SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Tag Archives: students


by Leave a comment

Pragmatic problem-solving for inclusive doctoral admission

by Bing Lu, Rebekah Smith McGloin and Scott Foster

This blog post reflects on ongoing collaborative efforts to advance more equitable doctoral admissions between a group of UK institutions. It argues that transforming graduate admissions is not simply driven by competitive logic, nor by a search for a single, universal framework that can be applied across the sector. Instead, sector-level change emerges through collective, interactional, and often emotional work.

Inclusive postgraduate research (PGR) admission and recruitment have become an increasing global concern (Posselt, 2016; Bastedo, 2026; Boghdady, 2025). Drawing on ongoing collaborative work between a group of UK institutions, this blog post reflects on collective efforts to advance more equitable doctoral admissions. We argue that inclusive doctoral admission is not a competition to produce an exhaustive, finished framework, but an ongoing process of collective problem solving, one that requires humility, openness, and sustained commitment across institutional boundaries.

PGR students are strategically vital to the UK’s research capacity, innovation and future academic workforce. PhD programmes increasingly function as the primary entry route into academic careers and shape who is able to imagine themselves, and be recognised, as future researchers. Within the doctoral lifecycle, admission is a particularly critical intervention point. Yet, compared with undergraduate or taught postgraduate recruitment, the mechanisms shaping PGR admissions have historically received less sustained scrutiny.

A report commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in 2014 highlighted that UK institutions primarily value academic attainment, the quality of research proposals, and evidence of prior research skills when selecting candidates (Mellors-Bourne et al, 2014). Since 2020, a growing body of UK-based scholarship has begun to highlight equity issues in doctoral selection (McGloin & Wynne, 2022; Oyinloye & Wakeling 2023; Mateos‑González & Wakeling, 2022; Britton et al, 2020), and has sought to explore the ascriptive nature of systems and processes that underpin doctoral recruitment and admission.  Together, these studies identify a range of barriers. These include the persistence of ‘elite pipelines’, whereby attending a Russell Group university at undergraduate level strongly predicts access to elite postgraduate education, as well as the significant under-representation of British candidates from minoritised backgrounds at doctoral level, particularly within funded studentships. These patterns underscore the need to interrogate how merit, potential, and excellence are operationalised in practice.

The initiatives and the community of practice

Initiatives funded by Research England and Office for Students, including the Equity in Doctoral Education through Partnership and Innovation (EDEPI) programme, represent important attempts to push forward the agenda of inclusive PGR admissions in English Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). In 2022, EDEPI conducted a national survey on PGR admissions practices in UK HEIs. The study identified ten key barriers to inclusive admission in its final report EDEPI Postgraduate Researcher Admission Framework and led to the development of the Postgraduate Researcher Competency-Based Admission Framework. This framework deliberately shifts focus away from previous institutional prestige and historical academic attainment towards the specific skills, experiences and competencies which demonstrate future potential for doctoral research.

From 2024, EDEPI has fostered an inter-institutional Community of Practice involving a group of international and UK institutions to explore approaches for enhancing inclusive PGR admissions collectively. Within this community, three institutions engaged as case studies to trial new approaches to evaluating applicants beyond conventional academic metrics, building on the Competency Framework. Through regular facilitated discussions, shared reflective practices, collaborative webinars and a jointly organised symposium on Fostering inclusive doctoral admission, participating institutions work alongside the EDEPI team to explore challenges and embed equity-driven principles into their PGR admissions processes.

Key learning from collective work

One of the most important lessons drawn from this collective institutional effort is that, while institutions hold different conceptions of fairness and merit shaped by their unique contexts, they nonetheless share a commitment to addressing persistent equity issues. This aligns with the findings of the sector survey (Smith McGloin et al, 2024) which found an overwhelming commitment to inclusive practice, an awareness of the need for change and huge complexity in existing processes with multiple stakeholders and drivers. This work is neither straightforward nor purely normative; it is complex, negotiated, and deeply pragmatic.

For example, in staff training workshops, academic colleagues described their deliberate efforts to apply equity principles when making departmental admissions decisions. Professional services staff, meanwhile, highlighted their role in carefully matching applicants’ proposals and disciplinary backgrounds to appropriate departments, ensuring that applications reach the review stage rather than being filtered out prematurely. Where resistance or hesitation arose around the introduction of yet another ‘framework’, this was less about rejecting equity goals and more about uncertainty regarding feasible, appropriate, and sustainable implementation.

Debates around distributive fairness versus procedural fairness illustrate this tension clearly (Boliver et al, 2022). Graduate admissions are not objective measurements of worth but sites of intense organisational boundary work, where judgements about potential, fit, and excellence are continuously negotiated. These discussions echo longstanding sociological insights into academic evaluation. Lamont (2009), for instance, argues that in real-world academic review, excellence and diversity are not alternative principles but additive ones. Staff involved in PGR admissions are often guided by pragmatic, problem-solving considerations, caught between institutional principles, personal commitments, and procedural constraints. Panels are typically required to reach consensus on a limited number of candidates within tight timeframes, and these practical pressures shape how fairness is understood and enacted.

Within this ‘black box’ of academic decision-making, Bourdieu’s Homo Academicus is frequently cited to explain how scholars’ legitimate visions of high-quality research and defend disciplinary boundaries, with conflicts often most pronounced among those occupying similar positions. Our collective work over the past 12 months, however, suggests a more nuanced picture. Admissions staff, both academic and professional, are motivated not only by positional interests but also by a shared, pragmatic curiosity about how to solve persistent problems together. The Community of Practice created space for dialogue, uncertainty, and learning, enabling participants to reflect on their own assumptions while engaging with others’ institutional constraints.  Transforming graduate admissions, then, is not simply driven by competitive logic, nor by a search for a single, universal framework that can be applied across the sector. Instead, sector-level change emerges through collective, interactional, and often emotional work. A recent WonkHE article, How to level the PhD playing field, posed a critical question: does the sector have the collective will to move beyond well-intentioned initiatives towards the structural changes required to address inequities among PGRs?

The experiences emerging from EDEPI offer cautious but promising evidence. They demonstrate how institutions with differing histories, resources, and institutional affordances can nonetheless work together pragmatically to enhance admissions practices. Inclusive doctoral admission, in this sense, is not a finished model to be adopted but an ongoing process of collective problem solving, one that requires humility, openness, and sustained commitment across institutional boundaries. Through the established Community of Practice, the EDEPI framework has also begun to attract interest from institutions in international contexts, despite differing governance structures, as a means of collectively developing equity-oriented approaches to PGR admissions through shared learning.

Closing summary

Inclusive PGR admissions require ongoing, collaborative work, as shown through EDEPI’s efforts to help institutions rethink how fairness, potential, and merit are assessed. Colleagues across academic and professional roles demonstrate that excellence and diversity can be mutually reinforcing when supported by reflective practice and shared experimentation. Future progress depends on refining competency-based approaches, tracking applicant journeys, expanding training and co-creation, and translating these insights into clearer sector guidance and policy.

Dr Bing Lu is a higher education scholar based at Nottingham Trent University and University of Warwick. Bing’s research critically engages with access, equity, and sustainability in postgraduate education, focusing particularly on underrepresented groups and the global flows of academic labour. Bing is currently guest editing a Special Issue on Taboos in Doctoral Education Across Cultures hosted by Higher Education Quarterly.

Dr Rebekah Smith McGloin is Director of Research Culture and Environment at Nottingham Trent University and Chair of the UK Council for Graduate Education. Her focus is on innovations in practice and national policy work related to new and emerging forms of doctorate that align with the changing research, innovation and skills policy landscape; including research culture reform, civic-engaged and inclusive doctoral education and equity-focused admissions.

Scott Foster is a professor specialising in postgraduate research culture and academic leadership. He has published extensively on equity, well-being, and innovation in doctoral education. Through influential articles and forthcoming book projects, he advances global research culture while supporting institutions to strengthen policy, supervision, and the doctoral experience.


by Leave a comment

Students in quality assurance – representatives, partners, or even experts?

by Jens Jungblut & Bjørn Stensaker

Throughout Europe, students are often regular members of external quality assurance mandated to perform evaluations and accreditations in higher education. While this role has been secured through the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), we have little knowledge about how students participate in such panels and which roles they take up. In a paper presented at the SRHE conference in Nottingham in December 2025, we addressed this issue – both conceptually and empirically.

One could imagine that there are several roles that students could play as part in an external quality assurance panel. Students are most often seen as representatives of their fellow students. This has implications as to how students are appointed to such panels, as various student interest organizations usually have the power to nominate specific students to the task. More recently, the idea of students being partners has also gained interest, where a key assumption is that students should be involved and participate in all aspect and processes related to their own education – including quality assurance. The initiative “student partnerships in quality Scotland (sparqs)” is a well-known example of this inclusive approach (Varwell, 2021). However, one could argue that students may even take on an expertise-based role in quality assurance. This type of role is not based on experience per se but rather the ability to reflect upon the knowledge possessed and the ability to engage in systematic efforts to learn more – based on these reflections (Ericsson, 2017).

In our paper presented at the SRHE conference we argue that the role of students participating in quality assurance panels (or any other related processes in higher education) may not be static, restricting students to merely one role at a time (see also Stensaker & Matear, 2024). We rather argue – in line with Holen et al (2021) – that the roles students may take on are highly dynamic. A consequence of this would be that students may shift rapidly from one role to another, depending on, for example, the evaluation context, committee setting, or the issue that is being discussed.

To test our assumptions, we conducted a survey targeting students taking part in European quality assurance processes; to be more specific, we targeted the `Quality Assurance Student Experts Pool` within the European Students’ Union. This group was established in 2009 with the aim to improve the contribution of students in quality assurance in Europe. When included in the pool, students undergo training sessions providing them with relevant background knowledge about quality assurance processes and the ESG. The members of the pool are then called upon by quality assurance agencies throughout Europe to act as student representatives on their quality assurance panels at program, institutional, or national level, performing evaluations, accreditations and other forms of assessments. The `Quality Assurance Student Experts Pool` therefore represents a unique entity in Europe, as it is the only European structure that collects and trains students for these roles. 35 students (of a total of 90) responded to our survey.

The students responding have on average been involved in quality assurance for more than four years, and over 60 percent have participated in four or more evaluation or accreditation processes. In line with our expectations, the students indeed report that they are taking on several roles during the evaluation processes, they are representatives of students, they feel they are equal partners within the evaluation panel they are part of, and they also see themselves as experts. In our data, we could not identify a clear hierarchy between the different roles. However, our data suggest that students are often perceived as a partner, while less often as experts. A possible interpretation here is that temporality and experience matter: students may be initially viewed as a representative and as a partner when starting their work within the panel, and through the process of participating in multiple panels over time they might demonstrate expertise which is in turn recognized by their peers in the panels. An interesting feature coming out of the data is also that the students in the `Quality Assurance Student Experts Pool` regularly share knowledge among the members of the pool, and in that way contribute to continuously build the expertise of all members. Expertise is in this way not taken for granted or expected as a prerequisite for being a member, but rather nurtured, systematised and made available to newer and future members.

We want to thank all the students that bothered to respond to our small questionnaire. While our study is exploratory, we do think it provides new insights regarding student involvement and influence in a setting characterized by a high level of expertise and professionalism, and we hope that the findings can help future research to further unpack the dynamic nature of students’ roles in quality assurance panels.

Jens Jungblut is a Professor at the Department of Political Science at the University of Oslo. His main research interests include party politics, policy-making, and public governance in the knowledge policy domain (education & research), organizational change in higher education, agenda-setting research, and the role of (academic) expertise in policy advice.

Bjørn Stensaker is a Professor at the Department of Education at the University of Oslo. He has a special research interest in governance, leadership, and organizational change in higher education – including quality assurance. He has published widely on these topics in a range of journals and book series.


by 1 Comment

Going against the grain? Arts Based Research and the EdD: Resistance, activism and identity

by Tim Clark and Tom Dobson

There has been growing interest in the potential of arts-based research (ABR) methods to enrich educational inquiry (Everley, 2021). However, minimal attention has been given to how accessible or relevant ABR is for practice-based researchers (including lecturers and teachers), who undertake the professional doctorate in education (EdD) pathway. We believe that this lack of attention is significant, partly because institutional frameworks for doctoral programmes are often informed by traditional models of PhD research, which may constrain the creative possibilities of practice-based study (Vaughan, 2021), and partly due to the nature and ‘uniqueness’ of the EdD as a research degree (Dennis, Chandler & Punthil, 2023).

We have previously argued that ABR potentially holds particular promise for EdD research due to its alignment with the programme’s highly relational and contextual nature and its engagement with diverse audiences. In our 2024 paper, which was part of a special issue of Teaching in Higher Education, we mapped the theoretical similarities in understandings of ABR and the EdD, exploring this alignment across aspects including practice, audience and reflexivity (Dobson & Clark, 2024). Our paper called for colleagues to ‘embrace hybridity’ and provide permission for creativity in EdD research and we attempted to illustrate this within the paper itself, entangling examples of creative nonfiction writing with a traditional scoping review to embody our theorisation. However, we also concluded with a realisation that maximising the potential of ABR requires careful attention to how design, practice and regulations support students’ identity development and agency (Savva & Nygaard, 2021).

To build on this, throughout 2024 we have been working with a group of nine EdD students studying at our respective institutions, who are all exploring the potential of ABR for their work. These students span professional roles from early childhood through to higher education, and disciplines including the arts, business and science. Following initial narrative interviews with each student, we developed an online cross-institution action learning set (Revans, 1982) to facilitate dialogue and learning relating to some of the key problems and opportunities students were experiencing in relation to their engagement with ABR. As a group we met 6 times, each time agreeing an area of focus, and providing opportunities for individuals to present and group members to ask clarifying and open-ended coaching style questions. This process culminated in creative analysis, where we collaboratively analysed and reflected on the learning that had taken place, and each student presented a creative interpretation of their learning to the group. We are currently working with a group of these EdD students to co-author a paper which captures and illustrates this learning and shares these creative outputs.

Alongside this, the second paper from our project (Clark & Dobson, forthcoming) explores some of the key learning arising from the initial interview phase – in particular the idea of ABR as a form of ‘resistance’ involving potentially either a deliberate, or more hesitant, decision to ‘go against the grain’. Using Glăveanu’s 5A’s theory (actors, actions, artifacts, audiences and affordances) to understand creativity as embedded in social relations, we developed the interview transcripts into vignettes for each student and identified three key strands of the students’ perceptions of their experiences – many of which continued to be key areas of focus as we worked through the action learning set process. The process highlighted the students’ understanding of how methodological expectations were reflected through key audiences and structures, how methodological choices aligned with their sense of self and identity and the role of ABR in promoting action and agency. The vignettes offered a nuanced illustration of the tensions in these areas, which we feel offers wider value due to the fact that, unlike any previous work we had identified in this area, the understandings related to students both with and without previous artist identities, backgrounds or experiences.

The focus on audience and structures highlighted the numerous audiences which exist for students’ EdD research, often spanning academic, professional and community spaces and how these can create tensions in terms of expectations of what research ‘should’ look like. Some students talked of an ongoing battle to justify and ensure their ABR projects were taken seriously, whilst others positioned their decision to use ABR as an active decision to resist academic or managerial structures they perceived had been unhelpfully imposed on them. This also highlighted that whilst valuing creativity in research within the micro context of an EdD programme itself (through teaching and supervision) was significant and built confidence, students also needed support to consider how to frame their work in wider contexts, including through institutional processes (such as those for ethics approval) and professional and academic communities. One student, for example, highlighted feeling ‘junior’ and ‘a bit insecure’ about engaging in wider university processes designed for what they felt was understood as more ‘serious research’.

In relation to identities and self, we explored a complex and nuanced understanding of students’ perceptions of the need for ongoing negotiation of the entanglement between professional, researcher, and in some cases, artist identities. Where students identified pre-existing artist identities, for some this created an obvious alignment with their research, but for others they identified tensions, including feeling ‘nervous’ about bringing this identity into their research and apprehensive of their relevance to an academic audience. Where students had no prior expertise or experience in the arts, they often expressed hesitance regarding using ABR, but strong feelings about its potential to align with aspects of their professional identity and values. For example, they appreciated ABR’s affordances in ensuring research was accessible to wider communities and supporting children’s voices to be heard.

This also connected with the final strand, action and agency, where ABR was positioned by the students as having the potential to facilitate an emancipatory process in education, promote agency and in some cases play a role in research as a form of activism. This was often associated with ideas of social justice, with one student, for example, talking of ABR as providing agency for him to ‘push back against’ an education system that marginalises certain groups. Alongside this, another highlighted ABR as having stronger potential to be participatory and action based, maximising the benefits of the research process itself on her participants who were also her students.   

As we continue our work on this project, the learning it has generated allows us to begin to reflect on its implications: implications that are both within individual EdD programs, where teaching and supervision have strong potential to offer spaces to explore, and reflect on, the potential value of ABR within EdD research, and at an institutional level, where regulations need to continue to respond to growing focus on the social and professional relevance of doctoral research and the range of models, and methodologies, they encompass. A key part of the action learning sets has also been their role in highlighting the value of facilitating methodological dialogue and creating a community of doctoral researchers exploring ABR. As one of the students reflected, this has helped with their sense of ‘validation’ for their work and provided a space to navigate some of the key tensions.

Dr Timothy Clark is Director of Research and Enterprise for the School of Education at the University of the West of England, Bristol. His research focuses on aspects of doctoral pedagogy and researcher development, particularly in relation to academic writing and methodological decision making on the professional Doctorate in Education (EdD). https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtimothyclark/

Dr Tom Dobson is Professor of Education at York St John University, where he leads the Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD) programme. His research explores creative writing in education as well as the use of arts-based research by EdD students. https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-dobson-84860388/

Paul Temple


by Leave a comment

OfS with their heads: is Cromwell to blame?

by Paul Temple

If you’ve been watching the BBC adaptation of Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall: The Mirror and the Light, you may like me have been surprised by how little higher education featured in the story. (All right, they couldn’t cover every aspect of sixteenth-century English life, but still.) England’s two universities at that time (Scotland of course had four by the end of the sixteenth century) had essential roles as the principal providers of the skilled workforces that expanding commercial, administrative, and legal functions needed – although where Thomas Cromwell himself (played by Mark Rylance) gained his legal and administrative skills remains a mystery: presumably they were picked up during his travels as a young man around Europe. As a study covering a slightly earlier period put it, the medieval university professionalized knowledge, with increasingly specialised courses fitting students for careers in secular professions (Leff, 1968). Religious instruction, sometimes assumed to be the main function of the pre-modern university, was largely undertaken in separate monastic and cathedral schools. These might have developed into universities with secular roles, but instead in England largely faded away.

The significance of England’s two universities is indicated by the powers that Cromwell took to control them in his ascent through English government in the 1530s. At Oxford, he saved the institution that his patron Cardinal Wolsey had established as Cardinal College and turned it into Christ Church College; and in 1534 “wrested the Visitorship of New College [by then 155 years old] from its customary holder as Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner” (MacCulloch, 2018: 275) – Cromwell’s implacable enemy, played creepily in the series by Mark Gatiss. This created another grudge that Gardiner held against Cromwell, and which he would repay with interest. Tensions surrounding what we would now call the governance of higher education had surprisingly important ramifications in the politics of the Tudor court. (Wolsey also established in 1528 a college in Ipswich, his place of birth, but for a number of complicated reasons it was short-lived, and so never, as it presumably might have done, became England’s third university.)

Medieval and early-modern Oxford University was continually engaged in disputes, sometimes violent ones, with the city, and Cromwell was apparently regularly called in to arbitrate. This was the man at the very centre of the administration of the English state: if the Cabinet Secretary dropped in to help your University sort out a planning problem with the local council, it would indicate, I think, that we were looking at a big deal nationally. (We may gain a sense of the scale of these town vs gown disputes by referring to what are known as the St Scholastica’s Day riots of 1354 which led to the deaths of 62 Oxford scholars. As Oxford student numbers have been estimated at around 1,500 at this time, this implies a remarkable death toll of about 4% of the student population. Not for the last time in troubles involving university students, drink seems to have been implicated.)

It seems that Cambridge University felt that they were getting a bit left out, and so in 1534 offered Cromwell the position of High Steward and a year later elected him Chancellor, in place of Bishop John Fisher, who was executed that year – although not, it seems, as a result of any failures in university leadership (MacCulloch, 2018: 276); so unfortunately we cannot properly read this as a warning about the risks involved in university management. It seems that Cromwell’s first job at Cambridge was to deal with the town vs gown hostilities centred around the annual fair held on Stourbridge Common: presumably he was by now something of an expert in managing these conflicts. He was also, it seems, interested in what we would now call curriculum reform, despite having no personal experience of university study: as MacCulloch remarks, under Cromwell’s direction, this was the first time “government had intruded on the internal affairs of Oxford and Cambridge, an interference that has never thereafter ceased” (306). Some of the blame for the activities of the Office for Students must therefore be traceable back to Thomas Cromwell: how did Hilary Mantel miss this plot angle?

References

Leff, G (1968) Paris and Oxford Universities in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries New York, NY: Wiley

MacCulloch, D (2018) Thomas Cromwell: A Life London: Allen Lane

Dr Paul Temple is Honorary Associate Professor in the Centre for Higher Education Studies, UCL Institute of Education.


by 1 Comment

What does it mean to be political for today’s students?

by Rille Raaper

When we think about student politics, it is inevitable that the images of student protest and rebellion come to mind. These views of what counts as student politics have been shaped by rather romantic ideals of what it meant to be a student and do politics in 1960s, or perhaps even in 2010-2011 when we witnessed the last large scale student rebellion in England, but also more globally. When we stretch our imagination, perhaps we can also see students engaging with electoral politics, and them being stereotypically more left leaning compared to the general population – or ‘woke’ as portrayed by many right-wing media outlets today. In cases where students do not meet these expectations of political activity, they are often derogatively called ‘snowflakes’: a fragile generation of apolitical students. While there may be some truth in students becoming less politically active, it is important to question why this might be the case, but also to consider the extent to which our own understandings of student politics are perhaps outdated and need changing.

The cost of student protest

In contexts where higher education is marketed as an investment into one’s future, the student-as-consumer positioning becomes unavoidable. Consumerism in our universities may be brutally explicit as in the UK where students are protected by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, or more subtle in systems where laws and regulations do not treat students as consumers, but the transactional idea of higher education and human capital development still imply similar understandings. As students are constantly reminded to prioritise ‘value for money’ and question their investment into successful graduate employment, deviating from such a mindset and standing out as a disruptive or disobedient student cannot be a preferred or safe option. This was evident with the recent pro-Palestinian encampments which on British campuses were rather short-lived, often adopted around the exam periods and ending with the closure of the academic year 2023/2024. The cost of non-compliance is very high for our students: how could a student who has accumulated an average of £45k student debt with already insecure graduate employment trajectory drop everything and revolt? My recent book Student Identity and Political Agency: Activism, Representation and Consumer Rights deals with these dilemmas and argues that the modes of student politics have had to change alongside the generational pressures that contemporary students face. In other words, the form that student politics takes is intertwined with what it means to be a student today.

Alternative forms of political agency

To counteract the view that students have become apolitical or snowflakes, we need to imagine student politics as more fluid and situational: something that gets embedded within the everyday practices of being a student.

First, this revisioning invites us to be more open-minded about what counts as student protest. For example, it is evident that when today’s students do protest, their actions tend to be more short-lived while triggered by identity-based issues that matter to them personally. We should also look at the new and alternative spaces that activism takes place within, eg digital platforms. The latter could of course relate to generational shifts and students being more digitally adept, but also to the fact that the university campuses have become heavily regulated by timetabling pressures and health and safety rules, making it difficult for students to socialise, let alone organise on campus.

Second, our universities have never emphasised student voice as much as they do today. In addition to students’ unions, there is a wide range of new representative roles on university committees and working groups. While there are questions about tokenism and the effectiveness of these roles – and perhaps fairly so – one cannot deny that there is an incredible infrastructure emerging for students to (peacefully) exercise their interest. This could also be politically motivated, and we should not underestimate the power that students as collectives hold through such representative roles.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, I invite us to consider the power that the student-as-consumer holds. In the age of marketised universities, we need to ask some uncomfortable questions related to the extent to which student-as-consumer positioning itself empowers students with new types of political agency. We know that an increasing number of students are exercising their right to complain, and they often do this to call out universities for their wrongdoings. These wrongdoings may relate to consumer rights and personal grievances, but often they also reflect wider structural inequalities. It could therefore be argued that consumer rights have granted students new tools to exercise their interest. There is a tendency for the sector to view student complaints as something negative and unreasonable, and none of us would want to be the subject of one. However, it is likely that if students are increasingly treated as consumers, it is also this consumer positioning that offers new opportunities for political agency to be exercised. In today’s highly pressurised university environments, consumer complaints might be a more effective way to make oneself heard: making complaints is a legal right for our students, and the potential reputational damage to universities makes complaints high stakes.

In summary, I argue that the market forces and consumerist discourses that brutally shape students are also what trigger, enable and disable certain new and altered forms of political agency. Such understanding invites us to shift away from the prevailing assumption that contemporary students are becoming apolitical and instead to rethink our normative understanding of what counts as political agency.

For more details, please see my book published as part of the SRHE and Routledge book series Research into Higher Education:

Raaper, R (2024). Student Identity and Political Agency. Activism, Representation and Consumer Rights Oxon: Routledge

Rille Raaper is Associate Professor at Durham University. Rille’s research interests lie in the sociology of higher education with a particular focus on student identity, experience and political agency in a variety of higher education settings. Her research is primarily concerned with how universities organise their work in competitive higher education markets, and the implications market forces have on current and future students. The two particular strands of Rille’s research relate to: a) student identity and experience in consumerist higher education; b) student agency, citizenship and political activism.


by Leave a comment

Spotlight on the inclusion process in developing AI guidance and policy

by Lilian Schofield and Joanne J. Zhang

Introduction

When the discourse on ChatGPT started gaining momentum in higher education in 2022, the ‘emotions’ behind the response of educators, such as feelings of exclusion, isolation, and fear of technological change, were not initially at the forefront. Even educators’ feelings of apprehension about the introduction and usage of AI in education, which is an emotional response, were not given much attention. This feeling was highlighted by Ng et al (2023), who stated that many AI tools are new to educators, and many educators may feel overwhelmed by them due to a lack of understanding or familiarity with the technology. The big issues then were talks on banning the use of ChatGPT, ethical and privacy concerns, inclusive issues and concerns about academic misconduct (Cotton et al, 2023; Malinka et al, 2023; Rasul et al, 2023; Zhou & Schofield, 2023).

As higher education institutions started developing AI guidance in education, again the focus seemed to be geared towards students’ ethical and responsible usage of AI and little about educators’ guidance. Here we reflect on the process of developing the School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London’s AI guidance through the lens of inclusion and educators’ ‘voice’. We view ‘inclusion’ as the active participation and contribution of educators in the process of co-creating the AI policy alongside multiple voices from students and staff.

Co-creating inclusive AI guidance

Triggered by the lack of clear AI guidance for students and educators, the School of Business and Management at the Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) embarked on developing AI guidance for students and staff from October 2023 to March 2024.  Led by Deputy Directors of Education Dr Joanne J. Zhang and Dr Darryn Mitussis, the guidance was co-created with staff members through different modes, such as the best practice sharing sessions, staff away day, student-staff consultation, and staff consultation. These experiences helped shape the inclusive way and bottom-up approach of developing the AI guidance. The best practice sharing sessions allowed educators to contribute their expertise as well as provide a platform to voice their fears and apprehensions about adopting and using AI for teaching. The sessions acted as a space to share concerns and became a space where educators could have a sense of relief and solidarity. Staff members shared that knowing that others share similar apprehensions was reassuring and reduced the feeling of isolation. This collective space helped promote a more collaborative and supportive environment for educators to comfortably explore AI applications in their teaching.

Furthermore, the iterative process of developing this guidance has engaged different ‘voices’ within and outside the school. For instance, we discussed with the QMUL central team their approach and resources for facilitating AI usage for students and staff. We discussed Russell Group principles on AI usage and explored different universities’ AI policies and practices. The draft guideline was discussed and endorsed at the Teaching Away Day and education committee meetings. As a result, we suggested three principles for developing effective practices in teaching and learning:

  1. Explore and learn.
  2. Discuss and inform.
  3. Stress test and validate.

Key learning points from our process include having the avenue to use voice, whether in support of AI or not, and ensuring educators are active participants in the AI guidance-making process. This is also reflected in the AI guidance, which supports all staff in developing effective practices at their own pace.

Consultation with educators and students was an important avenue for inclusion in the process of developing the AI policy. Open communication and dialogue facilitated staff members’ opportunities to contribute to and shape the AI policy. This consultative approach enhanced the inclusion of educators and strengthened the AI policy.

Practical suggestions

Voice is a powerful tool (Arnot & Reay, 2007). However, educators may feel silenced and isolated without an avenue for their  voice. This ‘silence’ and isolation takes us back to the initial challenges experienced at the start of AI discourse, such as apprehension, fear, and isolation. The need to address these issues is pertinent, especially now when employers, students and higher education drive AI to be embedded in the curriculum and have AI-skilled graduates (Southworth et al, 2023). A co-creative approach to developing AI policies is crucial to enable critique and learning, promoting a sense of ownership and commitment to the successful integration of AI in education.

The process of developing an AI policy itself serves as the solution to the barriers to educators adopting AI in their practice and an enabler for inclusion. It ensures educators’ voices are heard, addresses their fears, and finds effective ways to develop a co-created AI policy. This inclusive participatory and co-creative approach helped mitigate fears associated with AI by creating a supportive environment where apprehensions can be openly discussed and addressed.

The co-creative approach of developing the policy with educators’ voices plays an important role in AI adoption. Creating avenues, such as the best practice sharing sessions where educators can discuss their experiences with AI, both positive and negative, ensures that voices are heard and concerns are acknowledged and addressed. This collective sharing builds a sense of community and support, helping to alleviate individual anxieties.

Steps that could be taken towards an inclusive approach to developing an inclusive AI guidance and policy are as follows:

  1. Set up the core group – Director for Education, chair of the exam board, and the inclusion of educators from different subject areas. Though the development of AI guidance can have a top-down approach, it is important that the group set-up is inclusive of educators’ voices and concerns.
  2. Design multiple avenues for educators ‘voices’ to be heard (best practice sharing sessions within and cross faulty, teaching away day).
  3. Communication channels are clear and open for all to contribute.
  4. Engaging all staff and students – hearing from students directly is powerful for staff, too; we learned a lot from students and included their voices in the guidance.
  5. Integrate and gain endorsements from the school management team. Promoting educators’ involvement in creating AI guidance legitimises their contributions and ensures that their insights are taken seriously. Additionally, such endorsement ensures that AI guidance is aligned with the needs and ethical considerations of those directly engaged and affected by the guidance.

Conclusion

As many higher education institutions move towards embedding AI into the curriculum and become clearer in their AI guidance, it is crucial to acknowledge and address the emotional dimensions educators face in adapting to AI technologies in education. Educators’ voices in contributing to AI policy and guidance are important in ensuring that they are clear about the guidance, embrace it and are upskilled in order for the embedding and implementation of AI in teaching and learning to be successful.

Dr. Lilian Schofield is a senior lecturer in Nonprofit Management and the Deputy Director of Student Experience at the School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London. Her interests include critical management pedagogy, social change, and sustainability. Lilian is passionate about incorporating and exploring voice, silence, and inclusion into her practice and research. She is a Queen Mary Academy Fellow and has taken up the Learning and Teaching Enhancement Fellowship, where she works on student skills enhancement practice initiatives at Queen Mary University of London.

Dr Joanne J. Zhang is Reader in Entrepreneurship, Deputy Director of Education at the School of Business and Management, Queen Mary University of London, and a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge. She is the ‘Entrepreneurship Educator of the Year’, Triple E European Award 2022. Joanne is also the founding director of the Entrepreneurship Hub , and the QM Social Venture Fund  - the first student-led social venture fund investing in ‘startups for good’ in the UK.  Joanne’s research and teaching interests are entrepreneurship, strategy and entrepreneurship education. She has led and engaged in large-scale research and scholarship projects totalling over GBP£7m.  Email: Joanne.zhang@qmul.ac.uk


by 1 Comment

The increasing pressure on students after Covid-19

by Caroline Jones and Huw Bell

After the pandemic students are facing difficulties linked to health, wellbeing, finances and employment prospects; increased rents, housing shortages, zero hours contracts, the cost-of-living crisis and foodbank usage all of which can affect mental health and wellbeing. This prompted our systematic review article1, which examines topics of student engagement, belonging, alienation and resilience, and specifically identifies pressures on current HE students related to these domains.  The aim of the review was to understand better the tensions faced by HE students following their experiences of educational interruptions due to Covid-19.

Students report higher costs of living, impacting their wellbeing and ability to focus on their studies, with increased stress and a greater need to work to sustain themselves (Sutton Trust, 2023). For example, the Office for National Statistics (2023) reports some students having to skip meals due to the current UK financial crisis, and data from the Student Loans Company found that withdrawals from undergraduate courses in the two years post pandemic are increasing, averaging about 18,300 withdrawals compared to about 15,600 for the preceding three years (HM Government, 2023). While Covid-19 is not the sole cause of the cost of living crisis, it has exacerbated the pressure on students post-Covid. Many HE institutions report the effects of empty classrooms on student learning as they consider new ways of working to bring students back on campus after the pandemic (Dunbar-Morris, 2023).  About 1 in 4 students are at risk of dropping out of their university courses (Jones and Bell, 2024).

Our review found that despite the importance of HE to the development of an educated workforce (Brabner and Hillman, 2023; UPP Foundation and HEPI, 2022) and social mobility (Sutton Trust, 2021), there is a feeling that UK HEIs are moving in the wrong direction, with a sense that HE is decreasingly relevant to economic development (UPP Foundation and HEPI, 2022). We argue that institutions must develop resources and processes to help alleviate the burdens students face; the essential first step is understanding what those burdens are.

In our literature search both empirical and non-empirical data were screened for inclusion/exclusion from open and closed databases focusing on key search terms and dates. We also explored the literature relating to the personal, professional, academic, and societal pressures experienced by UK HE students. In total 59 publications were examined covering the period of the pandemic up to 2023. 

The key findings were:

  1. The effects of Covid-19 have increased pressure on HE students in multifaceted and interconnecting ways covering personal, professional, academic, and societal aspects of daily life. This directly influences student mental health and wellbeing and thus student engagement.
  2. Post-pandemic, students’ mental health and wellbeing are significantly affecting levels of resilience and coping strategies in personal, professional, academic, and societal aspects of daily life, with a direct impact on student retention.
  3. Issues facing the cohort of students currently at school, such as increased stress and anxiety, are likely to affect future HE attendance, engagement, sense of belonging, alienation and resilience.

The findings led to the following recommendations:

  1. Government and HEIs need to do more to address the macro, meso and micro effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the student population, identifying areas of increased pressure for HE students related to the personal, professional, academic, and societal aspects of students’ daily life, which directly influence student mental health and wellbeing and thus student engagement.
  2. Further focussed research is needed into post-pandemic institutional support systems and pedagogical strategies to recognise the support that has been implemented to improve students’ mental health and wellbeing.
  3. HEIs could examine the effects of stress and anxiety resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic for future students and consider strategic plans to continue to support a sense of belonging, and resilience practices to reduce alienation and increase student engagement and retention.
  4. HEIs could develop or use new conceptual tools and theories (for example: Jones, 2021; Jones, 2023), to better assess support needs for current and future students.
  5. Strategies to increase students’ resilience and coping skills post-pandemic aligned to personal, professional, academic, and societal aspects of daily life would significantly benefit mental health and wellbeing long term and thus student retention.

The results and recommendations from this systematic literature review are the scaffold for further qualitative research currently being undertaken into the pressures that HE students are experiencing in the wake of Covid-19. Staff and students are taking part in interviews and focus groups to explore the wider contextual issues associated with feelings of pressure relating to personal, professional, academic and societal influences in the post pandemic context. Many universities have invested in and extended their health, wellbeing and student services to support students, demonstrating the sector’s recognition of many of the challenges post Covid-19 students are facing. Our research will look at existing and improving support practices, systems and plans that HEIs are already implementing to support students in recognition of the many disruptions and challenges from the fall out of Covid-19.

Caroline Jonesis an applied social sciences teaching professional with extensive experience working in and across the education sector, including lecturing/programme leading in HE.  Currently employed as a Tutor based within the Health and Education Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University.  Experience of External Examining and Peer Reviewing. Research interests include Leadership and management, risk, resilience and mental health, social mobility and social policy, widening participation and disadvantage. Originator of the Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) theory. Twitter: @caroline_JonesSFHEA. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/caroline-jones-1bab40b3/

Dr Huw Bell is Reader in Teaching and Learning at Manchester Metropolitan University. Research focuses on teaching and learning L1 grammar in schools and universities in the UK, teachers’ attitudes to and beliefs about grammar and their impact on teaching, teachers’ enactment of the National Curriculum, and student life post-Covid. Email: h.bell@mmu.ac.uk.

  1. SRHE members can access the full article by logging in to www.srhe.ac.uk > My Account > Access to HE Journals > Taylor & Francis online > Perspectives ↩︎


by 4 Comments

Balancing books and bills: an exploration of the hidden world of student workers

by Fabio R Aricò, Laura Harvey and Ritchie Woodard

The pattern is familiar across many universities: more and more students are asking to be excused from attending classes, submitting coursework, and even sitting examinations, because of work commitments. Not long ago, these requests would have been dismissed as feeble justifications and lack of planning but, in the face of the cost-of-living crisis, this rising phenomenon is a signal that students are struggling to make ends meet and that ad-hoc institutional responses have not yet addressed this challenge (Jones (2022), OfS (2023)).

During this period of high inflation, characterised by rampant housing costs and food prices, student finances are increasingly under pressure (Dickinson, 2023; Peachey, 2023). A larger number of students from different backgrounds are now seeking employment whilst studying for their degree. Universities and institutions have responded with a range of emergency measures, including financial support, housing aid, and foodbanks. Yet, there has been minimal adjustment in the way courses are taught or structured to accommodate part-time work, which has become a new normal for many learners (Blake, 2023).

Students undertaking part-time employment, during term or during vacation periods, is not new; in fact, it has long been encouraged by careers teams to facilitate the formation of soft-skills, broaden CVs, and boost chances for graduate success in the job market. Moreover, meaningful work experience or employment can be seen as critical for a number of professions – a mechanism to distinguish between graduates with the same 2:1 degree but with differing employability capital.

To what extent is student employment detrimental? The potential for harmful consequences of working whilst studying are clear – missing teaching sessions, not allocating enough time to independent learning, and increased stress levels, all have detrimental impacts on degree outcomes. However, there are also positive returns to student part-time work: developing key skills which are valuable for learning, as well as in the graduate labour market, such as problem solving, teamwork, communicating with customers and managing different priorities. The complex nature of this question is a key motivator for our ongoing research.

We conducted a small pilot survey at a mid-sized, mid-tier institution with the aim of gaining further understanding of the work-study trade-off faced by students. We hypothesised three main drivers for the decision to work whilst studying: (1) need to work, to have enough money to cover basics such as housing and food, (2) want to work, to pay for additional items such as holidays, and (3) invest into work, intended as seeking employment with the proactive aim to enhance employability skills. These complementary drivers are reflected in the range of jobs students reported having, including working for the university, retail, and hospitality.

Our pilot validated the presence of all these drivers in the sample we collected, as well as uncovering much more.

First of all, we observed that a non-negligible share of respondents reported working in offices, offering personal tutoring, and providing services as cleaners or in healthcare – roles not typically associated with student work in the past.

One of our findings sheds light on a socio-economic driver for employment. A significant number of questionnaire respondents claim that their student loan does not cover their essential expenses, or that their family network is not able to provide additional financial support at this time, evidencing a correlation between family financial background and the need for employment.

More interestingly, another finding reveals the presence of positive personal and social dimensions of student work. In fact, despite mentioning financial hardship, many students share positive feelings associated with the enjoyment of their part-time work as an ‘escape’ from studying, a means to fulfil their aspirations to rely less on family financial support, as well as an opportunity to socialise outside the academic environment. Although very preliminary, this result could highlight a shifting trend of no longer spending money on social activities, but rather earning money which comes with social interaction and, at a particular level, positive impact on mental health.

Whilst the phenomenon of working whilst studying has characterised the experience of generations of students, this practice has become much more common and widespread nowadays. Young people are increasingly prioritising earning versus studying in the face of financial hardship. In the absence of substantial policy reforms to student finance, this issue will remain present in the sector long after the cost-of-living crisis is resolved. In the face of these constraints, we suggest there is an opportunity for institutions to embed inclusivity and flexibility into their learning and teaching offer to minimise hardship for students, rather than opting for remedial support in the form of bursaries or food banks. In the long run, an evidence-informed flexible curriculum approach, which capitalises on the employability and social capital built through part-time work, could prove to be an effective approach in responding to economic and political instability, with a direct impact on the current and the future student experience.

The research is currently still underway and we are keen to connect with other researchers to expand the reach of this study. To find out more please contact the research team at cherpps@uea.ac.uk.

Prof Fabio R. Aricò is a Professor of Higher Education and Economics and the Director of the Centre for Higher Education Research Practice Policy and Scholarship at the University of East Anglia. You can find out more here and connect on twitter.

Dr Laura A. Harvey is a lecturer in Economics at Loughborough University. Her research is in the area of inequality and education. You can find out more here and connect on twitter.

Dr Ritchie Woodard is a lecturer in Economics at the University of East Anglia, with research interests in pedagogy, workplace wellbeing, automation & job satisfaction, and sports economics. You can find out more here and connect on twitter.


by 1 Comment

New evidence on the challenges and consequences of precarious work for university students

by Claudio Morrison and Janroj Yilmaz Keles

Introduction

A paper for the Symposium on ‘Inequalities in HE during Covid-19’ (SRHE Conference, 6 December 2023, Birmingham) provides new evidence on the ‘social suffering’ that university students endure due to precarious employment. Based on findings from the project ‘Learning from Labour: Critical Pedagogy for Working Students’ carried out at Middlesex University in 2022-2023, the study explores the educational and employment challenges faced by working students in UK post-92 universities (MDX News, 2023). Researchers Janroj Keles, Claudio Morrison and Parisa Dashtipour surveyed students at their university to understand their work experiences, challenges, employment rights awareness, and workplace difficulties. The preliminary findings of the research are summarised in an extensive report (Morrison, Dashtipour, and Keles, 2023).

Headline news has reignited debates about how financial hardship and challenging labour market conditions are squeezing students’ study-life balance, and alarmingly raised claims that part-time jobs may disproportionally disadvantage less privileged students (BBC News 2023). This directly contradicts widely held beliefs that these jobs offer valuable benefits of labour market flexibility and resilience. The Middlesex study reveals how thousands of university students in the workplace may regularly face discrimination, unpaid hours, threats of dismissal and shifts changing at short notice. The study further reveals a concerning lack of awareness among students regarding their employment rights, including benefits like maternity leave.

Academic debates and research background

The issue of ‘incompatibility’ between work and studying is neither new nor it is unique to the UK. In the UK conditions shifted significantly after the 1990s reforms with the creation of post-92 universities, the replacement of grants with loans and tuition fees and a diversified student body. Early research by Moreau and Leathwood (2006) on post-92 students concluded that students from working class background were disproportionately impacted by the lack of state support, as the ‘benefits of flexible labour predominantly accrue to the employer’ (2006: 37). Since austerity, even ‘white, middle-class students of traditional age’ face a ‘double deficit’ of financial shortfall and increasing pressure to gain employability skills (Hordósy, Clark and Vickers, 2018: 361). Studies covering EU countries show that around 70% of university students are active in the labour market above the accepted ten-hour threshold (Lessky and Unger, 2022). This ‘time-consuming’ employment is particularly prevalent among business students with first-in-family background; this is explained by increasing participation of underrepresented groups, greater appreciation of work experience and higher costs of living and is associated with higher drop-out rates. Research on student-workers by employment scholars remains limited (Rydzik and Bal, 2023). Several researchers highlight the multiple vulnerabilities experienced by students as a peripheral casualised workforce (Alberti et al, 2018; Ioannou and Dukes, 2021, Rydzik and Kissoon, 2022). Mooney (2016), for example, criticizes the fact that hospitality management takes a ‘dispassionate’ attitude toward casually employed students, failing retention. UK research further highlights sexist and discriminatory attitudes in the industry (Ineson et al, 2013; Maxwell and Broadbridge, 2014). Recent research identifies multiple effects of insecurity induced by precarity arguing for ‘student-workers as a conceptually distinct category of workers impacted in particular ways by labour flexibilization’ (Rydzik and Bal, 2023). However, there is some disagreement regarding the idea that all jobs involving precarious labour have negative outcomes. Other studies have questioned slippages between ‘the concepts of precarious work and precarious workers’ (Campbell and Price, 2016: 314) and between precarity as ‘waged work exhibiting several dimensions of precariousness [and], precarity [as] the detrimental effect of labour-market insecurity on people’s lives’ (Antonucci, 2018: 888). Students may avoid the short-term effects of insecure, low-paid jobs by exercising choice (Antonucci 2018). According to Whittard et al (2022: 762) ‘students possess skills attractive to employers, they may receive training and, in some cases, employment opportunities after graduation’. Additionally, Grozev and Easterbrook (2022: 259) argue that ‘the experience of working alongside studying can help to reaffirm students’ commitment to their studies and make them resilient learners.’ In sum, research so far has highlighted the economic and motivational pressures pushing low-income students towards low-paid/low skills precarious jobs. A limited amount of research has detailed both the potential incompatibilities between these jobs and education and the long-term risks associated with precarity. However, student agency and their ability to strategize remain contested. The Middlesex study contributes to these debates by adding evidence on the structural constraints that student workers face in the ‘labour process’ which encompasses work organisation, workplace power structures and ensuing social relations. This ultimately sheds light on what it truly means to be a precarious worker in this specific context.

Method

The research aimed to adapt and adopt critical pedagogy to the post-92 HE to raise the quality of learning experienced by working students and their agentic power in the workplace (Neary et al, 2014). Following an engaged research approach, the research used multiple methods, including a survey, interviews, in-class discussions and reflective essays. Academics across the University employed student-centred, research-engaged learning strategies to stimulate critical reflection on students’ work experiences and socio-political backgrounds (Dashtipour and Vidaillet, 2020). Their accounts illustrate work experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, the problems encountered, coping strategies and their knowledge of employment rights.

Findings

The research presents a picture in line with existing data on students’ employment during the pandemic. Its findings, however, suggest that the social suffering of student-workers is underestimated and consequently there is a stronger connection between ‘bad’ jobs and poor educational outcomes than previously thought. The study sample included females (61%) students living at home (34%), international/overseas students (44%), British (32%) and EU-settled residents (18%). Among surveyed students, 90% reported ‘not having enough money to live on without working’. In particular, fifty per cent work part-time and a third work in zero hours, freelance or informal jobs. Further, findings reveal how 68% of respondents have their work schedule changed at short notice, 28% do not always or ever see a payslip, 22% complain about unpaid extra work, and 17% claim some of their wages are paid cash-in-hand to avoid taxation. There is widespread evidence of discrimination and harassment and poor working conditions: almost 30% claim experiencing discrimination at work (almost 10% do so frequently), and 24% reported bullying; 22% claim threats of dismissal and 12% of disciplinary action; 20% reported accidents and injuries at work. Lack of knowledge of employment rights is one of the main reasons for difficult relationships with employers and it appears to exacerbate precariousness in the workplace.

Labour process analysis identifies the structural constraints that make such workplaces toxic and exploitative environments. Poignant respondents’ accounts describe a disorganised but highly exploitative work regime which relies on employees’ precarious conditions for its reproduction. Management strategies include lengthening of working time, deskilling and effort intensification combined with functional flexibility. Due to their short-term commitment, lack of experience and rights awareness as well as their desire for flexible hours, students become dependable workers. However, student-workers are no mere victims of unscrupulous employers and exploitative work designs. Resistance to unfair conditions also materialises either by withdrawing labour (turnover) or as workplace small-scale individual (foot-dragging, work-to-rule) and collective (solidarity, grievances) resistance.

The authors are concerned that these workplace issues may have an impact on students’ performance. Morrison, the project’s Principal Investigator, argues that student jobs are psychologically and physically taxing, as such immediately interfering with their ability to benefit from learning. Such experiences also lower their labour market expectations. The causes appear to lie in their lack of control over the conditions of their work and their poor awareness of labour rights. Precarious employment and exploitative business models make such problems a structural feature of these jobs. Keles, a co-investigator, exposes the dark side of student work for overseas students:

“Overseas students are trapped in a cycle of exploitation and bear the brunt of exploitative work. They typically work under unfavourable conditions, such as long hours – up to 30 per week – low pay and usually unsocial hours. Moreover, a significant proportion of oversees students reported that they have experienced bullying and undervaluing at these toxic work environments. In addition to increasing students’ vulnerability and mental health issues, these precarious employment conditions also lead to a number of other problems during their studies like poor academic performance”.

Drawing on extensive teaching experience, the researchers are adamant that these conditions may significantly contribute to low attendance, missing deadlines, requesting extensions, and even failing to turn in their assessments on time at the university.

Implications

Overall, the study emphasises that it is not poor education that allegedly prevents students from succeeding in the labour market, but rather it is the latter, due to the social suffering it causes, that prevents students from making the most of their learning opportunities.  Post-92 universities should not be unfairly blamed for failing students’ employability. However, recognition of the significant challenges students face should lead universities as well as students and educators to turn these struggles into an opportunity for collective, social and pedagogic change. Therefore, while advocating changes in employing sectors and in university funding to reduce students’ reliance on low pay/low skills jobs, the authors urge universities, unions, and civil society to act towards improving student’s agency and bargaining power by raising their labour and employment rights knowledge and awareness of workplace collective conditions.

Universities constantly and rightly encourage students to gain work experience to increase their employability, they should also support working students by including employment rights as part of the taught curriculum, providing topical advice services and offering additional well-being support. Initiatives like Hospitality Now (Lincoln University, 2024) or the Hertfordshire Law Clinic (Hertfordshire, 2024) show this is both a timely and feasible approach.

Anyone interested in viewing the report and/or sharing experiences of supporting working students is welcome to contact the research team C.Morrison@mdx.ac.uk, J.Keles@mdx.ac.uk.

Claudio Morrison is a Senior Research Fellow in Employment Relations and HRM at Middlesex Business School. Over the last 20 years he has carried out ethnographic research in Post-Socialist Eastern Europe investigating the working lives and resistance practices of labour migrants and industrial workers. Current work includes the development of alternatives to mainstream ethics and the promotion of critical pedagogies and reflective learning in western academia.

Janroj Yilmaz Keles is an Associate Professor in the Department of Law and Social Sciences, Faculty of Business and Law at Middlesex University, researching on peace and conflict, gender, political violence, migration and (digital) social movements. He is one of the co-investigators of GCRF HUB – Gender, Justice and Security and  the Nuffield Foundation funded  the Afghan resettlement in England: outcomes and experiences project. He served as an editor for the British Sociological Association’s journal Work, Employment and Society from 2018 until 2022.His monograph Media, Conflict and Diaspora (I.B. Tauris, 2015), was well received by the academic community.


by Leave a comment

Promoting students’ interest through culturally sensitive curricula in higher education

by Kathleen M Quinlan

Around the world, there is a move toward making curricula more culturally sensitive, diversified, or decolonized. However, the impact of such curricula on students is not yet well understood. My colleagues and I sought to research effects of cultural sensitivity on students’ interest in their subjects, focusing primarily on students in professional education programs across 7 participating institutions. We presented this research at the 2023 SRHE conference. The full paper was published this month in Higher Education. We report briefly on the findings and significance of that study. 

This new presentation and publication builds on Dave SP Thomas’ PhD thesis, which we presented at the 2021 SRHE conference and later published in Studies in Higher Education. The initial study conceived and tested a ground-breaking survey instrument, the Culturally Sensitive Curricula Scales (CSCS), that enables students to rate the cultural sensitivity of their curricula. By cultural sensitivity of curricula, we mean curricula in which attitudes, teaching methods and practice, teaching materials, curriculum, and theories relate to, affirm and respect diverse cultures, identities, histories, and contexts. The CSCS survey has paved the way for understanding the extent to which students perceive their curricula as representing diversity, whether people of diverse ethnicities are portrayed in stereotyped or negative ways, the extent to which students are encouraged to challenge power and their experience of inclusivity in classroom interactions.  

In the original study, we found that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic students in a single English university tended to see their curriculum as less culturally sensitive than their White peers. We also found that more culturally sensitive curricula may help boost Black, Asian and minority ethnic students’ interest in the subject. Colleagues in NERUPI, the Network for Evaluating and Researching University Participation Interventions, were intrigued by the initial study as many of them were seeking to create more diversified, decolonised or culturally sensitive curricula.  

Seven NERUPI member universities took part in the current, follow-up study on which we reported at the 2023 SRHE conference. In this project, we revised the CSCS survey, expanded the participant pool to a wider range of institutions and programmes of study, and controlled a key potential confounding variable.  

Revising the Culturally Sensitive Curricula Scales (CSCS-R) clearly enhanced them, making them more definitive, thorough and reliable. Thus, the CSCS-R is a stronger instrument for use in researching and evaluating students’ experiences of the cultural sensitivity of their curricula.  

After surveying nearly 300 second year students in this NERUPI study, we again found that minoritised students perceived the curriculum as less culturally sensitive than White peers. This finding was robust across programmes and universities, suggesting that it is a widespread issue across the higher education sector in England, not a feature of a single university. Most of the participating universities were still in the early stages of curricular reform. The CSCS study was intended to raise staff awareness of these experience gaps amongst their students to support the creation of more culturally sensitive curricula.  

We also found Black students tended to rate their curricula as less sensitive than Asian students. These wider ‘experience gaps’ for Black students than Asian students are consistent with wider achievement gaps (‘degree awarding gaps’) for Black students.  

Finally, we found that when students rate their curricula as more culturally sensitive, they also tend to have higher interest in their programme, even when controlling for ethnicity and quality of teaching overall. Thus, culturally sensitive curricula appear to be good for all students, not just minoritised students. Surveyed students were primarily studying pro-social professions (eg psychology, education, nursing, social work) where they are preparing for professional roles that serve a diverse clientele and society. These students may be particularly interested by curricula that positively reflect the plurality of the professions to which they aspire and a more just society.  

In sum, this study contributes to understanding how teachers can design instruction that both supports students’ interest and reflects an increasingly diverse society. The study​,​ then, may help educators create more interesting and engaging curricula, while also addressing issues of diversity, equality, and inclusivity within HE. 

Kathleen M Quinlan PhD PFHEA is Professor of Higher Education and Director of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Kent, UK. She researches learning, teaching, assessment, and student engagement in higher education, specialising in understanding how curriculum and instruction can be designed to support students’ interest.