A Portrait of Balance: Personal and Professional Balance among Student Affairs Educators.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative research study was to explore (a) how student affairs professionals define the concept of in the context of balancing their personal and professional lives and (b) how student affairs professionals identified as balanced describe their experience of achieving and maintaining in their lives. An increasing number of working individuals have become concerned with the Holy Grail of the workplace-the ability to achieve personal/professional (Buckner & Sandholtz, 2003, p. 68). Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines as state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces, or as a stable mental or psychological state; emotional stability (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2003). Kofodimos (1993) defined as a satisfying, healthy, and productive life that includes work, play, and love; that integrates range of life activities with attention to self and to personal and spiritual development; and that expresses person's unique wishes, interests and values (p. xiii). Balance challenge for most individuals working in higher education (Tack, 1991). Toma and Grady (2002) reported that achieving in one's life is often difficult but essential (p. 97). Within our profession we serve as both educators and role models to students. Toma and Grady wrote that we bear particular responsibility in practicing what we preach (p. 102) as we encourage students to think holistically about thek development and lead lives of themselves. Student affairs professionals often assume many responsibilities within thek positions, creating high personal demand in terms of both talent and energy (Carpenter, 2003). However, as demanding schedules from work-related activities continue to mount, there an increasing recognition and cognizant effort by student affairs practitioners to be more mindful of their obligations to themselves, particularly in terms of maintaining degree of personal and professional (Amy & Smith, 1996; Carpenter, 2003; Toma & Grady, 2002; Reisser, 2002; Tack, 1991). Articles in many popular magazines, including Time, Fortune, Ebony, Money, and Prevention (Dollemore & Harrar, 2003; Fisher, 2003; Gilbert, 2002; Steptoe, 2003; Wang, 2003), describing the busy lives of high profile professionals, have frequently turned to the topic of balance. Most focus on interviews and profiles of individuals who appear to have attained and offer lessons on how others can achieve the same. The sheer volume of publications with strategies for achieving and avoiding burnout further identifies it as an important topic. The publications range from journal articles to self help books, all offering guidelines, models, and suggestions for achieving (Tarver, Canada, & Iim, 1999; Markel, 2000; Provost, 1990; Reisser, 2002). Many articles attempt to create list of suggestions on how to solve the balance problem, while others find fundamental problem with the typical approach to the topic and propose alternative ways of approaching the issue of (Caproni, 1997; Kofodimos, 1993). secretan (2000) reported that integration, not balance, the solution! Several articles were specifically directed at student affairs professionals (Amy & Smith, 1996; Bellman, 1990; Berwick, 1992; Toma & Grady, 2002; Wiggers, Forney, & Wallace-Schutzman, 1982), but contrary to the national trend, the student affairs literature offers comparatively little to practitioners interested in achieving as it relates specifically to their profession. Nearly decade ago, Tack (1991) called for shift away from the workaholic attitudes adopted by many individuals in higher education and toward work-to-live philosophy, but our literature has not reflected this directive. This topic predominantly emerged in student affairs literature within the context of imbalance through research on stress levels, job satisfaction, burnout, and attrition among student affairs professionals. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it