- The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy transitioned its student services office into a comprehensive student affairs office to better serve both graduate and professional students (Phase 1). - They obtained administrative approval and support, negotiated resources, and developed a new organizational model through collaboration with stakeholders (Phase 2). - Phase 3 launched the new Office of Student Affairs, including hiring staff, developing workflows, and incorporating strategic planning and assessment into the new comprehensive model. This allowed for improved programming, services, and a greater sense of community for both graduate and professional students.

1. 2014, 1–5, Early Online
HOW WE. . .
How we transitioned to a comprehensive
professional and graduate student affairs office
WENDY C. COX, BRADFORD WINGO & AARON J. TODD
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Abstract
Background: Contemporary student affairs units arm students with professional skills, abilities and dispositions as they promote
student learning, growth and development, as opposed to providing only administrative services.
Aim: To describe the process for designing, planning, implementing and assessing a comprehensive student affairs unit that serves
graduate and professional students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy.
Method: A student services office that served only professional students was transformed in 2011 to an office of student affairs.
The goal of the expanded, comprehensive unit is to work, in collaboration with academic affairs, to promote holistic student
growth and development through proactive, intentional planning of co-curricular experiences.
Results: The comprehensive student affairs model has allowed for more student programming and mentoring opportunities,
improved graduate students’ feelings of connectedness to the School and improved efficiency of processes. The next steps include
thorough assessment of the model and monitoring of the strategic plan.
Conclusions: A comprehensive, centralized student affairs unit, working in partnership with academic affairs, can help
professional and graduate health affairs programs meet their goals for student development, while improving the efficiency of
administrative processes. This model can be easily implemented in other schools.
Introduction
Contemporary student affairs units are distinguished from their
predecessors by promoting student learning, growth and
development, as opposed to limiting the scope of their
practice to providing only services, such as registration and
admissions. The Council for Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education (CAS) recommends that programs arm
students with a unique toolbox of professional skills, abilities,
values and dispositions through the co-curricular experience
as a complement to the academic experience (CAS Standards
2012). Therefore, change is necessary in strategies and
approaches employed by offices of student affairs as students
evolve.
A variety of student development theories support the
integral role and provide a framework for constructing
impactful co-curricular opportunities. College impact theories
employ themes such as intentional involvement (Astin 1991),
retention/persistence (Tinto 1993) and student mattering
(Schlossberg et al. 1989) to track the source of student
change over time. Psychosocial development (Erickson 1980),
identity development (Chickering 1969), ego identity status
(Marcia 1966) and women’s identity development (Josselson
1987) aid in informing student affairs professionals.
Additionally, social identity theories (Helms 1990; Phinney
1990; Cross 1995) that help describe the identity
development process and experience for multicultural student
groups are important to consider. Even typology theories such
as Jung’s (1971) theory of personality types and Kolb’s (1984)
theory of experiential learning inform co-curricular experi-
ences. Embracing this foundation allows educators to put
theory into practice by intentionally developing programs of
Practice points
Offices of student services have typically provided
limited administrative services for students, such as
registration, course planning, admissions and event
planning.
A goal of contemporary student affairs units is to arm
students with a unique toolbox of professional skills,
abilities, values and dispositions through co-curricular
experiences that complement the curriculum.
In health sciences schools, graduate students’ needs
may not be emphasized to the same degree as
professional students, providing an opportunity for
offices of student affairs.
Through proactive, intentional planning, a compre-
hensive, re-envisioned student affairs office with a
clearly outlined strategic plan can be formed that will
assist health sciences programs meet their goals for
student development, while improving the efficiency
of administrative processes.
Correspondence: Wendy Cox, PharmD, Assistant Dean for Professional Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB7566, 100J Beard Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. Tel: +919 966 4031; Fax: +919 966 6919; E-mail: wendy_cox@unc.edu
ISSN 0142-159X print/ISSN 1466-187X online/14/000001–5 ß 2014 Informa UK Ltd. 1
DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.929100
MedTeachDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.combyUniversityofNorthCarolinaon07/02/14
Forpersonaluseonly.

2. value that meet the needs of students as they progress
throughout the curriculum.
Previously, the Office of Student Services at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Eshelman School of Pharmacy
provided basic service oriented support, such as registration
and admission assistance, annually to approximately 650
professional students (students training to be a practicing
pharmacist). Student organizations and organization advisors
were supported through the office, and school-wide events
(e.g. Orientation, White Coat Ceremony and Commencement)
were planned and executed. The graduate program within the
School, consisting of approximately 100 total doctor of
philosophy and master’s students annually, was supported
by a single administrative assistant and research advisors, not
the Office of Student Services. Inefficiencies among both
programs, including disjointed communication and structure, a
need for improved student advocacy and lost opportunities for
holistic student development (professional, career, leader-
ship), resulted in an interest in transforming the Office of
Student Services into an Office of Student Affairs that served
both professional and graduate students.
What we did
When considering this transformation, we deemed it best to
implement a phased approach, consisting of three primary
phases. Phase one focused on administrative support and
approval for the new model. Phase two focused on the pre-
planning required prior to launching the new unit. Lastly,
phase three actualized all of the planning as the unit was
officially launched. This was ultimately a process of
‘‘re-framing’’ our organization by utilizing a frame as a
mental model of ideas and assumptions needed to navigate
and understand our unit (Bolman Deal 2008, p. 11).
To initiate this transition to a comprehensive student affairs
model, we first embarked on garnering support and approval
from the School’s administrative leaders (phase one). In many
ways, it was a perfect storm for exploring the change. The right
people and decision-makers, the right bold-thinking and
progressive culture and the right time were all in place to
evolve the structure and delivery of student services.
In soliciting administrative support, we first engaged in
candid conversations regarding the utility and impact of
student services and developed a shared philosophy or a
new mentality focused on the needed harmonization and
equity of service, support and experience provided to both
graduate and professional students.
Subsequently during phase one, lead administrators and
practitioners negotiated the value added by installing a
centralized student services model. These discussions focused
on the benefit to students, academic divisions and the School
as a whole. The value added to the student experience hinged
on learner-centered ideologies, student success, and holistic
growth and development (Pascarella Terenzini 1991). The
value added at the academic division level hinged on easing
departmental burden and better coordinating student service
efforts fostered by improved information sharing and stand-
ardization of practice. The School also benefitted through the
creation of a distinct graduate, whose contributions to the field
of pharmacy or pharmaceutical sciences, regardless of area of
practice, research or expertise, were evident and well-defined.
After developing a shared philosophy and agreeing on the
advantages of a centralized unit, we then negotiated funding
and resources for the transition. A centrally located and easily
accessible space for the comprehensive student affairs unit that
was adequate to meet core goals was sought. We realized
location of the unit was paramount to success, so the
negotiation for space was an integral one. Planners and
administrators considered viable funding options and finally
reached consensus on office space, position upgrades and
professional development opportunities for staff members,
intended to arm them with the ability to become or remain
experts in the field.
Phase two (pre-planning) incorporated all of the discus-
sions, planning and decisions that had to be made prior to
launching the new centralized unit. The success of this phase
depended on collaboration with and involvement of a variety
of school partners and stakeholders, particularly since a
comprehensive student affairs office would impact essentially
every functional unit within the School. In many ways, these
were discussions of climate – how faculty, students, staff and
other partners perceive and experience the institution
(Peterson Spencer 1990) – and of culture, the espoused
and enacted character of the school or unit (Kuh 1993).
We first considered the importance and meaning of the
name of the office since the re-envisioned primary focus of the
unit had changed. After some discussion, the Office of Student
Affairs was chosen as the preferred name for a variety of
reasons. First, the name signified the partnership venture the
office shares with academic affairs. Although not content
specific, both academic and student affairs units share many of
the same desired student learning outcomes. CAS (2012)
describes student affairs units as ‘‘institutional divisions
designed to complement the educational goals of academic
affairs’’ and planners believed a change in the unit’s name
signified this shift in focus. The desire to re-name the unit was
also woven into the prospect of delivering a developmentally
appropriate co-curricular experience for all students. While
students would still receive services, the unit’s primary goal
centers on holistic learning and growth over time. Additionally,
a change in name would send a pointed message to other
practitioners, not only regarding the partnership venture with
academic affairs, but also the unit’s intent focus on student
development. Naming also sets a unique tone for a newly
formed office and the updated name aligned nicely with the
School’s values of growth and learning which occur outside
the classroom (UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy Strategic
Plan 2012).
Also integral to phase two was the development of a new
organizational model for the comprehensive student affairs
unit. Intentional organizational thought was invested regarding
how best to meet the needs of both our professional and
graduate student populations. Prior to committing to an
organizational model, there were many conversations with
school partners about how best to structure the unit.
New relationships were forged with lead academic adminis-
trators and support staff within both the graduate and
W. C. Cox et al.
2
MedTeachDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.combyUniversityofNorthCarolinaon07/02/14
Forpersonaluseonly.

3. professional programs and these relationships led to
constructive conversations about unit structure. The consensus
emerged that there was no longer a need for segregation of
position duties between the graduate and professional pro-
grams so positions were streamlined. Some positions were
re-envisioned while some were newly created. Our model
shares many similarities with the structural frame outlined by
Bolman Deal (2008) emphasizing the importance of ‘‘clear,
well understood goals, roles/relationships and adequate
coordination’’ (p. 46) in achieving organizational success.
Through this process, work plans were crafted to include
expanded duties and greater autonomy, and job descriptions
were written to re-brand the positions and attract student
affairs professionals to the new positions. Careful consider-
ation was given to the lines of communication between lead
administrators within both the graduate and professional
programs in an effort to encourage transparency and infor-
mation sharing.
As a continuation within phase two, program planners
spent time anticipating challenges to the implementation of a
comprehensive student affairs office. We realized that
substantive change never comes without some level of
dissonance or resistance. To reduce or limit resistance, we
fostered open, transparent and proactive planning. This is a
lateral strategy of communication and planning that utilizes
formal/informal meetings, taskforces, coordinating roles and
networks to accomplish goals (Bolman Deal 2008). Planners
considered all options, contingencies and ‘‘what if’s’’ in
deciding on the best course of planning action. By involving
multiple partners in the pre-planning and actualization phases,
everyone was granted a voice in the decision-making process.
Lastly, phase three (actualization) was initiated where the
vision and planning for a new comprehensive office became a
reality. The first considerations of this phase revolved around
workflows for a comprehensive unit that would serve all
students regardless of program. This standardization process
considered the similarities, differences and peculiarities of our
two student populations through a variety of lenses.
Importance was placed on involving a proper breadth and
depth of School representatives in the development of
workflow plans. Faculty, staff and students all invested their
time and efforts to this process and the rich perspectives each
group invested made the process dynamic and rewarding.
The recruitment and hiring portion of phase three proved
also to be integral to the unit’s successful transition and launch.
Recruitment and communication of the new student affairs
positions were targeted to higher education and student affairs
listservs and posting boards. The candidate search and
assessment process was strategic in nature and facilitated by
the development of uniform application and interview rubrics
both capturing the essence of the positions and greatly aiding
the search process.
Phase three also included the on-boarding and training
process for new hires. Building a new team with new players
and new approaches can be a challenge, but was viewed as a
new opportunity. Globally through this process, we hoped to
build a community of student affairs practitioners, as well as a
common sense of purpose for each staff member and the unit
as a whole. Staff meetings moved beyond the passive sharing
of area updates to include more active constructs of discussion
and brainstorming of best practices and programming
designed to grow the knowledge base of the staff and,
ultimately, allow the staff to exercise greater impact on student
learning and growth.
Once the office was fully staffed, a strategic plan for the
new unit that was in alignment with the School’s strategic plan
was developed (UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy Office of
Student Affairs Strategic Plan 2013). The development and
monitoring of a strategic plan was deemed important in order
for the office to go beyond the day-to-day duties and
expectations. We saw this as an opportunity to think
intentionally and stretch the new office to meet aggressive,
but measurable, goals. Various staff were assigned as the lead
person responsible for ensuring, with the contributions from
others, that the strategic initiative was met. This strategy was
two-fold, one it ensured that the office staff had a consistent
understanding of the mission, vision and goals of the new unit
and secondly, it outlined each individual’s expected
contribution.
Next, we incorporated graduate students into the culture of
service and support. The assistant director of student affairs
took advantage of speaking engagements at new graduate
student orientation and select classes to promote the services
and opportunities provided by the Office of Student Affairs.
Since the previous Office of Student Services only served
professional students and the number of professional students
is at least five times the number of graduate students, graduate
students were reassured that they would be advocated and
cared for in ways that would promote their personal and
professional development.
Throughout the first year in the new Office of Student
Affairs, structured professional development initiatives for
graduate students, student-filled leadership committees and
active relationships with alumni surfaced for the first time.
Graduate students are embracing a culture where their ideas
are valued and they are engaged in shaping not only
themselves, but the image of the School as well. Specifically,
an introductory graduate student core class now has a
component of career and professional development. The
Graduate Student Organization (student government) has seen
an increase in participation, an American Association of
Pharmaceutical Sciences (AAPS) student chapter was created,
and inquiries of chartering other leadership groups have been
received. The School hosted an Alumni Connections Forum to
share the successes of students past and present, and this
event spurned a standing Alumni Outreach Committee which
is in the midst of developing an alumni mentoring program. By
intentionally inviting students to lead through the new Office
model, both students and the School become more whole.
Since many of the professional development needs of both
student populations are similar, professional development
programs and opportunities that are open to both professional
and graduate students have been planned. This not only
improves efficiency, but allows for more programming for all
students. Additionally, opportunities for students to interact
between the two programs enrich the experience by encoura-
ging them to network and learn from one another.
Comprehensive student affairs office
3
MedTeachDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.combyUniversityofNorthCarolinaon07/02/14
Forpersonaluseonly.

4. What’s next?
Given the new programming, services, core objectives and
key performance indicators associated with the combined
office, a renewed focus on intentional assessment will be
instrumental for the unit moving forward. Intentional assess-
ment of student affairs’ initiatives is not merely an exercise, but
rather a direct attempt to determine programmatic utility and
effectiveness. Although currently enrolled students are annu-
ally assessed, the survey tools by which we gather data do not
allow decision-makers to effectively monitor and track pro-
gress towards achieving key performance indicators on the
strategic plan or to accurately gauge the impact of student
affairs’ initiatives. Intentional assessment of related student
perceptions and experiences as well as assessment of key
learning objectives associated with programs and services will
inform both the unit’s practice moving forward and also future
iterations of our strategic plan.
Lessons learned
Throughout the transition process, we learned several lessons.
First, it is important to note that proactive, intentional planning
must be balanced with a reasonable timeline for implemen-
tation of a successful transition. The evolution of a new office
occurs over time, so decision-makers are encouraged to set
aggressive, yet reasonable, benchmarks. Time also needs to be
allotted to mentor and develop new staff if positions are
reimagined or created.
Secondly, it is crucial to engage key stakeholders in
discussion and planning early and often in the process.
This allows an opportunity for consensus building and the
development of a culture of shared governance. Notably,
the student voice is especially important in developing
programs and initiatives tied to student success. We did not
engage students in the process, but in retrospect, they should
have been invited to participate in the process from the
beginning.
Lastly, consistent, ongoing reflection is another important
construct that warrants attention throughout the transition
process to assess if vision for change and the reality of
implementation are in alignment. It is important to stay fluid
and flexible throughout the process. Setbacks are inevitable
and the transition often takes longer than expected.
Conclusions
We have already begun to see the benefits of the new model
and believe the idea of a comprehensive office of student
affairs serving both graduate and professional students is
replicable in others health sciences schools. Student traffic in
the office, especially graduate student traffic, has increased as
students’ awareness of how the office can support and aid
them in their professional development has improved. We
have played an enhanced mentoring and guiding role for
students, student leaders and student organizations in the
School, through improved orientation programming, advising,
one-on-one meetings and professional development
programming. Cost and time savings have also been realized
through efficiencies in our structured workflow processes.
We feel strongly that the merging of professional and
graduate student services into one office carries with it tangible
benefits and positive results that impact the student experi-
ence. A comprehensive, centralized student affairs unit,
working in partnership with academic affairs, can help
professional and graduate health affairs programs meet their
goals for student development, while improving the efficiency
of administrative processes.
Notes on contributors
WENDY C. COX, PharmD, Assistant Dean for Professional Education,
Clinical Assistant Professor, Division of Practice Advancement and Clinical
Education, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
BRADFORD WINGO, MEd, Director of Student Affairs, UNC Eshelman
School of Pharmacy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, NC, USA
AARON J. TODD, MS, Assistant Director of Student Affairs, UNC Eshelman
School of Pharmacy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no declarations
of interest.
References
Astin AW. 1991. Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of
priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman LG, Deal TE. 2008. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chickering AW. 1969. Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education General
Standards. 2012. In Council for the Advancement of Higher Education
(Ed.), CAS professional standards for higher education. 8th ed.
Washington, DC: Council for the Advancement of Standards in
Higher Education General Standards.
Cross Jr WE. 1995. The psychology of nigrescence: Revising the Cross
model. In: Ponterotto JG, Casas JM, Suzuki LA, Alexander CM, editors.
Handbook of multicultural counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
pp 93–122.
Erickson EH. 1980. Identity and the life cycle. New York: Norton.
Helms JE. 1990. Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and
practice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Josselson R. 1987. Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in
women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jung CG. 1971. Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Kolb DA. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kuh GD. 1993. Appraising the character of a college. J Counsel Dev
71(6):661–668.
Marcia JE. 1966. Development and validation of ego identity status.
J Pers Soc Psychol 3(5):551–558.
Pascarella ET, Terenzini PT. 1991. How college affects students.
Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Peterson MW, Spencer MG. 1990. Understanding academic culture and
climate. New directions for institutional research. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass. pp 3–18.
Phinney JS. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of
research. Psychol Bull 108:449–514.
W. C. Cox et al.
4
MedTeachDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.combyUniversityofNorthCarolinaon07/02/14
Forpersonaluseonly.

5. Schlossberg NK, Lynch AQ, Chickering AW. 1989. Improving
higher education environment for adults: Responsive pro-
grams and services from entry to departure. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Tinto V. 1993. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures for student
attrition. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy Strategic Plan. 2012–2017. [Accessed
30 January 2014] Available from https://pharmacy.unc.edu/about-us/
school-organization/office-of-the-dean/strategic-plan.
UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy Office of Student Affairs Five-Year
Strategic Plan. 2013. [Accessed 30 January 2014] Available from https://
pharmacy.unc.edu/about-us/school-organization/student-affairs.
Comprehensive student affairs office
5
MedTeachDownloadedfrominformahealthcare.combyUniversityofNorthCarolinaon07/02/14
Forpersonaluseonly.