Rethinking Theory for retention using a social identity approach

1. Rethinking Theory for retention using a social identity approach Dr. Nicholas Bowskill University of Derby N.Bowskill@derby.ac.uk @sharedthinking AdvanceHE Symposium on Student Retention and Success, York, May 27th 2019

2. Tinto (1993) Social Integration Model • Separation of academic systems (content?) and social systems • Highlights commitment (motivation) arising from both systems • Highlights institutional experience and integration

3. Social Integration & INSTITUTIONAL Experience version 1.0 Social Integration Experience Risks a quantitative view (Sani,2012): No of contacts & frequency of interactions had by an individual Risks a generic idea of social experience (Praharso et al, 2017) Social experience not always positive & can have negative effects Social experiences not always stable Social experiences not always personally meaningful • Social integration as “active engagement in a range of interpersonal relationships and social activities” (Brissette et al, 2000) • Sociocultural view: Individual in different social settings • Social contact/support is less effective for health and engagement compared with social identification (Sani, 2012)

4. Social identities Gender, race, ethnicities, LGBT, religion, social class, part-time students, political parties, First Generation Students, nationalities, hobbies, distance learning students, professions, mature students, academics, support professional, scientist, commuter students, physicist, veteran students, psychologist, educator, musician, worker, family, International Students, dancer, university, A sense of who we are as group members the part of the self-concept informed by membership of social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

5. Haslam (2001) Levels of self-abstraction(MODIFIED) • Self & Social Identities • Sub-identities • Saliency • Context-sensitive • Social Comparison Academic Department Course Member

6. Social Identification (group level) • Social identification is the salient or activated group category in a given social context (e.g. Stets, 2000) • Social groups are only beneficial to health etc when associated with social identification (Cruwys et al, 2014) • Proximal relevant identities (immediate group) are more accessible and have more influence than identification with more abstract distal identities (institution etc) (Goldstein et al, 2008)

7. Student-Generated Induction: A Social Identity Approach (Bowskill) • A set of group processes for socialidentity formation supported by different technologies & different ‘social recipes’ • Develops a sense of belonging plus social experience as content (norms) for the immediate group as proximal sub-identity. • Co-construction and ‘publishing’ of values, beliefs, concerns etc by the group to the group on group-relevant issues • Individuals see self in group and group in the self (Turner) in social identification

8. Group Identity Mapping (GIM) & Institutional Experience as social-GROUP content

9. Identity transitions (Prahaso ET AL, 2017) & SOCIAL-gROUP CONTENT rather than social integration & INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE

10. Why a Social Identity Approach? • ENGAGEMENT

11. Dr. Nicholas Bowskill University of Derby N.Bowskill@derby.ac.uk @sharedthinking