crozier et al. - 2008 - different strokes for different folks diverse students in diverse...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 19 April 2011Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Papers in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713707783

Different strokes for different folks: diverse students in diverse institutions- experiences of higher educationGill Croziera; Diane Reayb; John Claytona; Lori Collianderb; Jan Grinsteadc

a University of Sunderland, UK b University of Cambridge, UK c East Durham and HoughallCommunity College, UK

To cite this Article Crozier, Gill , Reay, Diane , Clayton, John , Colliander, Lori and Grinstead, Jan(2008) 'Different strokesfor different folks: diverse students in diverse institutions - experiences of higher education', Research Papers inEducation, 23: 2, 167 — 177To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02671520802048703URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520802048703

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713707783

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02671520802048703

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Research Papers in EducationVol. 23, No. 2, June 2008, 167–177

ISSN 0267-1522 print/ISSN 1470-1146 online© 2008 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/02671520802048703http://www.informaworld.com

Different strokes for different folks: diverse students in diverse institutions – experiences of higher education

Gill Croziera*, Diane Reayb, John Claytona, Lori Collianderb and Jan Grinsteadc

aUniversity of Sunderland, UK; bUniversity of Cambridge, UK; cEast Durham and Houghall Community College, UK

Taylor and FrancisRRED_A_305038.sgm10.1080/02671520802048703Research Papers in Education0267-1522 (print)/1470-1146 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & Francis2320000002008Prof. [email protected] the context of widening participation policies, polarisation of types of university recruitmentand a seemingly related high drop-out rate amongst first generation, working class students,we focus on the provision offered by the universities to their students. We discuss how middleclass and working class student experiences compare across four different types of highereducation institution (HEI). Exploring differences between the middle class and working classstudents locates widening participation discourse within a discussion of classed privilege. Weconclude that, whilst there is a polarisation of recruitment between types of universities, thereexists a spectrum of interrelated and differentiated experiences across and within the HEIs.These are structured by the differential wealth of the universities, their structure andorganisation; their ensuing expectations of the students, the subject sub-cultures, and thestudents’ own socio-cultural locations; namely class, gender, age and ethnicity.

Keywords: widening participation; social class; Bourdieu; higher education

Introduction

There has been concern about ‘widening participation’ and breaking down the exclusivity ofuniversity education, including retaining students and ensuring progress, in the UK and globally.In UK universities with the most success at widening participation they also have the highestdrop-out rates (National Audit Office 2007). Whilst universities are reporting success in widen-ing participation, there exists an apparent polarisation of types of university attracting workingclass and minority ethnic students (Power et al. 2003; Sutton Trust 2000). It is in the context offairly high drop-out amongst these groups of students, that we discuss what the different institu-tions offer their students and how the students’ university experiences compare. We concludethat in terms of the students’ experiences, an interrelated spectrum of differentiated experiencesexists across and within the institutions rather than simply a stark polarisation. This is structuredby the differential wealth and organisation of the universities, and their expectations of students,the subject sub-cultures, and students’ own socio-cultural locations, namely class, gender, ageand ethnicity.

Our focus here is on a cross-class section of students in four different types of higher educationinstitution (HEI). The socio-cultural and learning experiences of this ‘diverse’ group comprisingmiddle class and working class students, female and male, mature and younger and a range ofethnicities, in Years 1 and 2, are compared and contrasted to demonstrate the lived experiencesof widening participation for those who are amongst the first generation in their family to attenduniversity. The four different types of HEI, located in three geographical areas, are a post-1992‘modern’ university (Northern University), a college of further education (Eastern College), where

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded At: 20:09 19 April 2011

168 G. Crozier et al.

our students are studying foundation degrees in partnership with Northern University, an eliteuniversity (Southern) and a pre-1992 civic university (Midland).

We locate the widening participation discourse within a discussion of classed privilege andhow this manifests itself, is reproduced and reinforced through university choice, the structureand ethos of the institution, and the students’ own familial and institutional habitus in terms ofuniversity preparation.

Bourdieu, field, habitus and capital accumulation

Archer and Hutchings (2000) argued that widening participation discourse was only concernedwith the ‘desire to participate’ and universities’ recruitment strategies, rather than addressing the‘ability to participate’ once at university. They argue that ‘ability’ in dominant discourses, isconstructed in meritocratic or academic terms, whereas their students constructed ‘ability’ aseconomic and social risk (2000, 569). We attempted to explore the interrelation of all of theseaspects to understand how students manage the academic in relation to their social and economicselves and how they navigate and relate to university and subject/disciplinary systems to develop‘academic ability’ and accrue educational knowledge which they can turn into ‘success’.

We draw on Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, cultural and social capital and field. We discussthe nature of the fields including the university, disciplines, social milieux and the field ofnational higher education (HE) and how these are engaged with, or ‘played out’ by our students.Bourdieu likens the field to a game with rules and competition. Not everyone has equal knowl-edge of the rules. Some have ‘trump cards’ (Bourdieu and Waquant 1992, 98) and differentamounts and quality of ‘capital’ with which to play. They also have differing dispositions –habitus – to operationalise these. Hence, there are power dynamics and contestation within allfields. The fields are the context of scarce resources: in our study, ultimately high level qualifi-cations but also access to tutor time, materials, knowledge sources, etc – conducive to studying,and a source of accruing further capital. The ‘players’ or students in our study thus need strate-gies and resources and dispositions to ‘play’. They also need commitment and acceptance thatthe game is worth ‘playing’ or as Bourdieu terms it, ‘illusio’ (ibid. 98). The engagement withthe game is different depending on the resources students bring to it or subsequently accrue.Arguably some are more aware of the game than others.

We are therefore particularly interested in students’ preparation for university: their habitusor dispositions for university life and study and the opportunities to develop and acquire culturalcapital in order to ‘get on’.

Methods and data sources

We draw on the findings from an Economic and Social Research Council (UK) (RES-139-25-0208) (part of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme) funded study which focuses onthe socio-cultural and learning experiences of students in HE in England. Our study is mainlyqualitative, employing critical ethnographic approaches, but we have also used a questionnairewith a cross-section of students. We used the National Office of Statistics (UK) Social andEconomic Classifications (Rose and O’Reilly 2000) L7–L14 of parental or mature student occu-pations, to define working class, enhanced by details of parents’ and immediate family members’education profiles. We intended to look at the same subjects in each university given the hierar-chy that exists (Bourdieu 1988). Although this was not entirely possible, we focused on six disci-plinary areas in the three universities: Law, Engineering, History, Chemistry, English andEconomics; and three foundation subjects at Eastern College: Performing Arts, Arboriculture,and Early Childhood Studies.


Research Papers in Education 169

Following the distribution of the questionnaire (1209 returns) we interviewed middle classand working class students in groups or one-to-one (88 participants), enabling us to gain in-depthinsights into experiences and attitudes. The progress of 27 working class students (three in East-ern College, seven in Midland, eight in Northern, nine in Southern) was followed across twoacademic years: Year 1 to 2 and Year 2 to 3. We used semi-structured and unstructured inter-viewing techniques at key moments (Ball, Maguire, and Macrae 2000) and kept in contact withthem through e-mail and informal/chance meetings.

We also observed some teaching sessions and acted as participant observers on universitycampuses to contribute to what Skeggs (1994, 72) calls the ‘geography of positioning and possi-bilities’. We have mapped their cultural and learning experiences and charted their academictrajectories over a year or more. We interviewed a sample of relevant tutors to gain insights intostudents’ experiences, their perceptions of the students and their institutions, together with admis-sions tutors and widening participation officers. The quantitative data have been analysed andcross-referenced to make comparisons regarding gender, class, ethnicity, age, subject discipline,year of study and type of HEI. A grounded theory approach (Strauss and Corbin 1990) was usedto analyse the qualitative data, complemented by conceptual frameworks, to develop understand-ing of student experiences, the interrelation of learner and cultural identities and the impact onstudent subjectivities. (See http://education.sunderland.ac.uk/our-research for further details.)

This paper is based on an analysis of 88 interviews and questionnaire data. The vast majorityof the students are white British (89%) and female (58%). No middle class students interviewedwere from British minority ethnic backgrounds, and no minority ethnic students were interviewedat Southern or Eastern College. Three minority ethnic students were interviewed at Northern andfive at Midland (including three international students).

Diverse institutions and diverse students

Four different HEIs were chosen, embodying different institutional missions and attractingdifferent types of students in terms of wealth, qualifications, age, and ethnicities; gender ismore evenly balanced across the universities if not the subjects. Whilst all of the universitiesare required by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to widen partici-pation and adopt similar outreach strategies (student ambassadors, events in school, open daysfor school students, etc.), this translates differently in marketing and admissions policies. A keydifference lies in the HEIs driven by recruitment, such as Northern and Eastern College andthose driven by selection such as Midland and Southern.

Expectations and delivery of programmes differ across HEIs and subjects together withunequal material conditions: unit of resource (amount paid for teaching per student, to the univer-sities by HEFCE), university collateral, endowments, research funding; together with differenthistories, traditions and perceptions of worth and status locally, nationally and internationally.All this impacts on pedagogy and learning experiences and students’ social experiences.

Reay, Ball, and David (2005) found that students chose the university with which they feltmost comfortable, where there are ‘people like us’ (Bourdieu 1986). There is a greater tendencyfor working class students and those from minority ethnic groups to go to post-1992 universitieswhich tend to have more open access and encourage socially diverse applicants, and for middleclass students to attend pre-1992 universities which tend towards more elitism (Power et al.2003; Sutton Trust 2000). What appears to have emerged is a polarised mass system of HE(Reay, Ball, and David 2005). Our student participants differed according to which HEI theyattended. The largest percentage of working class students is at Northern and Eastern College,then Midland, with a small minority at Southern University. Amongst our respondents there aremore mature students at Eastern and Northern than the other two universities, with fewest at



Southern. It is important to stress that the working class students themselves differed (age,genders, ethnicities, qualifications, domestic responsibilities and financially), most notablybetween the universities but also within each HEI.

Students at Northern often hold academic qualifications and achievements which are tenuousin relation to the demands of their degree courses. Fewer A-level points are required to win aplace and for some subjects or programmes a student can gain entry on the basis of the interview,even without sufficient points. Whilst in one sense this is a clear demonstration of widening partic-ipation at its ultimate, there may be implications and ramifications for the students’ experienceof HE, such as high levels of attrition or, as we found, lack of self-confidence.

As Arthur, who had worked in the ship-building industry, said:

I left school at 15 so there was a gap of 25 years and it was the simple things like reading a book,we all read books, but reading a book to glean knowledge from it is difficult. It is difficult to beginwith and like I say I had no previous academic background, so I’ve had to learn as I went along.Even sort of writing an essay, I’ve had to learn how to write an essay while I’ve been doing mydegree so it’s been doubly difficult. (History student, Northern University)

And Barbara, who had left school at 16 and had taken an Access course as her route to university,said:

Academically wise I keep thinking I shouldn’t be here, that you know I’m not up to the level that Ishould be. I think that’s my own personal, it’s in my head. I’m just doubting myself. (Historystudent, Northern University)

Both Arthur and Barbara are mature students with a considerable gap between school and univer-sity, but even the young students often lacked confidence in their own academic ability. Inresponse to the question ‘Is there anything that stops you from fulfilling your potential?’ Sarahreplied:

My own self doubt really, unfortunately my experiences of school always taught me that, I mean Iwas always a late learner, I never caught on particularly quickly but when I did it was alwaysslightly later. So I was always brought up with the attitude that oh Sarah will never amount toanything and actually my head of sixth form tried to prevent me from doing law. (Law student,Northern)

Intellectual/academic challenge is very subjective. All students across all institutions reportedexperiencing this. The largest percentage of students scoring this as 5 (high) or 4 were South-ern University students (93%) where competition to get in, and to excel once there, is fierceand highly pressurised. The comparable percentages at Midland and Northern were 56% and39% respectively. Jude, a working class student at Southern, conveys his anxiety at trying tokeep up:

The first four supervisions I’d say were nerve-wracking. Anxious. I was anxious. And it still justfeels, well not so much now but, the first two terms felt like I was preparing for an exam before eachsupervision….You know, I tidy up everything and my heart was pounding. And now I’m a lot morerelaxed about it and I’ve started to enjoy them. You know, I actually engage with the material andthings. It just, it took me quite a long time I think.

Middle class students tended to demonstrate greater confidence and sense of self-worth. Theseare successful people who have rarely if ever failed. If they don’t get good results they blame iton not having worked very hard. They describe themselves as ‘clever’ or ‘bright’, as Luke fromMidland said, even though he only achieved basic A-level passes:



From a very early age, because, I’ve, this is going to sound terribly, awfully big headed but I’vealways been in sort of the brightest, been you know, I’ve always been in the top set so I’ve beengetting the good grades, so I’ve always thought it would have been a waste if I hadn’t [gone touniversity]. (Luke, middle class, History Midland)

There are implications here for students’ learner identities and how they engage with learningbut also the other aspects of university life and the extent to which they relate to university asbeing on ‘a treadmill’ or a more holistically fulfilling experience.

Preparation for university: familial and institutional habitus

Habitus is the embodiment of history, ‘internalized as a second nature … [it] is the active pres-ence of the past of which it is the product’ (Bourdieu 1990a, 56). All middle class students tovarying degrees had more preparation for university life and what to expect than all the workingclass students in our study. Most had received advice and grooming from their schools or sixthform colleges. This contrasted with the working class students at Northern and Midland who hadoften had a negative school experience and also attended poorly performing schools in terms ofGCSE league tables. In some cases these students ended up at university because of the ‘secondchance’ opportunity of Access courses or post-19 FE opportunities and/or being encouraged byan FE or sixth form college teacher who identified their potential. In other cases where they hadleft school at 16, boredom with their limited employment made them reappraise the possibilitieseducation may offer.

This was the case for Deborah, a mature (late twenties) engineering student at Northern, whoreturned to college when she was 20 to do her GCSEs, having left school at 16 without any qual-ifications. She then went on to do A-levels and felt the need to go further again. She workedthroughout her studies and just at the start of her degree she had a baby:

… I’ve always had part-time jobs to support us through college and university up until um a year,well nine months ago when I had my daughter. Now I don’t work …I’ve worked as a receptionistfor a ferry company for three years.…

So that was the perfect job to see us through university and I also worked, I had two jobs: I workedin a taxi office as well in the night time, um taking calls. So it was quite, it was quite hard going. Iwas working over 30 hours a week as well as studying. As well as studying in my first year…um, itwas because I had my own place I had to do that, I had to um provide for myself. Um … so it wasquite hard going, yeah quite tiring.

Deborah’s long and arduous journey to get to university stands in stark contrast to the sense ofuniversity entitlement most middle class students expressed. For most of these students going touniversity is what they do: getting a degree is part of the life plan. They take this for granted.

As Jenny (law student, middle class) at Midland said:

… there was [only] one girl who didn’t go to university in the whole [school] year out of 120. I don’tthink anyone would have suggested not, it wasn’t ever an option that [you] didn’t go to university.

Jenny’s experience was highly competitive; although she was diagnosed as having dyslexia shegained four A-levels: an A, two Bs and a C. Her selective grammar school nurtured the studentsand ensured their success:

Basically they did so much for us. They did all the UCAS [form-filling] for us. They did it on aone-to-one basis, our personal statements; we wrote them and they re-wrote them for us. It was



beautifully done and they told us what we needed to do; what work experience we needed to do;what social activities we needed to do. We were prepared really well …

As well as their schools or colleges preparing them academically and endowing their habitusthrough the insights and experiences of passing on relevant knowledge, in most cases, theirparents added to this too; if not directly themselves then by providing private tuition or throughtheir social networks. The highest proportion of students whose family members had been touniversity was at Southern University (83.2%) and of these 19.2% had a family member whohad also attended Southern University before them. This compares to 70% of Midland students,58% of Northern’s and less than 50% of Eastern College students.

Conditions of learning

One of the great achievements of the widening participation policy is that it has helped workingclass students to overcome that sense of place that leads to self-exclusion from places that theydo not feel are rightly theirs (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992), what Bourdieu calls agoraphobia:excluding the self from a range of public activities from which they are publicly excluded(ibid., 72). However, getting into university is not the end of the story for working class students.As Reay, Ball, and David (2005, 96) have said, these students, unlike their middle class counter-parts, make not one but (at least) two transitional steps in their move to higher education; thesecond being from one social class to another. On going to university working class students arefaced with middle class worlds – milieux with which they are or tend to be unfamiliar and needto find or devise ways of engaging or at least coping.

Central to whether they do this – or are enabled to do so – is the nature of/conditions of ‘thefield’ or ‘fields’ – the social and material arena (Bourdieu 1990a) in which, in this case, theyare studying but also struggling and competing for scarce and highly desirable resources. Thefields we are discussing here are complexly differentiated, hierarchical within and acrossthe HEIs.

The four HEIs and their student requirements as we have said, differ widely. Eastern Collegewhere the HE students undertake mainly part-time, vocational foundation degrees, is in aneconomically disadvantaged area, lacking the cultural attributes of ‘old’ university towns. Thereare no bookshops or theatres and students tend not to go to the partner university for their learn-ing resources; nor do they identify as university students. Students are variously nurtureddepending on the support and personality of individual tutors.

At Northern University strategies for supporting students were instigated by the UniversityManagement and the Students’ Union to stave off potential drop-out, focusing on financialsupport, health, counselling services, learning support, IT, loan of laptops and library services,and the Students’ Union had a support officer. As well as Learning Support and a focus ondyslexia, literacy and mathematics skills enhancement, personal progress files were a majorstrategy in which students’ needs were to be monitored. However, according to our respondentsthese did not appear to play a significant role in their studies. Other academic support was morespecifically provided by subject areas and programme teams. However, at Northern, studentswere increasingly left to their own devices. A system of online learning was designed to encour-age students to access lecture notes, module guides and learning materials online, avoiding theneed for university attendance. Although tutors were reported as helpful and approachable, itwas incumbent on the individual student to approach them. At Midland the support was similaralthough more module and personal tutor contact seemed to be available.

The key difference between these two universities and Southern is the way the support isprovided generally, rather than specifically student targeted. At Southern, once accepted into



the university, resources are targeted to ensure individual success for all. Students receivedetailed feedback each term on how they are progressing in relation to their degree classifica-tion. If they are averaging a 2:2 or below, they are given specific help. One of our case studystudents, for example, who had difficulty with writing style, was given a poet as a personaltutor for a term.

At Northern and Midland students attend lectures – although attendance isn’t alwayscompulsory – and there are seminars and lab work for the sciences, but at Northern there islittle one-to-one tutorial time.

In contrast, at Southern University and to a lesser extent Midland, there were regular one-to-one or one-to-two supervisions and tutorials where the expectation was that students madesubstantial contributions, and were challenged and questioned by both their peers and teachers;even if they wanted to, they could not remain as passive learners.

Students at Southern have to live on campus in the first year. Living off campus in subse-quent years is not common and they are forbidden to take jobs during term time. Most are young,straight from school and without family commitments. The university’s College system createsthe conditions for strong identification and commitment to both College and university. Studentslive and eat in College, which provides a personalised student support network in the form of an‘academic family’. There is a hierarchy of Colleges, with some able to provide their studentswith bursaries, gifts and endowments. Jessica (a first year engineering student), who attended aprivate school in London, is a member of Foster College. She described her College as ‘throwingmoney’ at students who don’t really need it. The majority of Southern’s students, who comefrom similar middle class backgrounds, would seem unlikely to need to be so acculturated, if wecan generalise from our participants’ experiences. As Jessica said, Foster College, which sheloves, is just like her old boarding school – it is all so familiar to her.

By contrast many students at Northern University (70% of our questionnaire responses) andEastern College (all of those interviewed and who responded to the questionnaire) live at home.Northern students work part-time between 10 and 20 hours per week. Some work almost full-time to earn enough to support themselves or their families. As the first generation in their familyto attend university, they have little understanding of what is expected of them other than interms of their course requirements. They have little understanding of the potential ‘extras’ thatuniversity can offer or how through these they can acquire social and cultural capitals.

Playing the field

Whilst students’ understandings of what to expect at university varied, a pattern emergedwhereby the more socially and culturally sophisticated students were clear about this and moreable to envisage what they wanted to accrue from their university experience.

Our findings show the importance of conveying to students not merely information aboutcourses but also the importance of understanding the ‘invisible’ pedagogy (Bernstein 1996): therules of ‘the game’ (Bourdieu 1990a). Becoming ‘bound in’ is one means of achieving this. AtSouthern University this is an overt process with some students overwhelmed and intimidatedby it. At Midland University the process is more implicit and in part is perpetrated through theclubs and societies, but also through the students’ halls of residence in the first year. Studentsare drawn into the comfort of the social environment but it is often through the association withstudents who bring a range of classed experiences and high value capitals themselves, that peda-gogical ethos and academic expectations are propagated. At Northern and Eastern neither ofthese ‘strategies’ applied.

The significance of critical mass is important: for most middle class students, as in Midlandand Southern, they are more like a ‘fish in water’ (Bourdieu 1990b) and the transition from



school/college to university is often seamless. For working class students the experience isdifferent. Even at Northern and Eastern College where they feel more ‘at home’, the require-ments and expectations are often mysterious. In the elite and ‘old’ university, where workingclass students are in the minority, they have to develop strategies to cope in order to survive.However, working class students’ experiences across the four HEIs are uneven. For Southernworking class students, despite their social anxieties, the university represented a haven of learn-ing; a place to display their intellectual selves without being ridiculed as odd, which had beentheir experience at their comprehensive schools (Reay et al. 2007).

At Northern and Eastern College, whilst the demands of their course are ever present, thereappear to be fewer social and cultural demands, insofar as they are living and studying withpeople ‘like them’. Likewise, two of the South Asian students at Midland tended to associatealmost solely with other South Asian students. As Nasir explained:

… like all my closest friends here are … Asian who have like the same interests as me … it’s likeespecially with Asian people, … it’s the old network. And so you just end up getting to know likegroups of Asian people and that’s the end of my hanging out with [white people]. And like eventhough wanted to live… I find that I generally click easier or like get on better with other Asianpeople than I do with non-Asian people and that’s why it’s turned out to be like that, with other Asianstudents.

Why this was we cannot discuss here, but as he went on to say, the consequence was that hehadn’t learnt as much from his peers as he might have done if his social circle had been wider.

The problem for these students lies with the reinforcing of low volume social capital(Crozier and Davies 2006) and ultimately constrained learning experiences. Students atNorthern University and Eastern College where working class or lower middle class studentspredominate, have few middle class peers to learn and acquire cultural capital from, whichfurther disadvantages them. Mary (Northern) is keen and hard-working but there are no lawyersor indeed anyone else in her family who has been to university. She lives at home and works ina pub for 18 or 19 hours a week to support herself financially. She started her course by wantingto be a solicitor but has no knowledge of what she needs to do in addition to attending hercourse, to achieve this. She has no understanding of the need to build up her CV, of the extra-curricular activities such as moots and high profile placements that she needs to engage into position herself appropriately. Jenny, a middle class law student, at Midland, by the end ofher first year had done both of these things and was currently preparing to run for President ofher Students’ Union, acutely aware of the need to enhance her profile. At the outset, the morestudents withdraw from the field, either intentionally or not, the less access they will have tothe means (habitus and cultural capital), or opportunity to acquire it, to compete for scarceresources.

Although our working class students do not dwell on their social anxieties, many, especiallyat Midland and Northern, demonstrate a psychic response by strategically opting out and avoid-ing the university social milieux. Living at or near home and minimising risk (Clayton et al2007) is one way but limited involvement in clubs and societies and social events is another. Inthis way they eschew injurious interactions giving rise to feeling put down or degraded (cfCharlesworth et al 2006).

The opposite seems to be the case for most middle class students at Midland and Southernwhere great emphasis is on the social side of the university, as Susan explained:

It’s very important for me because I think without it you’d get very lonely and spend most of yourtime missing home and wanting to not be here and you wouldn’t enjoy it, and that would affect yourwork as well because you’d lose interest in that because you’d be not enjoying the rest of university.



… I [wouldn’t] want to go through three years of university without having some good friends herewho I could meet with. … so I think it’s a very crucial element of university. (Susan, Midland,History, Middle Class)

Susan’s experience of clubbing, going on weekend trips, mixing with different friendshipgroups, is very common at Midland and Southern. At Midland also the Students’ Union is thehub of the university social life, providing numerous societies and sports activities and facilities.

Most of it, well, if you want to go out for example to student nights, most of them take place here atthe [Students’ Union] …. [I go] usually [with] friends from the course or friends from halls andsometimes with both. For example, I went to Birmingham last week on a housemates-for-next-yeartrip… Last week I went to the cinema with some friends from halls and I spent an evening going outwith my flatmate… (Susan, Midland, History, Middle Class)

At Southern a similarly extensive range of social and cultural opportunities is provided throughthe College system, although anxieties about work, managing time and needing to stay on top ofit, often prohibited working class student involvement in these activities.

Whilst the middle class students talk about social anxieties, they work at negotiating theirsocial space and place within it. As Charlesworth et al. (2006) and Bourdieu (2000) have said,friendships and popularity are important devices not merely for reducing solitude but formaking oneself feel worthwhile, ‘the feeling of counting for others, being important for them,and therefore oneself and finding in the permanent plebiscite of testimonies of interest –requests, expectations, invitations – a kind of justification for existing…’ (Bourdieu 2000,240).

The social experience seems to be central to many middle class students’ motivation forgoing to university, making them as concerned about their social life and friends as about theirstudies. University for them is about opening up opportunities; meeting new and different peopleand developing their identity. The university provides ‘the field’ in which to enhance their priv-ileged selves and extract greater value, not just knowledge of their subject but also in terms ofsocial and cultural capital.

For most working class students, at Northern and Eastern College – and to some extentMidland – their degrees are a means to an end. They are pragmatic in their course and universitychoices; frequently they don’t have a choice at all. Financial issues are factors and there is a needfor most of these students to take a part-time job. For Northern and Eastern students, living athome means they socialise with home-based friends and have limited university interactions.Many are time poor; and their degree is not central to their lives, fitted in around their busydemanding schedule of employment, domestic care and family commitments.

Conclusion

We can see unfolding here the interplay of the structural with the personal, the familial, socialand academic experiences that constitute the students’ histories and comprise the ‘system ofstructured structuring dispositions’ (Bourdieu 1990b, 55) or what Bourdieu refers to as ‘habitus’.The middle class students have learned dispositions to fit the university context and generatefurther habitus through social interactions. Working class students may also do so across theHEIs but on balance have fewer such opportunities.

We have revealed a range of interrelated differences and diverse experiences across andwithin the four HEIs. The structural differences interweave with the middle class students’ capi-tals to perpetuate privilege and advantage them further. Our findings show that whilst wideningparticipation policies have opened up HE for working class people, inequalities continue to exist.



Educational success, as Bourdieu has argued, entails a range of cultural behaviours; privilegedchildren have learned these as have their teachers. Unprivileged children have not.

All of our working class case study students were succeeding, some very highly. However,their lives were often fragile and subject to disruption. After we completed the fieldwork welearned that Arthur had experienced personal crises resulting in him submitting his dissertationlate, and thus he did not get his much craved for 2.1. Another Northern student under financialpressure had taken a full-time job in her final year and was attempting to balance this with herfull-time course.

For all students studying is challenging, angst-ridden work, but for some it is made easierthan for others. Moreover, getting students in and leaving them to it does not work for those whohave no prior experience of university. Higher education not only needs to address the wideningof access to university but it needs to get to grips with what goes on inside the hallowed grounds.

Notes on contributorsGill Crozier is a professor of Education at the University of Sunderland, UK.

Diane Reay is a professor of Education at the University of Cambridge, UK.

John Clayton is a research associate at the University of Sunderland, UK.

Lori Colliander is a researcher at the University of Cambridge, UK.

Jan Grinstead is a curriculum manager at East Durham and Houghall Community College, UK.

ReferencesArcher, L., and M. Hutchings. 2000. ‘Bettering yourself’? Discourses of risk, cost and benefit in ethni-

cally diverse, young working class non-participants constructions of higher education. British Journalof Sociology of Education 21, no. 4: 555–74.

Ball, S.J., M. Maguire, and S. Macrae. 2000. Choice, pathways and transitions post-16. London and NewYork: Routledge/Falmer.

Bernstein, B. 1996. Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Theory, research critique. London andPhiladelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Bourdieu, P. 1986. Distinction. London: Routledge.———. 1988. Homo Academicus. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.———. 1990a. In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.———. 1990b. The logic of practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.———. 2000. Pasdcalian meditations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Bourdieu, P., and L. Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Charlesworth, S.J., S. Gilfillan, and R. Wilkinson. Living inferiority. Soundings 33: 76–88.Clayton, J., G. Crozier, D. Reay, L. Colliander, and J. Grinstead. 2007. Home and away: Risk, familiarity

and the multiple geographies of the HE experience. Paper presented at the British EducationalResearch Association Annual Conference, September, at the Institute of Education, London.

Crozier, G., and J. Davies. 2006. Family matters: A discussion of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani extendedfamily and community in supporting the children’s education. The Sociological Review 54, no. 4:678–95.

Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). 2003. The future of higher education. Execu-tive summary. www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2003/03_35.htm

National Audit Office. 2007. National Audit Office Value for Money: Executive summary. Staying thecourse: The retention of students in higher education. http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/0607616es.htm

Power, S., T. Edwards, G. Whitty, and V. Wigfall. 2003. Education and the middle class. Buckinghamand Philadelphia: Open University.



Reay, D., S.J. Ball, and M. David. 2005. Degrees of choice. Stoke-on-Trent and Sterling, USA: TrenthamBooks.

Reay, D., G. Crozier, J. Clayton, and L. Colliander. 2007. ‘Strangers in Paradise’? Working class studentsin elite universities. Paper presented to Society for Research in Higher Educations, December, inBrighton, UK.

Rose, D., and J. O’Reilly. 2000. Social class categorisations. London: Office of National Statistics, HerMajesty’s Stationary Office.

Skeggs, B. 1994. Situating the production of feminist ethnography. In Researching women’s lives from afeminist perspective, ed. M. Maynard and J. Purvis, 72–92. London and Philadelphia: Taylor andFrancis.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research, grounded theory procedures andtechniques. California and London: Sage Publications.

Sutton Trust. 2000. Entry to leading universities. London: Sutton Trust.


crozier et al. - 2008 - different strokes for different folks diverse students in diverse...

Documents