CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS
OFFICERS’ INTERPRETATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE MINIMUM LEGAL
DRINKING AGE AND THE
AMETHYST INITIATIVE: A
DISCURSIVE POLICY ANALYSIS
Rebecca Jane Caldwell
SACSA 2012
THANKS
SACSA Award Committee
 University of North Carolina-Wilmington
 Clemson University
 Dissertation Committee:






Dr. Pam Havice, Chair
Dr. Tony Cawthon
Dr. Jason Cassidy
Dr. James Satterfield
Participating CSAOs
ALCOHOL USE AMONG U.S. COLLEGE
STUDENTS



College students 18-24 drink more than noncollege peers (Hingson, 2010).
Percentage of college students who participated
in high-risk drinking increased between 1999 and
2005 from 41.7% to 45.8% (Hingson, 2010).
Estimates of annual alcohol-related harm have
been recently increased (Hingson, 2009).
ALCOHOL PREVENTION MODELS


Ecological perspective combines individual
interventions with interpersonal, organizational, and
environmental interventions (Glanz & Bishop, 2010).

Higher Education Center’s Environmental Management
model (DeJong et al., 1998; DeJong & Langford, 2002)

NIAAA (2002) “A Call to Action” and the 3-in-1 framework,
which used four tiers of effectiveness
Only half of institutions use effective individual efforts
and only 1/3 work with communities (Nelson et al., 2010).
AMETHYST INITIATIVE & MLDA



Announced in August 2008 with 119 signatories.
Currently at 136 institutions.
Asks for the age 21 MLDA to be reconsidered.
MLDA linked to less binge drinking among 18-24
year olds, except for college students (Grucza et al.,
2009; Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002).

MLDA is cited to lower alcohol-related traffic
accidents, drinking rates in 18-20 year olds, and
alcohol dependency (Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002; Shultz
et al., 2001; Norberg et al., 2009).
CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS
(CSAOS)

Part of core institutional leadership team (Barr &
Sandeen, 2006; Bass, 2006; Brown, 1997; Sandeen, 2001, 1991)

Scope influenced by institutional characteristics
(Heida, 2006; Palm, 1985; Tederman, 1997)

Relationship to president is key (Sandeen, 2001; Bass
2006)

Campus expert on student development (Brown,
1997)

Overall, there is limited research on this role.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM





High-risk drinking remains a serious issue for college
campuses.
Public health and higher education researchers hold
different conclusions about the status of effective
prevention efforts.
The MLDA, while considered effective in many
settings, continues to be both controversial and
possibly less effective in college settings.
The Amethyst Initiative was a movement by college
presidents that proposed a reconsideration of the
MLDA.
CSAOs, as a primary policy implementers of the
MLDA and the AI, are the subject of limited research
on the topic.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS


How do Chief Student Affairs Officers interpret
the Minimum Legal Drinking Age?
How has the Amethyst Initiative affected Chief
Student Affairs Officers’ interpretation and
implementation of the Minimum Legal Drinking
Age?
THEORETIC TRADITION
Interpretivism
Discursive
Approaches
to Policy
Analysis
Interpretive
Policy
Analysis
Discourse
Analysis
DISCURSIVE APPROACHES TO POLICY
ANALYSIS


Policy development and implementation can be
understood through their relevant meaning to human
actors (Bevir & Rhodes, 2003; Wagenaar, 2007).
Taken place in an environment of complexity,
ambiguity, contingency and conflicts with other policies
and positions (Bohman, 1996; Dryzek, 1990; Allen, 2003;
Schwandt, 1997; Kekes, 1993; Wagenaar, 2002, 2007).


Embedded in a web of social meanings produced and
reproduced through discursive practices (Fischer, 2003).
Focus on the languages, discourses, and rhetorical
arguments used to create frames around issues (Fischer,
2003).
INTERPRETIVE POLICY ANALYSIS

4 Key Phases (Yanow, 1996, 2000):
 Identify artifacts that are carriers of meaning.

Identify the interpretive communities relevant to
a policy that are the perceivers of meaning.

Identify the discourses through which the
meanings are communicated.

Identify any point of conflict that suggests that
different groups attach divergent meanings to
some aspect of the policy.
CSAOS INTERPRETATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AI AND MLDA
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Discourse is a specific ensemble of ideas,
concepts, and categorizations that are produced,
reproduced, and transformed to give meaning to
physical and social relations. (Allen, 2003; Hajer, 1993;
Fischer, 2003)


Each discourse is derived from a different line of
reasoning. (Fischer, 2003)
Different discourses about a problem lend
themselves to different policy solutions (Clarke,
2007; Fischer, 2003)
GEE- DISCOURSE ANALYSIS METHODS
Focus on both the details of language structure
and meaning in social, cultural, and political
terms. (Gee, 2005, 2011)
 Balances focuses on cognition, social interactions
and activities, and society and institutions.
 27 tools for discourse analysis, including 5
theoretical tools:






Situated meaning
Social languages
Intertextuality
Figured Worlds
The “Big D” Discourse
SAMPLE DEVELOPMENT
Sample Goal
Amethyst
Initiative
NonAmethyst
Initiative
Institutional Characteristics
Private institution
Public institution
Religiously affiliated
Women’s college
4
1
2
1
6
2
2
1
5
3
1
1
Regional Characteristics
New England
Mid-Atlantic
2
2
2
3
5
2
1
1
3
South or Midwest
West
1
PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
AI Campuses
Partici
pant
Gender
Female
Yrs in
Higher
Ed.
20+
Yrs
in
Role
10
#1
#2
Male
30
10
#4
Male
33
24
#7
Male
40
3
#9
Female
19
4
#10
Female
20-30
4
#11
Female
10-15
2
New
England
MidAtlantic
Midwest
#15
Male
29
8
Southern
Non- AI Campuses
Region
Size of
Inst.
Particip
ant
Gender
Male
Yrs in
Higher
Ed.
34
Yrs
in
Role
10
MidAtlantic
New
England
MidAtlantic
Southern
Under
2000
Under
2000
Under
2000
Over
10,000
Under
2000
Under
2000
Under
2000
Under
2000
#3
#5
Male
20
5
#6
Male
18
8
#8
Male
30
7
#12
Male
18
1
#13
Male
30+
9
#14
Male
30+
7
#16
Male
31+
15
Region
Size of
Inst.
New
England
New
England
MidAtlantic
New
England
New
England
New
England
New
England
Southern
500010,000
Under
2000
Under
2000
Under
2000
Under
2000
500010,000
Over
10,000
Over
10,000
TRUSTWORTHINESS
Member checking
 Progressive subjectivity:

Subjectivity journal
 Analytic memo after each interview

Thick, rich description in results chapter
 Hand-coding by transcript and question, followed
by coding with Nvivo 9.
 Checking rival explanations, searching for
discrepant information and alternative
explanations.
 Peer debriefing

AUDIT TRAIL EXAMPLE
Interview
Subjectivity Journal
I think the emphasis there is not, you
know, an anti-alcohol taskforce or ways
to stop people from drinking because I
think it’s an acknowledgement that the
people are going to drink, and how can
we teach them drink responsibly, and
how can we work with them to hopefully
avoid people being harmed, injured or
people being killed. (Participant #7, AI)
“Today, I heard another CSAO use a
phrase “dangerous and irresponsible
drinking.” Does this phrase have an
origin? Being juxtaposed with underage
drinking. They are staking their claim on
the problem definition…problem
definition privileges solutions.”
Analytic Memo
Theme
“This CSAO is from a large southern
institution, so the dangerous and
irresponsible label is not a small school
claim.” “This CSAO is comfortable with
the D & I label even in response to a
tragedy.”
Dangerous and irresponsible drinking is
the problem, not underage drinking.
AMETHYST INITIATIVE DECLARATION

6 Discourses:

Open Market of Ideas

Outdated Research

Rites of Adulthood

Effective Education

Hidden Danger

Moral Development


























IT’S TIME TO RETHINK THE DRINKING AGE
In 1984 Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which
imposed a penalty of 10% of a state’s federal highway appropriation on
any state setting its drinking age lower than 21. Twenty-four years later,
our experience as college and university presidents convinces us that
TWENTY-ONE IS NOT WORKING
A culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking, often conducted offcampus, has developed. Alcohol education that mandates abstinence as the
only legal option has not resulted in significant constructive behavioral
change among our students.
Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving
on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature
enough to have a beer.
By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that
erode respect for the law.
HOW MANY TIMES MUST WE RELEARN THE LESSONS OF
PROHIBITION?
We call upon our elected officials:
To support an informed and dispassionate public debate over the
effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.
To consider whether the 10% highway fund incentive encourages or
inhibits that debate.
To invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to
make responsible decisions about alcohol.
We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous,
constructive role as these critical discussions unfold. (Amethyst Initiative, 2008)
RESEARCH QUESTION 1:
HOW DO CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS
OFFICERS INTERPRET THE MINIMUM
LEGAL DRINKING AGE?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
CSAOs defined dangerous and irresponsible
drinking as the focus of their alcohol abuse
prevention efforts, as opposed to underage
drinking;
CSAOs expressed a strong belief that students
could be reasoned into right action regarding
alcohol use through educational efforts;
CSAOs expressed a need to find a balance between
strictness and leniency in their response to
alcohol abuse on campus;
CSAOs expressed a range of beliefs about the
changeability of their campus alcohol abuse
issues;
CSAOs were unclear about what would happen if
the MLDA was lowered; and
CSAOs attempted to balance their multiple roles
on campus as they led alcohol abuse prevention
efforts.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THEME 1
PROBLEM: DANGEROUS AND
IRRESPONSIBLE DRINKING



Drinking divided into low-risk drinking and
extreme drinking behavior.
Drinking seen as more extreme than past,
particularly the CSAOs’ experiences as students.
In this viewpoint, MLDA is viewed as:
Contributing to dangerous student behavior
 Helpful as a tool to correct student behavior
 Nuisance law that wastes time to enforce

RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THEME 2
STUDENTS CAN BE REASONED INTO RIGHT
ACTION: EDUCATIONAL EFFORTS

Educating students to be responsible was viewed
as effective.




Despite NIAAA reports of ineffectiveness
MLDA is an impediment to effective alcohol
education.
MLDA interferes with the ethical development of
students.
Use of campus conduct system is a regrettable
act used when students don’t learn from
educational efforts.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THEME 3
BALANCING STRICTNESS & LENIENCY




Expressed as balance between education and
enforcement.
Overzealous enforcement may also have
consequences.
Defining which types of behaviors will be the
focus of efforts.
Two CSAOs experienced presidential interference
in their balancing efforts.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THEME 4
LACK OF CONSENSUS ON CHANGEABILITY

Four CSAOs (25%) cited significant progress on
alcohol abuse issues.


Two relied on MLDA; two relied on pragmatic
policies.
Other CSAOs expressed doubt about ability to
make progress.

Desire for more than current best practices
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THEME 5
UNCLEAR ABOUT LOWER MLDA EFFECTS

Little effect of lower MLDA because students
already ignored the law.
MLDA as a possible contributor to higher alcohol
abuse
 CSAOs were students during a lower MLDA.


Arguments for the MLDA from public health and
against from the AI were in evidence.
RESEARCH QUESTION 1: THEME 6
CSAOS BALANCES ROLES AS THEY LEAD
ALCOHOL ABUSE PREVENTION EFFORTS

MLDA was an impediment to positive
relationship with student body.



Role modeling of responsible use and behavior
MLDA interferes with the total student
development of students/transition to adulthood.
CSAOs who were more supportive of the MLDA
had greater psychological distance from students.
RESEARCH QUESTION 2:
HOW HAS THE AMETHYST INITIATIVE
AFFECTED CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS
OFFICERS’ INTERPRETATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM
LEGAL DRINKING AGE?
1.
AI institutions believed that they were engaging
in an intellectual debate about the effectiveness
of the MLDA;
2.
The AI failed to capture the attention and
imagination of campuses and the broader
culture;
3.
The CSAOs in this study displayed a broad range
of involvement by their president in the decision
whether or not to sign the AI; and
4.
The AI was seen as counter-productive to
campuses citing progress on alcohol abuse
issues.
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: THEME 1
BELIEVED THAT THE AI WAS A DEBATE



Surprised and offended to be misinterpreted as
being for lowering the MLDA
Debate and inquiry are core values in higher
education.
The path of the AI was unclear and the
leadership was lost.
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: THEME 2
AI FAILED TO CAPTURE ATTENTION



CSAOs from both AI and non-AI institutions
reported that it generated little attention.
Lack of political interest in the AI by students, even
when the CSAO tried to engage students
Some presidents received negative feedback.
RESEARCH QUESTION 2: THEME 3
CSAOS WERE INVOLVED DIFFERENTLY


CSAOs’ involvement ranged from a truly mutual
decision with their president to no consultation
and no announcement.
Only four CSAOs were supportive of the MLDA.
7 of 8 AI CSAOs supported their president’s position.
 4 of 8 Non-AI CSAOS supported their president’s
position.

RESEARCH QUESTION 2: THEME 4
AI COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE TO SUCCESS

If policy enforcement was part of a successful
strategy, a CSAOs was likely to view the AI as a
short-term or long-term setback.

This view was held even by a CSAO who was
personally in favor of a lower MLDA.
FINDINGS LINK TO LITERATURE


MLDA was not as effective on college campuses
(Wagenaar & Toomey, 2002)
Participants embraced environmental
management principles (DeJong et al., 1998).


Implementation of NIAAA report (2002) less so
(Nelson et al., 2010)
Affirmed higher education-public health split
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Definition of the problem defines the solutions.


MLDA is not central to campus efforts.
The AI did not affect institutional environments.
Student engagement in a debate may be key.
 Signing the AI was a symbolic action without
accompanying instrumental action.


The AI may have codified institutional
perspective on the MLDA.
INITIAL MODEL: CSAOS INTERPRETATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AI AND MLDA
HOW DID THE INTERPRETIVE MODEL
HOLD UP?
“How” does
a policy
mean?
Tool
Nuisance
Detriment
PROBLEM DEFINITION: UNDERAGE DRINKING
VS. DANGEROUS & IRRESPONSIBLE DRINKING
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY & PRACTICE

MLDA neutralizes aspects of CSAO role &
expertise.



Arbitrary limit versus individual student development
and specific campus culture perspectives.
CSAOs and presidents had varying relationships
related to alcohol issues.
Educational and other intuitive (but possibly
ineffective) approaches still have value to CSAOs.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY & PRACTICE


Viewpoints on the MLDA may be a roadblock to
campus-community partnerships.
CSAOs expressed a variety of positions in the
long-term struggle with alcohol abuse.
Fatigue was in evidence.
 Psychological distance from students was coupled
with pro-MLDA enthusiasm.


Rigorous enforcement of the MLDA has costs and
benefits for CSAOs.
LIMITATIONS

Interviews were three years after the AI.

The AI can be considered a failure.



The AI campuses are not representative of all
campuses.
AI was a presidential decision.
Further types of triangulation could have
strengthened study.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY



Interpretive policy analysis and other discursive
approaches are appropriate for college settings.
Additional research is needed about effective
alcohol prevention in smaller college
environments.
Participant cited non-MLDA policies that could
be studied.