SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Tag Archives: fairness


by 1 Comment

How social mobility in HE can reproduce inequality – and what to do about it

by Anna Mountford-Zimdars, Louise Ashley, Eve Worth, and Chris Playford

Higher education has become the go-to solution for social inequality over the past three decades. Widening access and enhancing graduate outcomes have been presented as ways to generate upward mobility and ensure fairer life chances for people from all backgrounds. But what if the very ecosystem designed to level the playing field also inadvertently helps sustain the very inequalities we are hoping to overcome? 

Social mobility agendas appear progressive but are often regressive in practice. By focusing on the movement of individuals rather than structural change, they leave wealth and income disparities intact. A few people may rise, but the wider system remains unfair – but now dressed up with a meritocratic veneer. We explore these issues in our new article in the British Journal of Sociology, ‘Ambivalent Agents: The Social Mobility Industry and Civil Society under Neoliberalism in England’. We examined the role of the UK’s ‘social mobility industry’: charities, foundations, and third-sector organisations primarily working with universities to identify ‘talented’ young people from less advantaged backgrounds and help them access higher education or elite careers. We were curious – are these organisations transforming opportunity structures and delivering genuine change, or do they help stabilise the present system? 

The answer to this question is of course complex but, in essence, we found the latter. Our analysis of 150 national organisations working in higher education since the early 1990s found that organisations tend to reflect the individualistic approach outlined above and blend critical rhetoric about inequality with delivery models that are funder-compatible, metric-led and institutionally convenient. Thus – and we expect unintentionally on part of the organisations – they often perform inclusion of ‘talent’ without asking too many uncomfortable structural questions about the persistence and reproduction of unequal opportunities. 

We classified organisations in a five-part typology. Most organisations fell into the category of Pragmatic Progressives: committed to fairness but shaped by funder priorities, accountability metrics, and institutional convenience. A smaller group acted as Structural Resistors, pushing for systemic change. Others were System Conformers, largely reproducing official rhetoric. The Technocratic deliverers were most closely integrated with the state, often functioning as contracted agents with managerial, metrics-focused delivery models.   Finally, Professionalised Reformers seek reform through evidence-based programmes and advocacy, often with a focus on elite education and professions.

This finding matters beyond higher education. Civil society – the world of charities, voluntary groups, and associations – has long been seen as the sphere where resistance to inequality might flourish. Yet our findings show that many organisations are constrained or co-opted into protecting the status quo by limited budgets, demanding funders, and constant requirements to demonstrate ‘impact’. Our point is not to disparage gains or to criticise the intentions of the charity sector but to push for honest and genuine change. 

Labour’s new Civil Society Covenant, which promises to strengthen voluntary organisations and reduce short-termism, could create opportunities. But outsourcing responsibility for social goods to arm’s-length actors also risks producing symbolic reforms that celebrate individual success stories without changing the odds for the many. If higher education is to deliver genuine fairness, we must distinguish between performing fairness for a few and redistributing opportunities for the many. We thus want to conclude by suggesting three practical actions for universities, access and participation teams, and regulators such as the Office for Students.

  • Audit for Ambivalence 

    Using our typology, do you find you are working with a mix of organisations, or mainly those focused on individuals? (Please contact us for accessing our coding framework to support your institutional or regional audits.) 

    • Rebalance activity towards structural levers

    Continue high-quality outreach, but, where possible, shift resources towards systemic interventions such as contextual admissions with meaningful grade floors, strong maintenance support, foundation pathways with guaranteed progression and fair, embedded work placements 

    • Redesign accountability

    Ask the regulator to measure structural outcomes as well as individual ones, at sector and regional levels. When commissioning work, ask for participatory governance and community accountability and measure that too.

    We believe civil-society partnerships can play a vital role – but not if they become the sole heavy-lifter or metric of success. Universities are well positioned to embrace structural levers, protect space for critique, and hold themselves accountable for distributional outcomes. If this happens, the crowded charity space around social mobility could become a vibrant counter-movement for genuine change to opportunities and producing fairness rather than a prop for maintaining an unequal status quo. 

    In terms of research, our next step is speaking directly to people working in the ‘social mobility industry.’ Do they/you recognise the tensions we highlight? How do they navigate them? Have we fairly presented their work? We look forward to continuing the discussion on this topic and how to enhance practice for transformative change.

    Anna Mountford-Zimdars is a Professor in Education at the University of Exeter.

    Louise Ashley is Associate Professor in the School of business and management at Queen Mary University London.

    Eve Worth is a Lecturer in History at the University of Exeter.

    Christopher James Playford is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Exeter.


    by 3 Comments

    The hidden layers of transparency in UK HE assessment practices

    by Chahna Gonsalves and Zhongan Lin

    Transparency in assessment practices is a critical component of the UK’s higher education sector, but it is a term that carries many layers of meaning. This blog post explores a study that examined how transparency is framed in assessment policies across 151 UK higher education institutions (HEIs). The findings reveal that while institutions strive for transparency, they often overlook the complexities and multidimensional nature of the concept.

    Understanding transparency: more than just clear documentation

    Transparency in assessment is often associated with clear documentation of criteria, grading practices, and feedback mechanisms. However, this techno-rational approach, which emphasizes explicit documentation and information dissemination, is just one facet of transparency. Our study highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding that includes socio-cultural practices and socio-material enactments.

    Techno-rational approaches: the dominant paradigm

    The study found that techno-rational approaches dominate the transparency discourse in HEI policies. These approaches focus on ensuring that assessment criteria, learning outcomes, and grading standards are clearly articulated and accessible. For example, many policies mandate the use of detailed assessment briefs, rubrics, and grade descriptors. While this approach aims to make evaluative processes clear and consistent, it often falls short in addressing the dynamic and interpretive nature of academic standards.

    One of the most compelling findings was the over-reliance on explicit standards documents, which presume that written criteria can universally ensure fairness and consistency. This static view overlooks the reality that academic standards are co-constructed within specific social and cultural contexts. Without acknowledging this, policies may fail to convey the nuanced, tacit knowledge necessary for fully understanding and applying assessment criteria.

    The limitations of techno-rational transparency

    Simply providing clear documentation does not guarantee that all stakeholders will understand or effectively use the information. For instance, non-native English speakers and students with varying levels of academic literacy may struggle with the language used in assessment criteria. Moreover, policies often fail to specify effective methods for disseminating this information, relying heavily on static documents rather than interactive or diverse formats that could enhance understanding.

    Socio-cultural practices: engaging stakeholders in meaningful dialogue

    Beyond documentation, transparency also involves socio-cultural practices that engage stakeholders in ongoing dialogue and clarification of assessment criteria. Policies that promote discussion between educators and students, co-creation of assessment criteria, and collaborative marking processes can foster a deeper understanding and shared meaning of what is expected. For instance, involving students in the creation of rubrics and providing opportunities for mock marking can enhance their evaluative judgment and assessment literacy.

    One interesting insight from the study was the importance of dialogue in building a shared understanding of assessment standards. Policies that encourage discussion about assessment criteria not only help students grasp what is expected but also allow educators to refine and clarify their expectations. This dynamic, interactive process contrasts sharply with the static dissemination of information typical of techno-rational approaches.

    Socio-material enactments: the role of tools and artefacts

    The study also highlights the importance of socio-material enactments, where transparency is realized through the interaction between social practices and material artifacts. This includes the use of digital platforms, rubrics, exemplars, and other assessment tools that facilitate a tangible understanding of assessment criteria. Effective use of these tools can bridge the gap between educators’ tacit knowledge and students’ understanding, fostering a more comprehensive view of transparency.

    For example, the use of digital platforms to share assessment criteria and feedback can significantly enhance transparency. These platforms allow for continuous access and interaction with assessment materials, making it easier for students to understand and engage with the criteria. However, the study found that detailed guidance on such platforms is often scant in policies, pointing to a significant area for improvement.

    Who benefits from transparency? A multifaceted audience

    Transparency in assessment is not solely for students. It also encompasses other stakeholders, including markers, external examiners, tutors, and even employers. The study found that while most policies address the need for transparency for students and markers, they often neglect other crucial stakeholders. This oversight can lead to inconsistencies in how assessments are interpreted and applied, potentially undermining the fairness and effectiveness of the evaluation process.

    A particularly intriguing aspect of the study was the identification of specific roles and responsibilities for promoting transparency. By clearly defining who is responsible for ensuring transparency – whether it be module leaders, programme teams, or tutors – institutions can better align their policies with the needs of various stakeholders. This clarity can help avoid the pitfalls of ambiguous roles and ensure a more consistent application of assessment criteria.

    Methodology: building the framework

    To develop a comprehensive framework we conducted a detailed content analysis of assessment policy documents from 151 UK HEIs. The data collection process involved systematically retrieving and examining these publicly accessible documents, which included academic manuals, assessment policies, feedback strategies, and codes of practice. We excluded documents that were outdated or inaccessible, resulting in a final corpus of 264 documents. Through both deductive and inductive coding methods, we analysed the texts to identify recurring themes and patterns related to transparency. This process involved categorising the data into three main discourses – techno-rational, socio-cultural, and socio-material – guided by Ajjawi, Bearman, and Boud’s (2021) framework. The iterative coding and categorization helped us build a nuanced understanding of how transparency is conceptualized and communicated in HEI assessment policies.

    Towards a holistic framework for transparency

    Our study proposes a holistic framework that integrates techno-rational, socio-cultural, and socio-material approaches to transparency. This framework emphasizes the need for clear, accessible documentation, active engagement with stakeholders, and effective use of assessment tools and artifacts. By recognizing the diverse needs of all stakeholders, HEIs can develop more inclusive and effective assessment policies.

    One of the key contributions of this study is its challenge to the notion of transparency as a static attribute. Instead, transparency is presented as a dynamic, contextually situated practice that requires continuous negotiation and interaction among stakeholders. This perspective shifts the focus from merely providing information to actively engaging stakeholders in the assessment process.

    Figure 1. Framework of assessment transparency in Higher Education

    Implications for policy and practice

    To improve transparency in assessment, HEIs must move beyond merely publishing information to actively engaging with stakeholders through dialogue and interaction. Policies should be clear about the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in ensuring transparency. Furthermore, the use of diverse and interactive dissemination methods can enhance understanding and support students’ academic success.

    For policymakers, the study suggests that transparency should be explicitly defined within institutional contexts, with guidelines that emphasize both the dissemination of information and the engagement of stakeholders. Educational practitioners are encouraged to adopt participatory practices in assessment design, involving students in creating and understanding assessment criteria, which is pivotal in promoting transparency.

    Conclusion: enhancing transparency for a fairer education system

    Transparency in assessment is a complex, multifaceted concept that goes beyond clear documentation. By integrating techno-rational, socio-cultural, and socio-material approaches, HEIs can foster a more inclusive and effective assessment environment. This study underscores the importance of comprehensive policies that not only provide clear information but also engage stakeholders in meaningful ways, ultimately contributing to a fairer and more equitable higher education system.

    Reflecting on our roles as stakeholders

    As readers, it is crucial to reflect on our roles within the higher education assessment ecosystem. Whether we are students, educators, policymakers, or external examiners, we each play a part in fostering transparency. Understanding the nuances of transparency and actively engaging in dialogue and interaction can help us contribute to more equitable and effective assessment practices. By recognizing and fulfilling our roles, we can collectively enhance the transparency and quality of education in our institutions.

    Reference

    Gonsalves, C and Lin, Z (2024) ‘Clear in advance to whom? Exploring ‘transparency’ of assessment practices in UK higher education institution assessment policy’ Studies in Higher Education, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2024.2381124

    Chahna Gonsalves is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing (Education) at King’s College London. She is Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Association and Associate Fellow of the Staff Educational Development Association. Her interest in rubrics and the language of assessment is an extension of her role as Department Education Lead.

    Zhonghan Lin is a Doctoral Researcher based at the Center for Language, Discourse and Communication, the School of Education, Communication and Society, King’s College London. Her research interests include urban multilingualism, education in ethnically and linguistically diverse societies, and family language policy.


    by Leave a comment

    Admissions tutors’ perspectives on widening access to selective STEM degrees

    by Eliel Cohen, Camille Kandiko Howson and Julianne Viola

    This blog follows a project supported by the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund, involving interviews with admissions tutors and staff in department-based admissions decisions in STEM fields at Imperial College London, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the three most selective higher education institutions in England. A project report for the full study is available here. 

    Admissions decisions at more selective universities are often made ‘locally’, that is by disciplinary-based academics who will likely be directly involved in teaching students. Given such autonomy, we join Steven Jones, Dave Hall and Joanna Bragg in foregrounding localised admissions practices as key sites of study for understanding widening participation practices and outcomes. In March and April 2020 we conducted eight interviews with individuals holding admissions tutor (or similar) roles in STEM courses at three elite English universities (the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and Imperial College London).

    This post summarises key findings, emphasising that admissions tutors’ perceptions, priorities and practices are often disjointed and disconnected from wider institutional and national policies, grounded in a conservative ethos which slows down the widening of access to selective STEM degrees.

    There is fairness and there is ‘fairness’

    Fairness was a key theme in our interviews, with all but one participant using the word ‘fair’ or ‘fairness’ explicitly when discussing the key principles of admissions. However, ‘fairness’ tended to have two main meanings which not only differed from but could actively contradict each other. Marginson discusses these contrasting notions of fairness in access to higher education in terms of the competing philosophical traditions to which they relate, drawing on the likes of John Rawls and Amartya Sen. Our findings more closely match the more procedure-focused tradition that Marginson identifies as ‘equity as fairness’, as opposed to the more outcomes focused tradition of ‘equity as inclusion’.

    The first and dominant view referred to equal treatment of applicants. This procedural meaning of fairness is not an end in itself but more a means towards ensuring that other admissions priorities were achieved consistently and transparently. First among these was identifying and admitting those applicants with the greatest ‘potential’. We found strong evidence of what has elsewhere been referred to as the potential-based perspective amongst our participants, who consistently used words like ‘high-potential’, ‘high-ability’, or simply ‘the best’ to describe the kinds of students they prioritised and targeted in admissions.

    This notion of fairness as a characteristic of procedures which will unproblematically reveal the ‘best’ applicants not only differs from, but can undermine the secondary notion of fairness, one grounded in social justice – in other words, fairness in terms of greater equality of outcomes regardless of one’s background. Some of our participants exhibited at least implicit awareness that there was a potential contradiction between these two notions of fairness, since it is often difficult to see the potential in applicants from less advantaged backgrounds.

    On the whole, participants did not see widening participation as a top priority, feeling that there were limits to the extent to which they should be using their role and finite resources to address social inequalities.

    Disconnect between admissions policy and practice

    The widening participation agenda of the past two decades, and especially the more recent focus on contextualised admissions, implies a shift in admissions practices. Perhaps most obviously it suggests an approach which no longer simply prioritises and privileges those students with easily demonstrable ‘potential’ but rather assesses all applicants’ attainments and abilities in light of the very different contexts in which they have been brought up and educated.

    However, what became clear in our interviews was that admissions tutors’ actions and decisions are rarely grounded in the widening participation goals announced by governing bodies and institutional Access and Participation Plans (APP). Rather, in most cases they fell back on what seemed appropriate to their own local context. This resulted in practices which, although sometimes innovative and effective, were disjointed and disconnected from broader widening participation policies and sometimes even counter to them.

    For example, some participants said that they might prioritise applicants based on their gender, nationality (but not ethnicity) or age in order to improve the perceived ‘balance’ in their localised cohort, despite no official policies asking them to do so. Other participants felt that any consideration of gender (and protected characteristics more generally) was inappropriate and potentially unlawful.

    While we are sympathetic about an interest in a balanced cohort, our findings highlight that admissions decisions are sometimes made on the basis of localised and idiosyncratic perceptions and priorities rather than institutional or national policy. It is not clear, for example, whether a marginal offer would be more likely made to an applicant whose background contributed to perceived ‘cohort balance’ or to an applicant from a widening participation background.

    Risk-aversion and the need for data and evaluation

    Although all participants expressed support for widening participation in general, they were generally risk-averse in terms of how far they felt widening participation should go. For example, most of our participants were actively or even strongly against lowering grade offers for widening participation students. This view was justified in various ways, for example in terms of concerns about the need to maintain standards of the students and the curriculum, the perceived ‘extra support’ that students admitted on such a basis may require, and the concern that such students would be more likely to perform poorly or drop out. These views were despite an absence of evidence that students admitted on a contextual basis performed worse than other students. This risk-aversion or conservative ethos seems to be a common response to localised admissions decision making.

    However, some of our participants acknowledged that one thing preventing them from being able to overcome this risk-aversion was a lack of data monitoring the performance of widening participation students, ideally broken down to the level of students admitted partially on the basis of widening participation and contextual information. Anecdotally, we have reason to believe that this would show that more could be done to widen access, including the increase of lower contextualised offers, without it affecting standards. If nothing else, these data could support evaluation of outcomes of specific admissions practices.

    Admissions in England in 2020 were severely disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Whatever new models or workarounds may emerge in the future, evidence suggests that there will continue to be a role for relatively autonomous admissions tutors in selective institutions. Our findings suggest that the sector needs to reflect on how to account for the institutionally situated perceptions and behaviours of admissions tutors if it is going to continue its widening access objectives in the future.

    SRHE member Dr Eliel Cohen is a sociologist of education and a research associate at Imperial College London. His forthcoming book with Routledge investigates whether universities in the twenty-first century are thriving or just surviving through an analysis of academic boundaries and boundary-crossing activities.  

    SRHE member Dr Camille Kandiko HowsonisAssociate Professor of Education in the Centre for Higher Education Research & Scholarship (CHERS) at Imperial College London. She is an international expert in higher education research with a focus on student engagement; student outcomes and learning gain; quality, performance and accountability; and gender and prestige in academic work.

    Dr Julianne Viola is a social scientist specialising in young people’s civic identity development, efficacy, and engagement with their communities. Her book, Young People’s Civic Identity in the Digital Age (Palgrave 2020) focuses on experiences of young people living in the USA at a unique time in the nation’s history, and calls for the reinvigoration of civic education for the digital age. Julianne earned her doctorate at the University of Oxford and is currently a postdoctoral researcher at Imperial College London.