Higher Education Equity Literature Database

Context: Describes research on low SES students' success in HE working from context of Bradley Review. Brief scope of literature on low SES students (heavy on Devlin 2010 references)
Aim: "to uncover and document the factors that contributed to that success for [low SES students]" (p.530), with success defined as having met criteria/ academic achievement level high enough to progress to next year. To over implications for international policy and practice
Theoretical frame:
Methodology: Adopts 'success-focused' methodology: 'what works'. Research with 53 'later-year' low SES UG students examining strategies for success and overcoming barriers. Students recruited from potential 2047 low SES students who had completed one year of UG study (FT or PT). Used postcode method to identify low SES. First 100 students to respond to invitation = participated in 3 interviews over following 3 weeks (f2f and phone interviews). 81 of original 100 = interviewed from 3 campuses and distance learners. Number of participants whittled down to 53 by controlling for FiF
Findings: Most commonly citing success factors = related to individual attitudes and behaviours (motivation, time management, perseverance, communication, study skills). Second most common factor = related to teachers (availability, enthusiasm, communication); third factor = institutional support (e.g. discussion forums, online facilities, library). Implications for policy: need to use curriculum as "a vehicle through which universities can assume that all students can be reached" for student engagement/ embedding guidance/ advising what behaviours and attitudes lead to success (p.533).

Context: Looks at continuing 'disadvantage' for 'WP' students after they have accessed higher education (during and after).
Aim: To discuss issues that WP students face in accessing, during, and after studying UG level
Theoretical frame: Nothing explicit
Methodology: Critical discussion
Discussion: Sets paper in context of educational policies that have failed to improve social mobility (such as extended compulsory schooling). Examines UK context - notes that students who attend schools 'less oriented to university' and with parents/ teachers 'less savvy' about HE, students = more likely to attend local university (and are thus less mobile in many senses) - draws a fair bit on Sutton Trust 2011 report. Notes the diversity of responses to WP (ACCESS) by universities (and lack of empirical comparison of effectiveness of strategies) and briefly discusses 'contextual admissions' (see Hoare & Johnson, 2011; Allison, 2013). Also discusses WP in context of increased personal cost of HE. Scopes literature on 'student experience' (DURING) - notes diversity in experience and problematic collapse of this into the term 'the experience'; touches on issues of diversity of experience with transition, pathways, experience when studying (with 'minority' status). Discusses post-graduation experience: briefly discusses employment patterns - different patterns of getting 'positional edge' to enhance CV between traditional/WP students. Brief paragraph on postgrad students (p.4)
Core argument: WP students suffer from disadvantage beyond access to HE; need to focus both on what universities can do to ameliorate this but also attend to entrenched systemic disadvantage in schooling system and thinking about 'transition out' into workplace.

Context: Explores participation of 'disadvantaged learners' in VET and their transitions (from lower-level to higher-level qualifications/ VET to higher education).
Theoretical frame:
Methodology: Literature review on access and participation of disadvantaged learners in higher-level VET courses and higher education - particular attention on learners' perspectives
Findings:
VET students from indigenous, NESB, rural/remote backgrounds and students with a disability were over-represented in Cert I courses and Cert II (NESB not mentioned) in 2011. "Lower-level qualifications may provide an individual with some personal benefits, but the direct employment outcomes of these qualifications are limited" (p.7-8). The number of students who transition from VET to higher education is lower for equity groups, regardless of level of qualification completed (except for NESB and younger students). Discusses how differences in educational approaches (competency-based in VET; curricula-based approach in HE) make transition difficult, along with expectations/ life pressures. Cites Wheelahan (2009) - VET-HE 'deepens' the participation of social groups but not 'widened' participation for under-represented groups; articulation in current form = not an effective mechanism for increasing participation of equity groups (p.12). Discussion of p.12 of specific studies focused on indigenous students (also see bottom of p.13-4).
Transition: Generally, there is little research reported that has explored students' experiences of transitioning from VET to university, or from lower-level to higher-level VET courses. Brown and North (2010) recommend support model underpinned by community investment/ individual-centring, flexible pathways with transition support, incentivised and with a culture of equity at its core (see p.15-6). Brown and North (2010): preparatory programs for transition ('literacy, numeracy and foundation skills'). Blacker et al. 2011: list of targeted transition programs for Australian universities. Also cites ALTC work by Caterall and Davis (2012) on VET-HE transition and Walls and Pardy (2010) with a focus on credit transfer
Support: two types of support: 1) support for VET studies; 2) support for transition from VET to HE. Aird et al. (2010) categorise support into 'structural' (related to institution/ course requirements/ teaching/ finance) and 'individual' (work/family/illness/self-confidence/ motivation)
Core argument: Disadvantaged learners (particularly those re-engaging in education) tend to be over-represented in lower-level VET qualifications and under-represented in higher-level qualifications (Cert IV+ = more likely to form pathways to higher education).
Transition from VET to higher education is complicated for all students, despite transfer arrangements in place.
Support services should be made priority when allocating resources, particularly support most likely to lead to positive outcomes.

Context: The ethics of a pedagogy of discomfort and vulnerability; integrated primary school in Northern Ireland post-troubles
Aim: To ask how appropriate it is to create situations that are pedagogically discomforting, and how can teachers support students with their "discomforting emotions in ways that are ethically and pedagogically acceptable?" (p.42); to "highlight and critique the role of a pedagogy of discomfort in terms of safety, risk, comfort, ethics, responsibility and vulnerability-issues that come up in explicit or implicit ways, as we examine the interactions of the students and the teacher involved" (p.42). Two RQs:
"(1) How does the teacher implement, experience and justify pedagogy of discomfort in the classroom?
(2) How do the children respond to pedagogy of discomfort and what are its transformative implications (if any)?" (p.42)
(3) How can a teacher deal with students' discomforting emotions in ways that are ethically and pedagogically acceptable?
Theoretical frame: Emotion and power/ (in)justice: "any understanding of social justice requires a fundamental recognition of the integral role of emotions in reifying or disrupting injustices" (p.43) - useful for educators to observe emotional connections to particular values/ beliefs, thus justifying "a pedagogical exploration of social (in)justice"... "Any understanding of discomforting pedagogies is thus inextricably linked to analysing the pivotal role of emotions in disrupting hegemonic perceptions and feelings" (p.43). Pedagogy of discomfort (Boler & Zembylas, 2003)
Methodology: Ethnographic study of primary school in Northern Ireland (mixed: Catholic and Protestant); case study of 'Mr Johnson' (see p.46-7 for details). Lesson based on The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and an activity whereby some students got red cards (positive) or black cards (signalling supposed bad behaviour). Children with black cards taken individually out the room (out of hearing range for red card children, where children were told the activity was fake). Extended circle time the next day = explore students' reactions
Findings: Range of emotional responses observed by researcher-observer: outrage, fear, anxiety, solidarity (some against teacher, some with teacher's actions), confusion. Children made connections between card activity and the injustice described in the book. Researcher revisited episode with children 5 months later: some students described still feeling guilty for not standing up for their friends and a 'deep empathy' for the black card holders. It was clear that the emotional dimension of the lesson made it particularly memorable.
Teacher had forewarned the researcher that the method would be controversial and used discomfort as a deliberate teaching strategy: "The controlled discomfort-that is, the teacher's informed assessment of the level of discomfort that is appropriate for his class-serves a purpose: to both challenge and to provide the possibility of alternative views" (p.53).
Core argument: Teacher's argument = that controlled discomfort would help students to respond to social injustice in real life. Children experienced heightened emotional responses to the red/black card task 5 months after the event, suggesting that the risks were significant. Authors argue that it is difficult to ascertain how appropriate the task/ underpinning intention was, but this kind of activity -if done well- can create the conditions to encourage active empathy (as opposed to passive empathy; Boler, 1999): "the teacher, the children, their parents and the school community in general will determine the levels of acceptability and appropriateness of such pedagogies" (p.57).
Teachers need to really carefully consider ethical and pedagogical responsibilities before undertaking similar activities

Context: There is an increasing number of students with disabilities attending HE in the US. Nevertheless, students with disabilities still face various forms of exclusion, including containment. Containment happens when individuals with disabilities are silenced, ignored, forgotten or defined using an individual deficit model. Containment is like a structure, with several components and an active social process. Between 2008 and 2011 the authors conducted federally sponsored research assessing the institutional climate around disability and providing quality education for disabled students at the private, non-sectarian Midwestern Regional University (MRU) in the United States.
Aim: This study aims to re-interpret the original dataset via the theoretical lenses of discourse an containment, while maintaining the view of disability as a social category of difference that has been stigmatised and contained historically. RQs: 1) what is the ensemble of phenomena that represents the disability discourse at MRU; 2) what is the architecture of containment resulting from the discourse of disability?
Theoretical framework: 1) Disability: Derived from the 'social model of disability' (p. 1146) originating from the 'Disabled People's Movement' (p. 1146) in the UK (Oliver, 1990). Disability is viewed as a social category of difference, similar to race or gender. 2) Discourse: Concepts from Foucault (1980a, 1980b, 1982) as well as others who highlight the materiality of discourse & technologies of power are borrowed. 3)Containment: Containment is viewed as a strategy to silence the oppositional voices (Senzani, 2010) called 'noxious materials' (Irvine, 2011, p. 17) which are exercised through 'linguistic isolation' and which 'insulate the speaker from something disvalued or dangerous' (Irvine, 2011, p. 26).
Methodology: Unit of analysis: The selected institution (MRU). Sources of information: Interview excerpts (semi-structured interviews with students with disabilities (n=18) & the faculty and staff (n=28) across 3 colleges at MRU); texts (eg: institutional policy, legal definitions, survey results) and descriptive statistics. Interpretive strategies employed were derived from the theoretical frameworks of discourse & containment adopted. Two questions asked while reading & interpreting multiple information sources: '(1) What is the ensemble of phenomena (Olssen, Codd, and O'Neill 2006) that represents the disability discourse at MRU? (2) What is the architecture of containment (Smith 2004) resulting from the dis- ability discourse at MRU?'(p. 1148).
Findings: Significant features of the architecture of containment identified in the study: 1) Individualisation: Reasonable accommodation resources are provided to those students most knowledgeable about law, policies, and procedures, those most able to obtain proof of an impairment (something that can be costly), and those most willing to risk self-disclosure. 2)Time-management: Institutional policy requires students to identify within two weeks of the start of a term before students have had the opportunity to develop a relationship with an instructor. Putting impairment into a narrow time frame assumes that it is static and immediately perceptible, which has been widely refuted (for example, Couser 1997; Davis 2002; Shildrick 2007). 3)Boundary setting: Disability can be contained by the physical boundaries mapped out by students' instructor (eg: a professor insisting the students to stand, cross arms and hold hands with the person on the right & left, which could not be done by a student in a wheelchair with little use of arms & hands). 4)Protective features (Irvine, 2011): Students' disability is sometimes ignored, intentionally not talked about or not noticed or even forgotten about. 5)Statistical information: MRU's institutional position that <1% of students are disabled leads the institution into a complacency that results in a mediocre response to the reality that at least 8-10% of students identify as disabled and list specific impairments they associate with disability. 6)Regulatory and institutional policy and features: MRU's discourse facilitates patterns of interaction that contain disability without authoritative intervention (Clemens and Cook 1999), which is a hallmark of institutional power.
Recommendations: 1)Policy can be revised to consider the lived experience of students with disabilities whose impairments may not conform to rigid time frames of the MRU policy. 2)Institutions should be proactive in the communication of policies and procedures for obtaining reasonable accommodations, as many students may not be aware of the entitlement of accommodations, as evident in MRU. 3)Professional development should include examples of containment as observed in this study, and faculty members should be supported in the examining individual practices of containment. 4)Institutions should strategically address the cultural representations of disability (e.g. <1%) to increase awareness of the exclusion surround students with disability.
Core argument: 'The architecture of containment - individualization, time management, boundary setting, protective features, cultural representations, and regulatory and institutional policy - provides taken-for-granted 'scripts for behavior' (Clemens and Cook 1999) that mobilize regularities' (p. 1156), highlighting the need to address the exclusion of students with disabilities at the institutional level.

This blog post is part of the Gonski Institute for Education’s open access annotated bibliography (OAAB) series, a project led by Dr Sally Baker. OAABs offer a snapshot of some of the available literature on a particular topic. The literature is curated by a collective of scholars who share an interest in equity in education. These resources are intended to be shared with the international community of researchers, students, educators and practitioners. The literature has been organised thematically according to patterns that have emerged from a deep and sustained engagement with the various fields.

Context: Marketisation of higher education and development of 'students as consumers' discourse; discourse of employability on student engagement.
Aim: To " discuss the impact of the discourse of employability on student engagement and argue that it positions students as engaged in an individual process of CV building rather than a collective process of learning and knowledge development" (abstract)
Methodology: 'Documentary analysis' of five universities' websites where students have been protesting (student union webpages)
Discussion: Authors describe the contemporary neoliberal/ marketised shape of English higher education, arguing that to "mount opposition, it is vital to conceptualise education in the same way as neoliberals do, as a commodified - and increasingly privatized - good to be bought, sold and bid for along with housing, healthcare, energy and basic transportation" (p.5). They offer an overview of how higher education has changed over time, which has pushed the employability agenda to the fore (which they call the 'vocationalisation' of higher education). They make an argument for 'equivalence', which "legitim[ise] the expansion of universities' involvement in the development of the existing workforce through means such as part-time in-service courses and bespoke programmes for employers and the trend within some universities to move into the 'territory' of the workplace to enhance and accredit workplace learning" (see p.7) - leading to academic capitalism (Rhodes, 2003).
Authors discuss how market competition requires differentiation, which has led to deepening inequity within participation/ achievement of particular groups, because "markets have their own logic for calculating value and this discourse of 'equivalence' can serve to obscure or deny inequality (in this case of the exchange value of qualifications) much as the 'equal but different' discourse of apartheid and the Jim Crow laws sought to do" (p.9).
The assumption of choice depends on the assumption of independence/ autonomy: "Essentially, within a marketized system in which the 'value' of HE is expressed in terms of eventual earning potential (the exchange value of labour power), student engagement becomes a process of 'commodification of the self'" (p.10)
Authors explore possibilities for 'active resistance' - through promotion of participation (work/ volunteering) in student union protests against increasing student fees through justification of employability angle
Core argument: "we argue that it is only through challenging some of these basic precepts of value - of which employability, the privileging of skills and the development of certain notions of character are most prevalent - can we, as students and academics, open up the possibilities of concerted opposition to neoliberal hegemony" (p.14)

Context: First-in-family (FiF) students and their families and attendance at Australian universities. Reports on data from a broader project exploring experiences and student identities of FiF students in Australian higher education.
Aim: An in-depth exploration of the ways first-in-family students reflect upon and narrate their reasons for attending university.
Methodology: Narrative approach to analysis where the desire is to "examine respondents' stories to understand how university participation was described and defined. The focus of this analysis is on the content of narratives in order to highlight the sense that the speaker makes of these events" (p. 1025).
Methods: In-depth interviews (n = 101) and open-ended survey (n = 173) of 3 cohorts of FiF students studying in the following types of program across a range of public universities across Australia: enabling; primarily face-to-face undergraduate; wholly online undergraduate. Participants were diverse across demographic markers such as age, gender, social background and geographical context. However, the data analysed for this article is specifically from participants under 26 years (n = 35 interviews). Participants were invited to ask a family member to participate in interviews resulting in n = 4 family member interviews, while n = 40 surveys were completed by family members.
Findings: Three key themes emerged from the analysis: (1) Discourses of betterment and opportunity-university participation is a chance for a 'better' life and financial security; (2) Realising generational dreams and ambitions-however, with potential additional stress to meet family members' expectations; (3) Disparities between expectations and realities-university is more stressful and expensive than expected since information about university life is largely ad hoc for FiF students. Betterment and opportunity discourses shared by FiF students and their families largely focus on financial benefits yet ignore powerful types of social and cultural capital which can result from university participation.
Core Argument: Understandings and representations of university education should focus less on neoliberal configurations of individualism and more on a holistic, embodied understanding of university participation, recognising the social and cultural lives of learners. The individual and collective benefits of university participation should feature in government policies and marketing campaigns so that a realistic appreciation of the benefits of higher education can be enjoyed by FiF students and their families.

Context: Tensions between social mobility/ national economic competitiveness and role of higher education in England; role of Office for Fair Access (OfFA) and Access Agreements (AA) because they "offer insights into the way in which universities interpret and 'speak to' government policy" (p.10); authors argue that other forms of public messaging (such as mission statements, university websites and prospectuses) "further illuminate universities' priorities (Fairclough, 1993) and how these are translated for public consumption" (p.10).
Aim: To "analyse how universities in a stratified system present their commitment to widening participation and how this relates to their strategic positioning in a higher education market" in OfFA AAs
Theoretical frame: CDA (Fairclough)
Methodology: "Document-based analysis of Office for Fair Access (OfFA) Agreements for 2012-2013 and other publicly available material produced by eight universities in one English region" (p.9). Questions asked of collected documents:
"How are universities publicly responding to changing government policy on fees and admissions?
- How are universities defining and operationalising widening participation and fair access?
- What differences and similarities can be discerned between universities in different mission groups?
- How are 'outreach', 'targeting' 'retention' and 'employability' activities being utilised in relation to widening participation?" (p.11)
Findings: Clear difference between Russell Group ('selecting') universities and other ('recruiting') universities with regard to performance (state school recruitment/ % of under-represented groups enrolled). Only two of the 8 universities (from the 'Guild Group') highlighted diversity/ social justice as "integral to their mission" (p.15)
1) Regulation of proposals for WP = weak (p.9). Authors write: "This leads us to suggest that the commitment of universities to widening participation in the current climate is differentiated, fluid and in some cases ambivalent" (p.15).
2) Combination of government direction and institutional discretion = led to student financial incentives (National Scholarship Programme) being used as a marketing tool. Five of the 8 universities "engaged in own-branding" with NSP offers, which "appears to allow an institution to market a government-funded initiative as a 'home grown' one" (p.17). Six of the 8 did not clearly articulate the scholarship eligibility criteria/ likelihood of applicants receiving financial support
Core argument: Shifting policy and funding context with regard to WP in England = created a "policy context in which these agreements are produced is characterised by a combination of bravado, neglect and interference" (p.22).
Bravado = evident in public statements;
Neglect = less evident in commitment from OfFA to monitor/ incentivise/ discipline, and universities in terms of acting on their rhetoric: "In a market climate which is increasingly challenging this failure contributes to the likelihood that universities will feel obliged to retreat from the idea of higher education as a vehicle for promoting social justice in order to ensure survival" (p.23).
Interference = government misreading of what universities would do/ the market in terms of raising tuition fees (expectation that only elite universities would charge full 9000GBP, but all universities did it)

Context: Widening participation discourses in UK HE (2007 and 2011) - how institutional commitment to widening participation was discursively presented in institutional documentation that are publicly available (position themselves and their students). Between 4 years, New Labour lost power and the Tory-Lib Dem coalition took power: tuition fees were increased to $9000 per year. First phase of research (2007) took place after the introduction of variable fees in English universities in 2006. In 2010, Browne review of HE funding and student finance recommended shift towards customer-focused HE system and social mobility for students with the 'highest academic potential' (DBIS, 2011: 7) and recommended lifting tuition fees to GBP9000 per year. Following this, the second phase of analysis took place in 2011 (prior to students enrolling in 2012).
Aim: To compare the discourses/ positioning of WP in 6 case study universities between 2007 and 2011
Theoretical frame:
Methodology: Offers a comparative analysis of discourses (Fairclough's CDA = language use as social practice; discourse as 'mode of action') of widening participation in 6 prospectuses/ websites from 2007 and 2011. 3 universities = pre-1992 (two x Russell Group); 2 = post-1992; 1 = university college. Focused on four areas: overall impression projected by positioning of institution and students; detailed textual analysis of welcome message; fees and funding information; presentation of information about scholarships and bursaries. Used same 16 questions each phase.
Findings: Questioned whether more selective universities have 'specialised recognition rules' (Bernstein, 1990) - therefore creating marketing materials that invoke a particular student (excluding others). In 2007, post-1992 positioned themselves as "welcoming and accessible" while pre-1992 universities positioned themselves as "providers of information, with no overt effort to encourage students to apply" (p.82). Highlights how the pictures in the pre-1992 universities work to market to an 'ideal prospective student' (p.83). In contrast, one post-1992 university talked about 'when you come for an interview' (not 'if') - works to include all potential applicants. By 2011, there appeared to be a shift. The Russell Group universities appeared to pay more attention to the student experience (e.g. shift from 'who we are looking for' to 'what we are looking for') and information for care-leavers and students from under-represented groups that were previously absent/ brief. However, one Russell Group university pushed a message that students are discouraged from working and mature students would be welcome if they are "able and willing to fit into an experience that has been designed for school leavers" (p.84) = exclusion for many mature students.
The welcome message was a feature in all the case-study universities in 2007, usually from the VC - although the two post-1992 universities had 'authorless' messages. Textual analysis illustrated the elitist language used in Russell Group prospectus (e.g. 'academic ancestors'/ 'world class achievement'), compared with the inclusive language in a post-1992 university ('you are welcome'). By 2011, the welcome message had changed for the post-1992, so it had become more like the Russell Group university. Welcome message appears to be a way of "'branding' their values and projecting a particular image" (p.86).
Tuition fee information: in 2007, there was a clear divide regarding the presentation of fee information - for the pre-1992 universities the headings were 'What will it cost?', 'What are the costs at X?'; whereas post-1992 universities had headings like 'Financial Support'/ 'Investing in your future'. In 2011, there was less of a distinction and the post-1992 universities had moved toward less inclusive language.
Scholarships/bursaries: All the case study universities were offering above the minimum (GBP300 per student/year) although it was difficult for student to see what they would be able to receive. This information was still difficult to understand in 2011.
Core argument: In 2007, there was a clear distinction between the pre- and post-1992 universities. In particular, the choice of visual materials stood as a set of 'specialised recognition rules' (Bernstein, 1990: 29). However, the distinctions were diminished by 2011, perhaps as a result of change of government/changes to HE policy landscape. The Russell Group universities seemed to have moved towards a more inclusive discourse

"Time wears many masks. There is daily time, historical time, transcendental time and institutional time. We juggle these temporalities. We try and make sense of them by trying to make them fit together. Often they don't align very well" (p.137).
Discussion of dominance of institutional time - from cyclical time to bureaucratic time.
Time efficiency and time dysfunction
University learning has shifted from discovery to delivery: "Delivery is structurally and temporally different from discovery" (p.142) - particularly acute in universities because of the issue of scale. As universities have grown massively, and have started to service larger and more complex groups of students, the time for discovery has proportionately shrunk (p.143)
Universities have responded by shrinking 'free time' into 'codified time' (e.g. teaching time, committee time, meeting time, research time)
Analytic and synthetic time (mode of delivery = analytic in the sense that it needs to be broken down and accounted for); discovery requires time and meandering thought; synthetic time is the antithesis to this.
Topological time

Context: Examines issues of affect and trust in teaching and learning in US undergraduate contexts. Starts with autobiographical account of her experiences (diversity on racial lines)
Aim: To discuss "missed opportunities for promoting learning and growth in our increasingly diverse classrooms and the fundamental affective and social questions we need to address if we' re going to teach about diversity effectively" (p.670).
Methodology: Literature review on impact of diversity, social science research on the impact of trust, and psychoanalytic literature on how we respond to and negotiate difference
Findings: Thematic organisations of discussion:
Universities across the world are more diverse (student bodies)
Structural prejudices reside in the psyche
Barriers to trust in higher education classroom: "without trust, diverse students will skate on the surface, maintain their social masks, and avoid productive conflict" (p.673-4) = 'classroom cordiality' (Keith, 2010) leads to avoidance of difficult conversations. Barriers to trust involve initiation of conversations, fear of confrontation, trusting people to speak real feelings. Author draws on work of Rojzman and argues that to build trust, a psychological notion of trust is needed (rather than 'strategies') "people must become aware of their own distrust, fears and needs in ways that lead them to change themselves. They might decide to protect themselves or to deliberately trust others not to take advantage of their vulnerability" (p.675)
Core argument: "When we address the emotional and affective dimensions in higher education settings, we go against the grain of the modern university" (p.677).

Context: Although transition into and through HE can be challenging for all learners, SfRBs often face specific difficulties due to their 'culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, and pre-settlement experiences of instability, insecurity, likely trauma and interrupted education' (abstract). The authors note that despite the recognition of these challenges in the literature, 'scant empirical attention' is given to how 'SfRBs experience the adaptations necessary for (a) transitioning into the 'home' culture(s) and language(s) of the settlement country, and (b) the expectations and practices of the academy' (p. 2).
Aim: To offer a detailed account of the transition journeys (through, out of, and back into HE) of CALDM/R participants who moved from a TAFE context into a regional Australian university, and investigate the systematic, structural and individual opportunities and limitations experienced by the student-participants.
Theoretical frame: 1)Notion of 'liminality' - refers to the 'ambiguous, unstable middle ground of a ritual where the individual has moved from one state but is yet to navigate the changes to move into the next state, or the 'in-between period where one is no longer who previously existed, nor has yet developed into' (Keefer 2015, xx); Liminality theories: 'View movements between states (rites of passage) as composed of three stages: pre-liminal, liminal and post-liminal' (p. 5) (Turner 1969). 2) 'Turning points' and 'stuck places' - 'Turning Points' - when an 'individual identifies and negotiates the changes needed for transformation to be successfully achieved and alternative subject positions become available' (p. 6); 'Stuck places' - 'antithetical concept to turning points' (p. 6); 'the places of misunderstandings and confusion, with oscillation between states of knowledge' (Heading & Loughlin, 2018, p. 658), which are often due to 'a reluctance or inability of the learner to move from common sense or old knowledge to theoretical or new knowledge' (p. 664).
Methodology: Longitudinal, ethnographic study; Repeat interaction methodology; Participants: Newly arrived adult SfRBs from a middle Eastern war-plagued country transitioning from TAFE to university (n=7); Sampling strategy: Purposeful sampling; Data collection methods: One-on-one interviews (5);Focus groups (3).
Findings: 1)Common experiences of all students: 'having to leave their home country abruptly, moving to a country with different values, cultural practices, educational systems and language, and being the primary translator and organiser of the family' (p. 9); 2)Significant individual differences: 'level of language and literacy proficiency, familiarity with Australia's education system, and obligations falling outside of traditionally held boundaries of study' (p. 9); Three participants (Khan, John & Nilofer) - relatively 'linear' transition from AMEP studies, into enabling program and consequently into their chosen undergraduate programs; Four participants (Ahmad, Andy, Rahman & Modaser) - did not complete enabling studies, and therefore failed to gain access into their desired undergraduate programs. These students returned to TAFE & worked to fit studies around jobs and family responsibilities. 3)Key point of difference among participants: 'balancing of competing demands on their time' (p. 10); Khan, John & Nilofer- able to study full time throughout the semester without working; Ahmad, Andy, Rahman & Modaser - working was 'essential' (p. 10). 4)Academic and cultural 'threshold practices' and stuck places - based on experiences of two participants (John & Rahman): John - Most significant challenge: Expected level of vocabulary and linguistic knowledge; Second challenge: having to 'learn how to learn' (p. 12); Other challenges: Lack of access to technology; Inflexibility of the program design; heavy linguistic load of translation; and allure of a full-time wage. Rahman - Much more complex and complicated pathway to HE than John; Significant challenges: 'English language proficiency, academic literacies, and familiarity with academic systems and conventions' (p. 14), balancing family & study responsibilities.
Discussion: Transition challenges faced by participants are fuelled by several structural issues - 1) 'macro understandings of transition as linear are built upon middle class ideals and assumptions about who is moving into higher education, and how, and 'ideas about "fitting in" rest on the notion that the "middle-class" way of being a student is privileged and privileging' (Christie, Day and Wager 2005, p. 6); 2) 'Conceptualisations of transition as having fixed entry and exit points deny the need for many students to hit the pause button and wait for life to recalibrate in ways that offer better conditions for study' (p. 16); 3) Institutional assumptions about who students are, what they know and how they do things play out at the micro (individual) level, particularly with regard to the kinds of academic practices and navigational knowledge that students are assumed to have/bring to their studies. Implications: 1) Universities should 'resist the complacency and assumed linearity that underpins many transition-focused initiatives by designing ongoing transition programs and activities that are people-rich, and which can better capture and respond to the needs of 'non-traditional' students like refugees' (p. 16); 2) 'Universities should develop and adopt strategies that recognise and emerge from students' 'interim literacies' (Paxton 2007) - hybrid, emergent and intertextual practices, which build on the varying discourses and languages that students bring with them to their studies' (p. 16).
Core argument: In reality, transition is complex, and despite good intentions and opportunities to access university, many students are 'stuck' due to 'monolithic assumptions about what students bring with them and can do, and unrealistic expectations of individuals' capacity to help themselves without targeted and responsive supports' (p. 17). HEIs should therefore do more to 'understand and value the rich heterogeneity of students' experiences, and develop more nuanced and flexible teaching and learning approaches to support' (p. 17).

Context: Rural areas in Australia have traditionally had lower HE access and participation rates compared with metropolitan areas. Social capital influences university access, and may explain low access rates among rural students who have the academic credentials. Social capital includes knowing how things are done in HE contexts, knowing how to seek advice and the navigational capacity to allow smooth transitions to HE. Intervening to raise university access rates among rural school students involves both 'disruptions', critical events which change a young person's perspective on their future life options, and 'bridges', information or support to overcome barriers associated with rurality.
Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of a partnership of outreach activities between the Universities of Tasmania (UTAS), Wollongong (UOW) and Adelaide (UA). The trialled initiative including three distinct programs; a Children's University (CU) for 7-14-year-olds aimed at fostering lifelong learning and introducing children to university, a Rural University Preparation Program (RUPP) aimed at increasing high-school students academic capacity, and UTAS's Warm Connections (WC) program targeting rural adults aimed at embedding a HE presence in eight rural Tasmanian communities through partnerships with local libraries and neighbourhood houses.
Theoretical frame: Disruptions and bridges
Method: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers, community organisation employees and outreach facilitators.
Findings: Students aspirations and expectations were limited by factors of rurality (e.g. geographical distance and isolation, financial capacity, attachment to place and country, employment opportunities etc.). Two key purposes for rural outreach were identified: 1) informing education aspiration (disruptions) and 2) translating aspiration to expectation of university participation, or perception of participation being attainable (bridges).
Disruptions: A key strength of CU was in creating disruptions for children by opening their eyes to the possibility of university, and making them feel excited about it. WC was also found to open people's eyes to previously unknown study options. Disruptions did occur in RUPP, but were less of a focus. The evaluation confirmed that such disruptions were necessary in this context because many rural people don't have access to people who have experienced, HE and aren't aware of employment opportunities available for HE graduates.
Bridges: WC and RUPP provided bridges in the form of information, skills and support to address factors of rurality. Family attitudes were found to often limit aspirations turning into expectations. 'People rich' bridges were acknowledged as particularly successful in rural cohorts. For instance, RUPP incorporated rich interactions with student mentors while WC trained locals as 'translators' of university language and culture. The evaluation also identified that some activities can act as a disruption for some people and as a bridge for others.
Core argument: Effective rural outreach needs to not only incorporate generic good practice but specifically address factors of rurality. This means drawing on resources available in rural communities, particularly social capital resources. Outreach should provide disruptions when aspirations are limited, and bridges when aspirations are higher, but expectation of participation is low. A combination of disruptions and bridges is expected to be effective when there is some aspiration towards HE, but expectation is not sufficiently high to achieve participation.

Context: Immigrant educational pathways in Austria. Ethnic minorities = 12.5% of population ('historic immigrants' = Hungarians/Slovaks/Czechs), other European migrants [Sally's emphasis] and Turkish/Yugoslavians. Turks are biggest minority group (3% of total population) and 46% are reported as living in poverty/ at risk of poverty and have one of lowest educational achievement rates in OECD. Now 2nd-gen Turks are entering workforce in large numbers and low participation rate in high school/HE
Theory: Ball, Reay & David (2002) - ethnic minority chooser = 'contingent' (generally 1st-gen/ no tradition of HE/ parents educated in home country = finance, location, ethnic mix are key concerns and often reliant on 'cold' knowledge) or 'embedded' (choice to go to HE = part of 'personal narrative'/ parents are often HE-educated/ uni = part of 'normal biography' = choice based on extensive research and mix of hot & cold knowledge)
Methodology: Focused on 2nd-generation Turks born and educated in Austria (solicited through informal networks/snowball recruiting) aged 25-29 years old/ equal mix m/f studying range of subjects. Questions aimed at exploring educational trajectories/ family background/ aspirations, attitudes and experiences.
Findings: Students from Turkish families = overrepresented in 'special schools' (p.6). Key issue = lack of German language. Only 9% of pre-school children are Turkish. It appears this translates as a possible cause of low achievement later in school and because they have to focus on learning language (implicitly), they are unable to get the grades to access academic track at end of primary (split into general/academic school streams at age 10). 85% of Turkish children attend general stream (compared w/ 66% German-speaking children) and 1/3 do not proceed with any further education/ only 6.5% go on to university from this stream. Contrasts two students = one a contingent chooser/ one an embedded chooser. Interprets differences in experiences to institutional habitus (resources/support available at each school). Differences in imagined futures (embedded chooser = planned career choices long in advance; contingent chooser = catching up)
Conclusions: Stratified education system disadvantages NESB students: late school start and lack of language when they start school are key issues for Turkish children in Austrian education system. Offers additional category to Ball, Reay & David's categories: the opportune chooser (generally comes from a disadvantaged family background where parents have little education and children exposed mostly/only to working class stories). For opportune choosers, HE is rarely/never an imagined future.
Core argument: Aspirations/ categories of choosers

Context: In the recent past, unexpected rates of demographic diversity on college and university campuses in the US resulted in high levels of conflict among students (Astin et al. 1997) which is a crucial reminder of the dangers of failing to adequately address diversity issues within HE institutions. However, the facilitation of interactions among diverse students via programmatic and curricular interventions, often result in positive cognitive and democratic outcomes (Hurtado 2005; Gurin et al. 2002; Chang et al. 2006; Chang, Astin, and Kim 2004). In addition, the practice of social justice education is in HE settings contributes to a healthy society by transforming the public spaces of He into sites where empathy, equity, and democratic citizenship skills are cultivated (Giroux 2004; Halx 2010).
Aim: This study explores dynamics of intergroup interaction and democratic learning outcomes among self-identified Black and White students enrolled in two sections of a diversity education course within a predominantly White university in the southeastern United States. RQs: '(1) What processes and dynamics of intergroup contact emerged during the course? and; (2) What (if any) democratic learning outcomes did enrolled students perceive themselves as gaining?'(p. 873).
Theoretical frame: Intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954): Suggests that 'intergroup contact can lead to prejudice reduction when there is equal status, cooperation among groups, and general support for positive intergroup contact' (p. 872) (Allport, 1954).
Methodology: Mixed methods approach. Data collection methods: Observations and notes of the instructor; demographic survey; survey questions (to assess the extent of democratic learning outcomes students perceived themselves obtaining); final reflections written by students (end of the course). Participants: Undergraduate students (n=61) who enrolled in two sections of the diversity education course designed, 'Gendered Worlds'. Section 1: (n=33); 64% were between 21- 25 years old; 91% female & 6% male; 38% self-identified as Black; 47% self-identified as White. Section 2: (n=28); 52% were between 21- 25 years old; 100% female; 56% self-identified as White; 36% self-identified as Black. Data analysis: Differences in intergroup dynamics - analysed by class section & self-identified race/ethnicity of enrolled students.
Findings: RQ1 (What processes and dynamics of intergroup contact emerged in this course?): 1)Marked differences observed in dynamics of intergroup contact in the two respective sections of the course: Section 1(met twice/week) - Calm classroom environment; Section 2 (met once/week) - Dramatic shift from 'calm to volatile' (p. 874) during discussion relating to race/ethnicity & sexuality; specific conflict over the 'perceived wrongness of homosexuality' (p. 874) between students self-identified as Christians & students self-identified as homo- or bi-sexual. Impact of conflict in Section 2: Alteration in classroom dynamics & a necessity for intergroup interaction based on positive communication, active listening & conflict resolution. Findings from student reflections: Increased awareness of diversity, and increased tolerance of difference (to a certain extent) in Section 2; Higher percentage of students in Section 2 (92%) compared to Section 1(89%) reported on the possibility of coalition-building. RQ2 (What (if any) democratic learning outcomes did enrolled students perceive themselves as gaining?): Democratic outcome of interest: Intergroup cooperation; Section 1: 93% of White students & 83% of Black students indicated a belief in the possibility of coalition-building based on their respective course experiences; Section 2: 86% of White students & 100% of Black students indicated a belief in the possibility of coalition-building; Biggest barrier to coalition building: Section 1: Combined responses - Race (37%); Other (30%); Religion (18%); Sexuality (13%); All issues (Race,Religion,Sexuality,Other) (67%). Black students: Race (50%); Other (33%); Religion (8%); Sexuality (8%). White students: Race (29%); Religion (29%); Other (21%); Sexuality (21%). Section 2: Combined responses - Race (39%); Other (19%); Religion (27%); Sexuality (15%). Black students: Race (78%); Other (11%); Sexuality (11%); White students: Religion (43%); Sexuality (21%); Other (21%); Race (14%).
Discussion: 1) The high percentage of students in both sections of the course who indicated a belief that coalition-building was possible suggests that the dynamics of intergroup contact were generally positive among most students in both sections. This is likely the result of diverse curricular content in the course, which emphasised the importance of coalition-building and opportunities for meaningful dialog and interaction. 2) The stark differences between Black & White students in the perception of 'Race' as the biggest barrier to building coalition are consistent with existing diversity literature on the continued prominence of race/ethnicity for students of colour and the relative lack of significance placed on race/ethnicity by students who are not race/ ethnic minorities (Ancis, Sedlacek, and Mohr 2000; Harper and Hurtado 2007). 3) Although conflict is often viewed negatively in HE environments, in Section 2, students who experienced high levels of classroom conflict indicated higher levels of belief in the possibility for coalition-building. This suggests that conflict in the college classroom, when properly facilitated, can result in deeper levels of student learning and greater investment in course goals.
Core argument: Democratisation through socially-just education can be achieved via: 1) The presence of a critical mass of diverse students in a HE learning environment 2)The facilitation of conflict to allow for coalition-building 3) The blending of diverse and previously unaffiliated students groups to promote participatory democracy, where students can practice critical citizenship skills to be active participants in our increasingly diverse society (Halx 2010).

Context: Examines how rhetoric of diversity = mobilised in New Labour/ English HE WP policy. Paper set post-Dearing England (with 50% WP targets). Examines how diversity = "are employed, deployed, subverted and reconfigured within WP policy" (p.637) - 'perniciously' elided with choice (institutional diversity; which university students choose to go to = marketised sector) and 'social inclusion' (student diversity) = key notions in New Labour's reforms of HE: "these constructions of diversity derive an important element of their symbolic power from an association with notions of 'democratisation', 'equality' and 'fairness'" (p.636).
Aim: To offer a 'think piece' for discussion of contested discourse of 'diversity' and the differing/competing ideologies it indexes
Theoretical frame: Instantiations of discourse of diversity as enactments of egalitarian and neoliberal ideologies
Methodology: 'Think piece'/ essay, drawing on HE policy documents and public messages about WP
Findings: 1) 'Institutional diversity' = Archer notes universities were invited to identify/ position themselves in market according to three-part distinctions ("a benign trinity", p.638): research, teaching, and locally-oriented universities. Archer argues this is based on intention to further fraction relationships between research and teaching, and further stratifies the system and is achieved through the use of 'diversity of provision' (aka choice). Archer distinguishes between horizontal diversity (plurality of options = appeals to 'customers' needs'; couched in terms of 'individualisation' with expansion of system beyond university, e.g. FE or Foundation degrees) and vertical diversity (stratification of institutions based on notion of 'quality': "encouraging institutions to respond,
innovate and improve to ensure their survival", p.639. Targeted funding as rewards rather than equal funding across the sector). Horizontal and vertical diversity = "inherently conflictual" (p.639). Stratification of 'gold, silver and bronze' institutions (the benign trinity) = linked to hierarchies of geography/ geographies of power (gold= global; bronze = local; gold= older, research-intensive; bronze = newer, former polytechnics). Bronze universities = positioned as heavy lifters for social inclusion/ WP work: "rendered fixed and disempowered in order to liberate 'silver' and 'gold' institutions from the economic and social responsibilities of engaging in the ('real' work of) WP. The task of WP is not shared out equally between all HEIs" (p.641) = clearing institutions rather than institutions of choice - notes Bauman's argument about individuals' social value being derived from consumption patterns.
2) Student diversity = "fundamental dissonance" between equitable diversity and economic diversity. New Labour policy privileges the latter (Mirza, 2003) = e.g. 'untapped potential' for national economic future gain. Economic diversity argument depends on neoliberal logics - to push responsibility on to indiviudals; to erode the responsibility of the state. Institutional/ sectorial hierarchies play out in student diversity: "the formalisation of institutional hierarchies (e.g., through league tables) has a detrimental impact on the 'choices' and psyche's of those students who are constituted as the targets of WP policy" (p.644). Similarly the 'value' of a degree "also becomes more highly differentiated and potentially devalued". The dominant cultural norms of the academy remain white, middle class and male therefore many students feel disconnected from higher education. Archer also makes the point that 'diversity' is used as a moral discourse as "operates as a powerful justificatory discourse within policy as something that signifies 'good for everyone' rather than just 'good for some'" (p.648). It is so apparently benign and 'good' that it silences other interpretations, thus "render[ing] those who resist it unintelligible or morally reprehensible" (p.648).
Core argument: Archer argues that notions of diversity are aligned/ draw their symbolic power from notion of equality, but that possibilities for potential of WP = eroded by neoliberal policies of New Labour 'third way' politics. She argues that the market cannot provide social equity - New Labour policies continued to disproportionately advantage the middle classes while providing a suggestion of egalitarianism and pushing more of the cost of higher education on to the individual. The notion of choice is a false premise because the social stratification of the sector limits students' 'choices' about where they can study.

Context: Looks at WP through international lens - seen in higher education policy across the world, although the terminology is different: WP in Engliand, focus on Maori students in NZ, 'special criteria' in Cyprus, 'diversity' in the USA. Authors note Quinn's (2013) argument that WP and massification are not the same thing; inequitable patterns of under-representation stubbornly persist [often the word 'inequality' is used]. Authors make the point that most WP policies orginate from committees where 'the other' is rarely represented: "Devoid of relational connections with the groups of students they supposedly represent, their policies fail to deliver in meaningful ways beyond recreating the same problem in their 'solutions'" (p.10-11; see Ahmed, 2012). Authors note Ahmed's (2012) argument about the linguistic value/ misappropriation of 'diversity' for martketese (see also Kimura, 2014)
Aim: To draw on international research to "show how institutionalised cultures and non-relational practices result in further student marginalization" (p.11); specifically probes 'normalcy' v. 'other'; to develop understandings of what 'diversity' means/ how it plays out in positioning of 'non-traditional' students.
Theoretical frame: None explicit
Methodology: Multisite participatory project between 6 universities in UK, USA, CYP, NZ. Started with online questionnaire to students to ascertain 'diversity' (definition given p.13) of students (174/373 respondents = 'diverse'), who were then invited to participate in 4 x focus groups (n=25 from 4/6 universities). Questions in FGs: who/ what students perceived as 'diverse'
Findings: Key themes: binary of diverse/ non-diverse; university assemblage and bureaucracy; relationships
Binary of diverse/non-diverse: noted in other literature; "Cultures of difference, when not acknowledged or suppressed, add further to covert practices of institutionalised segregation and stigma" (p.16). Most participants viewed term 'diverse' as signifier of 'minority status', as political, and -for some- as a negative label. Participants viewed the use of term as creating stereotypes, and one American student questioned whether a 'non-diverse student' actually exists (see p.17). Self-disclosure (and what of) = noted as problematic; external labeling (assignation of labels by others) = also concerning/ disempowering/ exposing. Several participants suggested that tutors aren't able to sup port students; peer support = also important: "For some using the term 'diversity' to describe who they were resulted in their personally held self-definitions and identities being forcibly simplified and their sense of 'self' being mis-represented, redefined by institutionally directed practice, whilst others felt academics and other staff didn't necessarily want to engage with 'diversity' when considering their teaching practices" (p.20).
University assemblage: Concerns voiced about ineffective university bureaucracy and resulting feelings of anger and disconnect (students to institution and disconnections between services within university) = 'disjointed forms of communication'.
Relationships: relationship practices lead to both exclusion and inclusion (see Table 3, p.22). Participants found that supportive relationships with tutors and staff = inclusive relationship practices; however, these can be eroded by managerial processes. Authors note connections with affective literature. Emotions = significant result of relationships: "Within the focus groups students shared where they had experienced anger and frustration, the impact of being 'othered' by bureaucracy and fellow students" (p.24). Raising of emotional issues = methodological limitation/ note for future research (see p.25).
Core argument: 'Diversity' (and its use by institutions for marketing/ support/ identifying 'non-traditional' and 'at risk' students = needs to be carefully reconsidered so as to avoid the negative impacts (disempowerment, sterotyping, exposing, disconnecting) students. More consideration needed of affective/ emotional dimension of this kind of research and impacts of 'diversity'/ WP agenda. More is needed: "there must be a recognised space for dialogue about the university's aims and objectives, where discussion and debate about the need for and
possibilities of how to push against established cultures reinforcing insiders and outsiders, a binary of 'what does' and 'what does not fit' can take place" (p.27-8).