Rethinking Belonging through Bourdieu and Diaspora

1. Rethinking Belonging through Bourdieu and Diaspora Kate Thomas, PhD researcherBirkbeck, University of London OU Widening Participation through Curriculum Conference30 April – 1 May 2014, Milton Keynes

2. why rethink belonging? • the discourse of ‘belonging’ in retention literature is problematic in relation to part-time, mature undergraduates in English higher education (HE) • a borderland analysis (Abes, 2009) allows for an enriched understanding of ‘belonging’, addresses multiplicity and complexity • this borderland analysis interrogates ‘belonging’ in relation to part-time, mature undergraduates through ideas of power, identity and space/place and conveys the complexity of belonging in contested space

3. why is ‘belonging’ problematic? • Tinto (1975) - integration and congruency as conditions of student persistence; • Thomas (2012) - ‘a sense of belonging is … critical to both retention and success’ • but who belongs and to what? What practices of belonging are recognised and validated in institutional discourses?

4. part-time, mature undergraduates • highly diverse cohort: age, gender, ethnicity, educational background, qualification aim, employment status, parental and/or caring status… • part-time study/students/provision - peripheral • a uniform and universal discourse of belonging is based on dominant idea of HE student as full-time, young, time-rich, residential… • ‘difference’ and ‘absence’ are viewed as problematic

5. a borderland analysis • ‘to realise the complexity of student development it is important to use multiple theoretical perspectives in conjunction with one another, even when they contradict’ (Abes, 2012:190). differencepowergenderethnicity CLASS identity placeterritory ‘home’ SPACE

6. Bourdieu and belonging • Bourdieu’s ‘thinking’ tools: habitus, capital and fieldproblematise belonging as a relational concept in structured social space • ie: ‘belonging’ results from relations between student dispositions (habitus), their cultural capitaland how this positions them in the field of HE • part-time, mature students – fish out of water? • too simplistic/mechanicalfor such a diverse group in a diverse sector?

7. Brah’s concept of ‘diaspora’ (1996) • asks not simply who travels but when, how and under what circumstances? • power –– regimes of power operate to differentiate one group from another (relational positioning) • identity – diaspora recognises ‘a multiplicity of subject positions that constitute a subject’ (123); part-time mature undergraduates multiple roles / commitments / identities • the spatial – diaspora incorporates ideas of journey, displacement and home, the complexities and processes of inhabiting contested space

8. ‘diaspora space’ • occupied by those who have migrated and those who claim ‘legitimate’ belonging • opportunities for transformation, re-inscription • what happens if we consider HE as a diaspora space? • viewing HE as a diaspora spacemakes visible the power dynamics within the sector but also potential in relation to practices of belonging and strategies for retention.

9. Massey: explicitly spatial • space-time is the product of social relations shaped by power, relational not finite, always under construction • activity space - a device for thinking about ‘the spatial network of links and activities … within each activity space there is a geography of power’ • place - a particular moment in the articulation of those relations – place as extroverted, a meeting up of histories • a progressive sense of place –multiple versions of belonging, negotiation

10. rethinking belonging? • diversity and complexity are arguments against universal statements of belonging (as a retention solution in HE) • Brah’s ‘diaspora’ and Massey’s progressive sense of place enhance a Bourdieusian analysis of belonging in HE in relation to part-time, mature students by: • supporting ideas of identity as multiple, fluid and complex • considering the spatial dimensions of identity and belonging • opening up space to consider practices of belonging outside the institutional gaze. • allowing an understanding of HEIs as diverse and unfixed with potential for multiple versions of belonging • showing belonging to be a continually renegotiated process shaped by power relationships in social structures

11. theory into practice? • how are case study HEIs positioned in the field of HE? • what is the geography of power within the HEI? • how does ‘retention’ function as strategy and practice within the institution? Who/what is seen as problematic? • how are part-time, mature undergraduates positioned within the institution • what spaces/places do part-time, mature students occupy/create for learning, sociality, development? • (how) is belonging defined, experienced, imagined? By the institution? By staff? By students?

12. thank youkate.thomas@sps.bbk.ac.uk

13. discussion points • how is ‘belonging’ articulated in your institution? • do all students have access to dominant practices of ‘belonging’? • are alternative practices of belonging recognised in institutional strategy and practice? • what spaces/places are provided/created for belonging? • what is the relationship between ‘belonging’ and other major student agendas (engagement, satisfaction)?