Context: University campuses are becoming increasingly diverse, indicated by the significant growth in student enrolments, but this has not translated to equitable outcomes for all students. While much attention has been focused on student retention and success, particularly for those from non-traditional backgrounds, dominant theoretical models rest on a limited notion of cultural capital that places undue responsibility on students themselves.
Aim: To encourage greater consideration of specific factors that institutions can target to 'shape themselves, rather than their students' in their pursuit of becoming 'equitable places of learning' (p. 261).
Theoretical frame: Structural inequality framework - Examines 'conditions in which groups of people are provided with unequal opportunities in terms of roles, rights, opportunities and decisions compared to others' (Archer & Leathwood, 2003) (p. 261). Types of inequalities examined: 'Vertical inequalities' - circumstances whereby people with particular characteristics or backgrounds (for example, but not limited to, low SES, Indigenous, or non-English speaking backgrounds) have fewer opportunities to access HE; 'Horizontal inequalities' - People with particular characteristics or backgrounds may also have fewer opportunities to access prestigious institutions or certain highly selective fields of study (eg: low SES students are over-represented in (arguably) low status fields such as nursing & education & under-represented in fields such as medicine & architecture); 'Internal inequalities' - People with particular characteristics or backgrounds may also be disadvantaged within the institution itself;
Methodology: Systematised literature review (Grant & Booth, 2009); Primary database: Google Scholar. Following completion of the literature search, a critical synthetic approach was undertaken to develop a taxonomy of internal inequalities in HE institutions that impede retention.
Findings: Framing social inclusion policy via cultural capital is unproductive for 2 primary reasons: 1)The typical usage of 'cultural capital' robs Bourdieu's original concept of its theoretical power & causes confusion with a simpler concept of 'cultural resources' (p. 266); 2)Attempting to assimilate non-traditional students into a traditional institutional structure may encourage problematic deficit & acculturation models; A structural inequality approach to WP and social inclusion provides 2 advantages: 1) three types of structural inequality presented here separate out barriers to access and participation more clearly than a cultural capital lens, which allows more focused policy solutions, and therefore increase the likelihood of effective change 2) More likely to be effective because policy change is located more fully within the locus of control of the institution (or other stakeholders); Non-exhaustive taxonomy of internal inequalities:
Teaching
_ In what ways does the institution prepare or offer professional development to staff for teaching diverse cohorts?
_ Is there a focus on structural or implicit bias in teaching staff training?
_ In what ways do teaching staff make clear to students their expectations around
workloads, academic standards, grades, assessment deadlines, etc.?
_ To what extent, and in what ways, do teaching staff explicitly engage with the structures of the academy (e.g., institutional policy requirements, course advice, career development) as part of their work with students? Are these requirements overtly contested, discussed or accepted by staff?
_ What opportunities are teaching staff provided to influence relevant policy based on
their interaction with students?
Students
_ What is distinctive about the institution's approach to helping equity students succeed compared with other higher education institutions?
_ Are students made aware of the inherent requirements of their chosen course? Does it require proactive effort from students to discover these requirements, or are they promoted to students?
_ How are students taught to act inclusively in their interactions with other students and staff?
_ How do students perceive the institution in terms of equity?
_ How do students perceive themselves as members of the university community (e.g.,
as junior colleagues, as partners, as learners, or as consumers)?
_ What opportunities are students provided to influence relevant policies, curricula
and other aspects of university activity?
Curriculum
_ How is curricula made accessible and relevant to students from all backgrounds?
_ Which aspects of assessment policies at the institution cater to equity students?
_ How does the institution provide advice on course content, inherent requirements
and selection to prospective students or current students?
_ How is career advice integrated into the curriculum?
Administration
_ What help is provided to students to navigate the administrative side of the institution? What is done to make these processes accessible, transparent, flexible, and jargon-free?
_ How well does the institution identify and respond to students facing difficult personal situations (e.g., homelessness, financial hardship, mental health)?
_ How well does your institution accommodate part-time study, leaves of absence etc.?
_ Does the institution collect and respond to data on why students have withdrawn from study?
Campus life
_ What are the accommodation options, including emergency housing, available to students?
_ To what degree do students participate in the institution's broader life outside of
classes? What kinds of experiences are available? How could these be developed?
_ To what degree do students interact with the institution's support services? What kinds of services are available? How could these be developed?
Physical environment
_ How is the physical environment of the institution used to support or engage students with the institution or their educations (e.g., through community spaces, study spaces, wifi access etc.)?
_ Does the institution collect data related to commuting? If so, how, and what kind of impact on the institution has it made?
_ What impression do students have of the 'feel' of the campus?
Core argument: Structural inequality is a productive framework for understanding and supporting the student experience in HE for because: 1) The three types of structural inequality identified - vertical, horizontal, and internal - clearly identifies and distinguishes barriers to access and participation, which allows more focused policy solutions, and therefore can increase the likelihood of effective change. 2) It frames the problem of social inclusion within the locus of control of the institution - much more likely to result in more efficient, more effective change. 3) The dominant framework in this area, cultural capital, is often conceptually and theoretically misused, and potentially leads to problematic discourses of acculturation or deficit models. A structural inequality approach therefore leads to different policy outcomes, as well as more focused responses.