European and African-based psychologies in African-American student development

Johnson, V. (2003). "A comparison of European and African-based psychologies and their implications for African-American college student development." Journal of black studies 33(6), pp. 817-29.

In her article concerning the need for the development of new student affairs practices and perspectives in assisting African-American college students, Johnson (2003) presents a very broad overview of the situations and problems facing African-American college students in American colleges and universities today as a part of larger intercultural issues and difficulties. The assertions Johnson makes in this article for the most part appear logical and are well grounded in previous research, yet the citations of this research and Johnson's assertions themselves contain little empirical evidence or apparent attempt to measure objective aspects of the issue at hand. That is, Johnson's ideas and conclusions are without a doubt built on the ideas and conclusions of others, but little in this article is presented that explains the nature of these conclusions other than as the result of logical thought experiments, without being supported by real-world observation and details. This is a major problem for the article, as the primary argument Johnson makes in the paper is that practical changes must be implemented in order to better secure the proper and equitable development of African-American college students in comparison to their European-American counterparts. Not only does the article fail to make explicit practical recommendations in this area, merely arguing for the need to incorporate some element of change in the current student affairs procedures employed with African-American students, but it does not empirically demonstrate the need for these changes.

Summary

Johnson begins her article with an overview on the issue of student development, particularly as it relates to African-American students. Citing previous research and literature on the subject, Johnson notes that student development must take student culture into account. She then asserts, again citing previous research, that African-American students have distinct cultural differences from their European-American counterparts as well as from other minority student groups, despite the fact that African-Americans and other minorities are often lumped together in such considerations. Johnson goes on to argue that African-American student development can be seen to have a separate trajectory from broader student development issues, presumably due to these cultural differences.

The different approach necessary for the student development of African-American students, Johnson continues, must be developed from an African psychology as opposed to the European/European-American psychology utilized to develop traditional student development practices. This African psychology's development, as described by Johnson's citation of multiple previous scholars, is an extension of African culture and contains key differences from European/European-American cultures and psychologies. Rather than being dominated by a worldview of the control of nature, individual rights, and the survival of the fittest, African culture (Johnson contends) contains a worldview that stresses harmony with nature and the survival of the people as a whole. It is from this stance that Johnson suggests African psychology and student development practices should be advanced.

Conclusion

Johnson is not necessarily incorrect in her ultimate assessment that traditional student development programs and procedures are under-serving African-American students. It is likely that different methods ought to be developed, perhaps from completely different cultural perspectives and worldviews, in order to meet the needs of these students. Johnson does not provide an accurate or empirical understanding of the differences in either the needs of these students or the potential methods for addressing and meeting these needs, however, and this makes her article hugely unscientific and essentially meaningless. Her oversimplified view of the situation is self-defeating according to her own arguments; greater empirical observation and scientific rigor is necessary to make her ideas and conclusions more valid and more clearly necessary and applicable.