The past, present future of widening participation research

1. 1 The past, present & future of widening participation research Nigel Kettley Faculty of Education University of Cambridge nck20@cam.ac.uk

2. 2 Introduction Patterns of participation & progression in HE have interested researchers for some considerable time 2. However, recent legislative changes to HE have produced a burgeoning �access�, �widening participation� & �lifelong learning� literature 3. This paper evaluates major trends in historical & contemporary approaches to patterns of participation & progression to consider the future of widening participation research

3. 3 Aims of the review 1. To establish the legislative & educational context of specific research approaches to widening participation 2. To highlight the core contributions of particular research approaches & to assess their relative merits 3. To review the methodological & theoretical base of particular research approaches 4. To apply the conceptual principles of the �Cambridge school� of sociology to the topic of widening participation (Holmwood and Stewart: 1991)

4. 4 Note of caution �it is important that any review which attempts to look forward to developments in the future is based upon a fair critique of the current state of play� (Gipps: 1998: 69) It is also important to recognise that balanced criticism is rarely method or theory-neutral Therefore, the principles that underpin this evaluation of widening participation research should be explained

5. 5 Evaluation criteria: the �Cambridge school� 1. Productive research should be grounded in empirical evidence related to everyday experience rather than, for example, attitudinal data alone 2. Social phenomena should be located within temporal, structural and institutional processes 3. False dichotomies and oppositional categories should be avoided e.g. �barriers� and �bridges� to participation 4. The investigation of social relationships and the unity of experience should be given priority in research 5. The object of empirical research should be the construction of �productive� theoretical explanations

6. 6 Central arguments of the review 1. The development of widening participation research has often reflected the prevailing structure of HE, political debates and predominant theoretical positions 2. These delimiting factors have often inhibited the development of explanations which give equal weight to different stages in students� learning experiences and careers 3. Research should seek to generate inclusive and holistic accounts of student participation, progression and outcomes

7. 7 The origins of widening participation research 1. Concern is as old as the universities e.g. early personal, church and state concern over entry to Oxbridge and positions of power 2. Growth of civic universities in the 19th century led to a concern for the needs of industry and a growth in �middle class� participation (Cole: 1955) 3. The notion of �accessibility� was used in Scotland by the Argyll Commission in 1868 (McPherson: 1973) 4. The demands of �first wave feminism� for citizenship rights to enter university also exhibit a concept of �access� 5. The expansion of HE in the early 20th century led to concern for �barriers to opportunity� for the �working class� (Floud: 1961: 94)

8. 8 Recent notions of access and widening participation 1. Citizenship right to attend university and receive financial support e.g. 1960s USA Civil Rights Movement 2. The study of differential participation (and progression) rates by �social class�, gender, ethnicity, disability etc 3. �Access� as courses designed to facilitate entry of mature students to university 4. �Widening participation� as outreach, curriculum and monitoring initiatives in HEIs 5. The notion of discourses of �widening participation� 6. �Widening participation� as cohort diversity and a euphemism for social justice

9. 9 The past: functionalism and educability studies 1. Functionalist research dominated in the USA from the 1950s to the early 1970s and was mainly concerned with value consensus and the division of labour (Parsons: 1959) 2. Educability studies predominated in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s and were concerned with the relationship between IQ, educational opportunity and performance (Floud: 1961) 3. In the USA and Britain secondary education and HE expanded in the post-war period, but HE expansion was more rapid and �egalitarian� in the USA (Anderson: 1961; Trow: 1967)

10. 10 The concerns of functionalism 1. Functionalism � �social class� differences in �value orientations�, their impact on school-based attainment & progression into HE (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck: 1961) 2. The decline of material deprivation after 1945 led functionalists to concentrate upon the normative order of society 3. �Working class� culture as collectivist, present-oriented and resulting in a failure to master tasks 4. The �barriers� to �working class� participation in HE were poor educational practices and aspirations, which reflected family and community values (Rosen: 1956; Strodtbeck: 1961)

11. 11 The concerns of educability studies 1. Largely rejected the �cultural deprivation� hypothesis 2. �Access� to the universities was viewed as a route to social mobility & a removal of the �barriers to opportunity� would avoid �wasting talent� 3. Generated substantial evidence confirming unequal �access� by �social class� e.g. Robbins Report (1963) & Kelsall, Poole & Kuhn (1972) 4. No consistent evidence on �social class� differences in degree results (Eckland: 1964; Reid: 1977) 5. Often generated lists of factors that inhibited �working class� attainment and HE progression e.g. home facilities, parental education, disharmony in the home and the quality of teaching (Douglas: 1964; Dale and Griffith: 1965)

12. 12 Contributions and criticisms 1. Established �social class� inequalities in participation & furnished concepts that are still used in widening participation research today e.g. factors & barriers 2. Criticisms An asymmetrical view of �barriers� Factor-based approach to the causes of differential participation (a lack of theoretical modelling) A neglect of other �non-traditional groups� and, in their early stages, processes in the school Focus on the �cultural� sometimes separated from the material Contradiction between �cultural deprivation� & implicit commitment to equality of opportunity

13. 13 The past: �the new sociology of education� 1. The 1970s saw a �paradigm shift� in educational research associated with the development of phenomenological, neo-marxist and feminist approaches (Young: 1971; Brown: 1973; Moore: 1988) 2. In part, the emergence of this �new sociology� reflected political debates related to comprehensive re-organisation, increasing the school leaving age, the extension of the examination system, curriculum initiatives to promote, for example, science education and the expansion and broadening of HE

14. 14 Contributions of �the new sociology�: 1 1. Unsurprisingly, the �new sociology� had an impact on studies of HE, �access� and �widening participation� 2. Feminism resulted in a concern for gender differences in attainment, �access� to the universities, subject choice in the universities and the recruitment of mature students (Keeves: 1973; Carnegie Commission: 1974; Banks: 1976) 3. Neo-marxists primarily viewed HE as reproductive of �social class� relations in capitalism, which implied that the �barriers� to participation were differences in �cultural and social capital� (Althusser: 1972; Bourdieu: 1973; Harris and Holmes: 1976)

15. 15 Contributions of �the new sociology�: 2 1. There were contradictions in �new sociological� approaches to HE. For example, Bourdieu (1873: 85) depicts HE as �the monopoly of the ruling classes�, but Harris and Holmes (1976) argue that the �openness� & progressive liberalism of the Open University are hierarchical & exploitative. 2. However, the �new sociology� did provide some inclusive and consistent research which was sensitive to the history, context, �openness� and experience of students in HE e.g. A. McPherson�s �Selection and survivals�� in: Brown (1973)

16. 16 Contributions and criticisms 1. The �new sociology� focused attention on the experiences of women, ethnic minorities and other �non-traditional� students. It also drew attention to the curriculum and processes within HE. 2. Criticisms Often failed to measure �access� inequalities by �social class� Dichotomous explanations of differential participation e.g. �social� and �cultural� capital Emphasis on social reproduction largely ignored the possibility of social transformation Occasionally contradictory � Bourdieu (1973) vs. Harris and Holmes (1976)

17. 17 Contemporary approaches to widening participation A plurality of approaches to �access� and �widening participation� have emerged including: 1. �Access studies� and �student choice models� as a form of political arithmetic e.g. Watts (1972), Hearnden (1973), Fulton (1981) & Brendo, Foersom & Laursen (1993) 2. Official, managerial & monitoring approaches e.g. Woodrow (1999), Woodward & Ross (2000), & Woodrow & Yorke (2002) 3. Ethnographic, life course and feminist perspectives e.g. Haselgrove (1994), Silver & Silver (1997), & Parr (2000) 4. Discursive & post-modern approaches e.g. Bloomer (1997), Williams (1997) & Burke (2002) It is often difficult to �classify� research, since scholars sometimes combine divergent positions

18. 18 The contemporary context The content of contemporary �widening participation� research has often been driven by legislative changes Early 1980s � New Right �cut backs� to finance led to a concern for the level of overall participation (APR) and the �barriers� faced by the �working class� (Moore: 1983) The removal of the binary divide (1992) has also generated research into the composition of universities (Jary: 2002) 4. Contemporary changes to student finance have led to a proliferation of research related to student finance, decision-making and �social class� (Knowles: 2000; Callender and Kemp: 2000; Callender: 2003)

19. 19 Some contemporary contributions: 1 1. Unsurprisingly, recent research has confirmed the link between socio-economic background & participation in HE (Farrant: 1981; Stafford, Lundstedt and Lynn: 1984; Tonks: 1999; Connor & Dewson: 2001) 2. Initially, this relationship was explained by reference to �social� and �economic� factors which inhibited �working class� participation drawing upon educability approaches (Gordon: 1981) 3. However, more recent research has explored those factors that both �encourage� and �discourage� for example the participation of students from �lower social class backgrounds� (Connor: 2001; Connor and Dewson: 2001). 4. These factors include: belief in the labour market worth of a degree; the costs of studying; the necessity to work part-time; concern about academic workloads; and gaining entry qualification.

20. 20 Some contemporary contributions: 2 1. Qualitative and ethnographic research has also sought to explain why the participation rates of �lower socio-economic groups� remain relatively low (Hutching and Archer: 2001). 2. A variety of �reasons� have been identified including: low school achievement; low aspirations; financial constraints; students� knowledge and perceptions of HE; and students� discourses related to entry qualifications, finance & the experience of HE 3. Whilst the product of different theoretical positions, these �reasons� often reflect the findings of educability studies, although they are usually explored in more �depth� (and less breadth) 4. In the context of gender and ethnic differences, consideration has also been given to the role of staff in HE as �gatekeepers�, the relevance of the curriculum, support services for students & the �trauma� experienced by some students (see Moodley: 1995 and Parr: 2000)

21. 21 Strengths of contemporary approaches 1. A concern for the measurement of patterns of participation e.g. related to official monitoring 2. A concern for the production of models of student choice & decision making 3. Some exploration of the everyday experience of being a student at university 4. Extended exploration of the factors which both encourage & discourage participation 5. Firm rejection of a �cultural deficit model� & move, for example, to an exploration of financial factors 6. Increased concern for managing & monitoring �access�

22. 22 Weaknesses of contemporary approaches 1. Dichotomous thinking: reified oppositional categories still dominate research e.g. �working� and �middle class�, factors encouraging & discouraging, reasons for and against participation; bridges and barriers; participation separated from outcomes etc 2. A lack of holistic research: there is little research combining context-specific quantitative & qualitative data; few studies explore students� social characteristics simultaneously; there is a lack of indepth research that compares institutions across the sector 3. Social relationships: the social conditions of learning are a product of social relationships &, therefore, more emphasis is needed on the studentship and learning careers of potential and actual entrants 4. Empiricisms & theory- building: longitudinal mixed methods studies are needed which generate social theory grounded in an analysis of patterns of students� everyday experience

23. 23 The future of widening participation research �Access� & �widening participation� research requires: Productive empirical research that expands the explanatory resources of social science (Holmwood & Stewart: 1991) An inclusive definition of the social relationships and processes that produce differential participation, progression & outcomes, ranging from those that inhibit to those that promote HE Contextually sensitive studies considering a range of student social characteristics and educational experiences, which explore both the patterns and causes of differential HE A longitudinal account of the social conditions of learning in HE An exploration of the ways HEIs reproduce & transform social relationships and differential outcomes This is, of course, a personal vision & a demanding research agenda It should avoid being driven by legislative & research funding issues

24. 24 A potential model for future research A comparative study of the patterns and causes of differential participation, progression and outcomes in three HEIs, which represent different positions in the higher education sector A conceptually unified approach examining all students � including �traditional� and �non-traditional� applicants & entrants A mixed methods inquiry that deconstructs the quantitative-qualitative divide An examination of the curriculum, learning experiences & studentship of undergraduates A mapping of students� responses to the curriculum and to institutional �widening participation� practices Recommendations based on what students actually do rather than data descriptive of their states of mind and attitudes