Understanding Higher Education Participation in Socially Deprived Areas

1. SOCIAL DEPRIVATION AND WIDENING PARTICIPATION: THE CONTINUING POWER OF LOCAL CULTURE Aim of the investigation • To understand why young people, with appropriate qualifications, from the most socially deprived areas of Barnsley are under-represented within Higher Education (HE). Research questions: • To what extent do the expectations, motivations and aspirations of a group of young adults impact on their HE participation decisions? • What prevents young adults from entering HE? • How do social, cultural and personal factors contribute to the group’s decision-making processes with respect to entry into HE?

2. SOCIAL DEPRIVATION AND WIDENING PARTICIPATION:THE CONTINUING POWER OF PIERRE BOURDIEU • This paper: • considers how/why a Bourdieuian Methodological framework was utilised to enhance my understanding of HE participation decision making; • discusses how the framework was utilised to understand how: • objective social structures influenced the participants’ decision making; • the participants’ opinions, beliefs and ‘strategies of action’ were influenced by their working-class and socially deprived backgrounds; • evidences how Bourdieu was operationalised in my research.

3. What do I mean by operationalising Bourdieu? • How I examined key concepts within my thesis. And in doing so, how I explained: • how and why key concepts were selected; • how they would be used To operationalise I needed to justify, analyse and critique what would be used in order to interrogate the decision making processes of the participants.

4. Why a Bourdieuian methodological approach? Offered a ‘praxeological’ account as a way of resisting social reality being reduced to the extremes of objectivist/subjectivist. Whilst I was fundamentally interested in subjective opinions...was this enough? What about structural influences? B argues against methodological monism.

5. Following a Bourdieuian approach allowed me to view the social world as an “…intrinsically two fold reality…” (1990b, p.135) when addressing my research questions.

6. To summarise, a Bourdieuian Methodological framework allowed me to: • give consideration to both objectivist and subjectivist standpoints; • begin to ascertain how the participants’ opinions, beliefs and ‘strategies of action’ were influenced by their working-class and socially deprived backgrounds, as well as their place of study, social class and family.

7. So how did I do this?Adapting a Bourdieuian framework • In order to reconcile the dualisms of objectivism and subjectivism , a three-level methodology was utilised and in doing so, the following key areas were considered: • The construction of the research object • Field analysis • Participant objectivation (Grenfell, 2012)

8. To ensure that the three levels were adequately considered, five areas were utilised (not just in my methodology chapter) • Initial research construction • Data collection • Field analysis • Research presentation • Research discussion (Hardy, 2012) • Each of the five areas were justified in relation to the requirements of my study. • Utilising the five areas helped me operationalise Bourdieu and to begin to resolve my research questions.

9. Initial research construction The scale, nature and focus of this study was discussed. Also considered in relation to the links between, and with, key institutions and finally in relation to the participants. Key concepts defined and justified (Practice, Field, Habitus, Capital, Symbolic Violence, Culture).

10. I engaged in the process of participant objectivation • Had to be reflexive about my research method and other procedures that I used. • Considered my own intellectual bias and specific dispositions. • I considered my own scholarly gaze and the biases that could have blurred my gaze. • My social origins • My position • My own bias • I had a definite opinion on these issues. • I was keen not to present findings that suggested that non-participation was the wrong choice, given my own predisposition to participation.

11. Data collection and analysis was an iterative and cyclical process. I revisited the interview transcripts periodically over a four year period and re-worked through the phases of thematic analysis. Conscious of the power relationships that existed between myself and the participants. Interrogated the work I produced for this study. Adopted a critical stance and asked were my own dispositions, culture influence my analysis?

12. Data Collection • Semi-structured interviews (rich personal and unique) • Using semi-structured interviews: • enabled the meaning of the central themes to become visible; • helped to shed light on the social, cultural and personal factors that contribute to the decision-making processes of the participants;

13. Semi-structured interviews allowed participants: • the opportunity to consider and reflect on issues; • o provide nuanced accounts of their reasoning; • to tell their stories in their own way, in their own words. • Helped me to gain an understanding the reasons for non-participation, as they appeared in the context of their own frames of reference.

14. Question design Important that I paid attention to how I might use questions to operationalise the Bourdieuianconcepts. I designed the questions to collect data that would help to resolve the research questions and to operationalise these key concepts (see handout one).

15. How the Interview Data was Analysed For the purpose of this research a more general thematic approach was followed. Compatible with Bourdieu’s framework Allowed the examination of the ways in which events, meanings and experiences impact upon the participants’ decision making

16. Phases of thematic analysis Phase 1: familiarising yourself with the data Phase 2: generating initial codes Phase 3: searching for themes Phase 4: reviewing the themes Phase 5: defining and naming the themes and writing up the findings Each theme was analysed and the ‘story’ that emerged from it was told in the findings chapters.

17. Field Analysis (see handout two) The sub-field of sixth form education was analysed. A consideration of the participants in the field in terms of key organisations, institutions, networks and communities and relationships between them. The habitus of a range of participants in order to identify which forms of capital were the most valuable within the field. Common characteristics were considered as well as differences.

18. Research Presentation and discussion • When presenting the data: • particular attention was paid to practice, field, habitusand capital, “...to effect the synthesis of objectivism and subjectivism...” (Wacquant, 2008, p. 267). • the influence of objective structures and the subjective experiences of the participants, as well as the relationship between the two were discussed.

19. Summary • This approach: • yielded data that related to the participants expectations, motivations and aspirations and their subjective reasoning for non-participation: • also emphasised objective structural influences relating to social, cultural and personal factors that may have unknowingly influenced their decisions.

20. Questions?