srhe

The Society for Research into Higher Education


Leave a comment

Making space for representations of Gypsy, Traveller, Roma, Showmen and Bargee Communities in higher education

by Natalie Forster and Martin Gallagher

Did you know that June is Gypsy, Roma and Traveller History Month? Chances are, this may have passed you by, as it often goes more un-noticed in society than other awareness raising events. The theme for the month is #MakeSomeSpace and it seems timely therefore to give an update on our SRHE Scoping Study, which considers the representation of Gypsy, Traveller, Roma, Showmen and Bargee (GTRSB) communities in the spaces of higher education and widening participation.

There is growing scrutiny of universities in both the media and the academy for their failure to robustly challenge the racism and inequality which pervades in these settings, and move beyond passive and purely performative gestures (such as black squares posted on social media in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder) to implement concrete action leading to lasting change.

GTRSB communities are minority ethnic communities who are particularly under-represented in higher education. Figures must be treated with caution, as many GTRSB students avoid self-identifying for fear of discrimination. However, the most recent data suggests that 3-4% of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller young people aged 18-30 participated in higher education in 2014/15, compared to 43% of this age group nationally, and only 70 Gypsy, Traveller or Irish Traveller students entered higher education in 2018 (Atherton 2020). Recent research (Mulcachy et al 2017, Forster and Gallagher 2020) and media coverage also highlights the isolation and exclusion felt by GTRSB staff and students in higher education, due to the invisibility of GTRSB contributions within university environments and curricula.

Initiatives to increase representation of GTRSB communities in higher education are gaining momentum. A national ‘Good Practice Pledge’ was recently launched for example, through which institutions can demonstrate and enact their commitment to supporting GTRSB communities into and within higher education. However, work in this area is still in its infancy, and confusion surrounding the appropriate definition and targeting of GRT communities in widening participation schemes forms a key barrier to progress (Forster and Gallagher 2020).

Our SRHE scoping project aims to provide clarity around how Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are currently defined and represented in widening participation policy and practice, and arrive at some common recommendations for future work in this field. The project involves three arms: a systematic literature review; a documentary analysis of Access and Participation Plans (APPs); and a Delphi study involving GRT students, widening participation specialists, and academics.

Headline findings point to the dominance of an individual hero type narrative which represents GTRSB students as ‘trailblazers’ and positions GTRSB participation in HE as an atypical event, requiring personal triumph over adversity. While this narrative recognises the determination of GTRSB students in overcoming barriers to higher education access and participation, it may also serve to reinforce the falsity that that GTRSB culture is incompatible with academic success, and downplay the need for structural change, instead placing the onus on GTRSB students to act as ‘role models’ and ‘give back’ to the broader community.

Narratives of GTRSB participation in HE as an unusual event are reflected in, and potentially reinforced through the treatment of these groups in Access and Participation Plans. Only 86 of the 245 plans reviewed (35%) make any reference to GTRSB communities, and of these, only 14 (16%) target GTRSB communities explicitly. Reasons for a lack of action to address inequalities experienced by GTRSB communities included the absence of data to assess performance for these groups; the small size or limited resources of institutions; and/or low numbers of GTRSB students. However, without systemic action, barriers to self-identification and the low numbers of GTRSB students in higher education are likely only to be reproduced. These findings reflect current Office for Students guidance, which frames the inclusion of GTRSB communities in APPs as optional, and experts consulted in our study strongly supported the addition of GTRSB communities as groups that higher education institutions must assess their progress for.

Our work highlights important and potentially troubling absences of GTRSB experiences within discourses on widening participation. This GRTHM and beyond, we urge higher education and widening participation professionals to #MakeSomeSpace to reflect on their current understandings and representations of GTRSB communities, and the ways these may promote or hinder the realisation of GTRSB educational rights.

Dr Natalie Forster is a Research Fellow in the Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing at Northumbria University, Newcastle. Follow Natalie on Twitter @ForsterNatalie

Martin Gallagher is a PhD Candidate and Research Assistant in the Department of Social Work, Education and Community Wellbeing at Northumbria University, Newcastle. Follow Martin on Twitter @GallagherGRT

References

Atherton G. (2020) More than Luck: enabling access and success in Higher Education for Gypsy, Romany and Traveller (GRT) communities. London: Sir John Cass’s Foundation.

Forster N, and Gallagher M. Exploring how Gypsy, Roma and Traveller students can best be supported to participate and thrive in higher education. Newcastle: Northumbria University. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342570864_Exploring_how_Gypsy_Roma_and_Traveller_students_can_best_be_supported_to_participate_and_thrive_in_higher_education

Mulcahy E, Baars S, Bowen-Viner K, Menzies L. (2017) The underrepresentation of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils in higher education: A report on barriers from early years to secondary and beyond. London: Kings College London


1 Comment

Learning from lockdown: how outreach can respond to the needs of today’s learners

by Neil Raven

The teacher perspective

One of the challenges widening participation practitioners have faced in recent times has been in maintaining regular contact with schools and colleges, as these institutions wrestle with the uncertainties wrought by the pandemic. Yet, the teacher perspective is central to understanding local outreach needs, as well as what works and, indeed, could work.

Over the last few months, I have been fortunate to have remained in regular contact – albeit virtually – with a highly experienced teaching professional. Andy McMurray is a teacher and member of the senior management team at an inner city comprehensive with a predominantly white working class catchment. He is also the academy’s outreach lead and, in this capacity, can offer a perspective based on many years of supporting fair access initiatives at a number of schools and colleges.

Conversations with a purpose

Our discussions during this period can best be described as ‘conversations with a purpose’, or motive. Swain and Spire describe this approach to data gathering as one that has been rather ‘under-used’ in educational research. Yet, such conversations have the potential to produce rich, in-depth insights, which, given the more free-flowing nature of the interaction, can be ‘more authentic’ than those generated through more formal and staged interviews. Moreover, through the process of exploring and assessing concepts and ideas, and ‘generating knowledge and understanding’, Feldman suggests that these conversations can also serve as the research ‘methodology.’ Our initial discussions related to the impact of the pandemic and lockdown on young peoples’ educational ambitions and intentions. However, our more recent set of conversations have been concerned with what outreach interventions have worked during the last academic year, and, looking ahead, what initiatives could work.

What has worked during recent months

Although a number of planned university visits during the winter and spring terms had to be ‘abandoned’, Andy discussed the positive reaction that a series of online lectures offered to year 12s and 13s (sixth formers) had received. Described as ‘very powerful’, these had proved successful because they were ‘not just one-off lectures’. Instead, they involved the students taking part in a course linked to the subjects they were studying for their A-level, and which involved them ‘sending in an essay’ and receiving feedback. The impact, it was added, was that the course cultivated a sense that ‘they are university students.’ As evidence of this intervention’s effectiveness, Andy talked about how ‘the students were keen to discuss what they had been doing. Moreover, through engaging with the course the students had acquired ‘subtle’, and transferable, ‘skills in how you learn online’. In this respect, Andy’s expectation – shared by a number of commentators – is that that ‘more online learning’ will be built into future undergraduate programmes.

What needs to be addressed

Yet, Andy was also realistic about the longer-term impact of this intervention. It had certainly ‘stoked students’ enthusiasm and nurtured confidence in their academic abilities’. It had also helped inform them about the choice of post-18 institutions. However, these sessions were directed at those on level 3 (advanced) programmes, who, in many instances, were committed to their studies and were already exploring the HE option. Consequently, there remained a need to focus on those at an earlier stage in their educational journeys and before crucial post-16 study decisions were made. Failure to engage and support these younger people could, it was suggested, be very costly. ‘Unless something is done for them, we could lose a generation to HE. Once they have left at the end of year 11, we will not get a lot of them back.’

What could work

  • Form and format

Asked what would work for younger learners, especially those in years of 9, 10 and 11 – and who had embarked on their GCSEs – Andy’s response was that they need the same type of intervention as that offered to their older peers. Specifically, the suggestion was for a short programme of sessions delivered once a week. Andy was quite clear about the number. Whilst doubts were expressed about the enduring impact of a one-off intervention (an assessment supported by recent research), a series of four to five sessions could have a significant positive and cumulative effect. It would also help cultivate a sense of belonging and being a ‘member of the gang’. In contrast, a larger number of sessions could be judged to be ‘too much’, and may lead to participants being less likely to ‘commit’. In terms of duration, the suggestion was for individual sessions to run for between 40 minutes to an hour, and comprise short, focused segments. In order to support engagement, interactive exercises within these sessions were also emphasised.

  • Content

Andy was equally clear about the content of these sessions. The temptation amongst outreach practitioners might be to offer revision workshops, or cover aspects of the GCSE syllabus. Both of these would likely generate little interest and enthusiasm. If it involves revising ‘GCSE French, they will not want to do that’, and they will ‘push against sessions’ that are based, for example, on the science curriculum, since that is what they do ‘in the classroom’. Instead, it was argued that, whilst subject-focused, these sessions should place the topic being studied in class into a wider context. This could be achieved by exploring its real word application, and informing them of why, for instance, ‘they are covering this subject in physics.’ Yet, this would still have a significant benefit for their GCSEs. It would generate an excitement in what they are doing, and ‘make their teacher’s job easier because they can see a significance to it.’

In sum, Andy argued that such sessions have the capacity to spark participants’ ‘interest in learning.’ However, to do this the content would need to go beyond the simple ‘whizz bang stuff’, and edutainment, which, it was observed, is transient and something ‘the student will see through.’ Rather, they would need to involve ‘actually learning something’. Whilst these sessions should be led ‘by someone with personality’ and who would engage the students, they would also need to be ‘delivered seriously.’

  • The undergraduate experience

Our conversation also acknowledged the value of involving university students in these sessions, ideally comprising those from comparable backgrounds to the participants, who, Andy observed, would ‘talk with an accent they’d recognise’. Exploring this further, it was suggested that this undergraduate component could capture the students when they were learning. For instance, when ‘working in the lab, on a production, or involved in a seminar discussion.’ It could also feature them studying in their ‘dorms’. As opposed to a more conventional tours of students flat, this would be provide an insight into student accommodation ‘in a real life context and from the students’ perspective.’

Whilst one of the underlying intentions of this component would be to communicate I was in your position three years ago, Andy emphasised that this message should be left to the audience to deduce, rather than being stated by some form of accompanying commentary. The young people, it was added, will ‘know that.’ There was also a need to avoid the ‘hard sell’ of HE. ‘Year 9s know what is going on and they will assume you are trying to make money out of them and being paid to say that.’ Instead, the underlying assumption should be that higher education is ‘the expectation’. It should be ‘a given that they will be going to university. If something is really good there, you don’t need to spend time justifying it!’

  • Underpinning the impact

Whilst Andy argued that such an intervention could make a real difference to the outlooks and engagement of the young people involved, its impact could be further enhanced – and underpinned – by awarding participants a certificate denoting their completion of the course and outlining the themes addressed and associated learning outcomes. This, it was added, could then be referenced in their personal statements and the CVs they prepare for both their college and university applications.

  • Follow-up ideas

Whilst the four to five online sessions could represent a self-contained intervention, the potential for a follow-up set of activities was also acknowledged. Should conditions permit, Andy talked about the positive effect that could arise from a visit to the school by the lecturer who had given the virtual talks and the undergraduates that had also featured. Moreover, the lifting of further restrictions associated with the pandemic would present the opportunity for the students to ‘visit the university’ and see the facilities associated with the subjects covered in the online talks. And perhaps witness at first-hand how the students use some of the science and engineering equipment, or even take part in the drama performance they had seen being rehearsed online. This it was concluded, would ensure that it represents a really ‘serious’ intervention.

Whilst our discussions drew to close on this positive note, they concluded with an important proviso, and one that reflects outreach at its best: that it is a collaborative endeavour between schools, colleges and HE providers that requires an ongoing and open dialogue. Arguably, conversations with a purpose afford one mechanism for achieving this.

Neil Raven is an educational consultant and researcher in widening access. Contact him at neil.d.raven@gmail.com

References

Buitendijk, S (2021) ‘If we get it right, digital and online learning will change the world’, WonkHE (7 June) https://wonkhe.com/blogs/if-we-get-it-right-digital-and-online-learning-will-change-the-world/

Feldman, A (1999) ‘The role of conversation in collaborative action research’, Educational Action Research, 7:1, 125-147, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09650799900200076

Moore, J, Sanders, J and L Higham (2013) Literature review of research into widening participation to higher education.  Report to HEFCE and OFFA by ARC Network https://www.raggeduniversity.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Literature-review-of-research-into-WP-to-HE.pdf

Patel, R and L Bowes (2021) Third independent review of impact evaluation evidence submitted by Uni Connect partnerships, Office for Students. https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/third-independent-review-of-evaluation-evidence-submitted-by-uni-connect-partnerships/

Raven, N (2021) ‘Teaching and transitions: understanding classroom practices that support higher education progression in England’, Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 26:2, 189-211 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13596748.2021.1909924?journalCode=rpce20

Raven, N (2020) ‘Outreach should be tailored to the new normal for schools and colleges’, Higher Education Policy Institute. Blog (7 September), https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/09/07/outreach-must-tailor-itself-to-the-new-normal-in-schools-and-colleges/.

Swain, J and Z Spire (2020) ‘The Role of Informal Conversations in Generating Data, and the Ethical and Methodological Issues They Raise’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research21(1). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/3344/4511.

Tzirides, AO, Kalantzis, M and B Cope (2021) ‘Reimagining higher education in the post-pandemic world’, SRHE Blog (11 January). https://srheblog.com/2021/01/11/reimagining-higher-education-in-the-post-pandemic-world/