Conceptual frameworks serve as guides that allow people to see complex organizations from different perspectives. Morgan (2006) presents nine frames in the form of metaphors: (a) Machines, (b) Organisms, (c) Brains, (d) Cultures, (e) Political Systems, (f) Psychic Prisons, (g) Flow and Transformation and (h) Domain Tools. Bolman and Deal (2008) present four frames: (a) structural, (b) human resources, (c) political, and (d) symbolic. No single framework can provide a complete picture of an organization, so using multiple frames provides a more complete organizational perspective. This article describes three frameworks: Psychic Prisons, Policies, and Organizations as Organisms; and uses a literature review of commuting students in higher education to illustrate these frames. Overview of Commuter Students in Higher Education Newbold, Mehta, and Forbus (2010) define commuter students as those who do not live on campus; this population makes up approximately 75% of students at colleges and universities in the United States. During the 1960s and 1980s, new federal and state policies and programs, such as the Higher Education Act of 1965 that created need-based financial aid programs, expanded access to higher education, causing rapid student growth commuters (Kim & Rury, 2011 ). Commuting students brought with them unique needs and challenges, including feelings of isolation, the need to balance multiple life roles, different relationships and support systems, and financial and time considerations around housing and transportation costs (Newbold, Mehta, & Forbus , 2011). Despite this influx of commuter students, the environment and structure of the institutions have failed to meet the needs of commuter students. Instead, colleges and universities...... middle of paper......), 47-54. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/196354500?accountid=14826Newbold, J.J., Mehta, S.S., & Forbus, P. ( 2011). Commuting students: Engagement and identification with an institution of higher education. Journal of the Academy of Educational Leadership, 15(2), 141-153. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.vt.edu:8080/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/886550725?accountid=14826Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). The capitalist academic regime of knowledge/learning. In S. Slaughter & G. Rhoades, Academic capitalism and the new economy (pp. 305-338). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Smith, B. M. (1989). The personal development of the commuter student: what do we gain from comparisons with resident students? A review of the ERIC. Community College Review, 17(1), 47-56. doi: 10.1177/009155218901700107