doubt or at least struggle in his faith, but as he processed the outcome he began to point to ways he perceived God had given him strength. He could sense a renewed excitement in his faith identity. Jones et al. (1986) argue that “spiritual development is no steady, regular advance, but is punctuated by crises in which growth appears to have come to a stop for a time…” (p. 566). Grant’s spiritual breakthrough was certainly a time of growth due to crisis. One weakness of Chickering & Reisser’s (1993) theory is the lack of any type of faith identity as part of maturation. Even in the identity or purpose vectors, the exclusion of faith is apparent, although surely not expected from theorists who do not evaluate from a faith viewpoint.

Grant was also at a cross-road in his development. Not only had he grappled with his faith, relationships, and sense of self, his decision also caused him to wonder about his purpose for the future. He had prepared himself mentally as one who would be married while entering the ministry vocation, but now had to re-invent this self-perception. Grant was juggling with four of Chickering’s vectors during this one decision, which shows the interrelation of the vectors within the model and the model’s inherent weakness in framing development more fluidly. While it helps one understand small achievements along the way it does little to account for student perception, hindsight evaluation, or disordered movement through the vectors.

Another model that frames Grant’s situation in new light is one proposed by Schlossberg et al., (1995). In this Transition model development is outlined as more of a continuum, as opposed to Chickering’s static model of development. Grant’s level of meaning or perception he placed on his decision and its consequences played a vital role in how it caused him to develop. The decision to break off his engagement had rippling effects as well, which, in turn, were new transitions he experienced. Not only was Grant’s fiancé and her family hurt, but friends back at school were too. Valuable to understanding the impact of the transition, Schlossberg et al. propose defining the transition in light of its type, context, and impact. Grant’s decision was unanticipated (type), involved his personal life and public life back at school and within his small town (context), and changed his daily pattern somewhat (impact). The transitional effects he continues to experience are part of the process of understanding and growing through this crisis. Schlossberg et al., (1995) frame their understanding of a transition as one “… moving in,” “moving through,” and “moving out” (Evans et al., 1998, p. 112), of the transition. Grant spent years moving into the transition as he processed feelings toward his fiancé privately. He moved through the transition by processing it with close friends and his hall director and inevitably his fiancé. Finally, as he understands its impact, he puts meaning to it and grows; evidence he is moving out of the transition.

As Grant evaluates his situation he has numerous factors that dictate how he will cope with the situation. Schlossberg et al., (1995) outline in their model many ways of defining more clearly resources that are either pros or cons; referred to as assets and liabilities within the model. Some of Grant’s assets are his optimistic attitude and humble spirit, his support network at home and among close friends, and his desire to cope with the problem by actively taking responsibility for his actions. A few liabilities might be how long he delayed making his decision and what internal factors might still be unrealized as to why he broke off the engagement. The Transition model looks more in depth at the person and the situation to discern meaning. It takes into account more than just the perceived behavior of the individual.

Grant’s particular decision, although significant, seemed to resolve agreeably. He has reconciled with his fiancé and they both are happy with the outcome. They both point to their break-up as significant in their adult development and instrumental in opening more honest dialogue with their parents. Also, they both see sizeable growth in their faith development.

By looking at this situation through the eyes of the mentioned theorists it becomes clear how Grant has been changed by and has learned from the situation. It is also evident that behind everyday decisions, extraordinary growth takes place. Without Grant’s faith, one wonders if things would have worked out much differently. He might have not felt as justified in breaking things off with his fiancé if he did not sense a leading from a divine source. A review of these theories has indeed illustrated that much more was occurring in Grant than the plain eye could see.

References
Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N., Forney, D. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice (pp. 20-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, J., Ph.D., (1999). Men are from Mars, women are from Venus (p. 29). New York: Harper Collins.
Jones, C., Wainwright, G., & Yarnold, E. (1986). The study of spirituality (p. 566). New York: Oxford University Press.
Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of college student development, 36, 505-511.
Schlossberg, N.K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition. New York: Springer.
Schlossberg, N.K., Waters, E.B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.