Author: rachelbrooks

Our project is exploring the way in which higher education students are understood across six different countries, in policy documents and by policymakers, in the media, by higher education staff and their institutions, and by students themselves. In this post, however, we focus on just one small slice of the data – documents from a range of English policy actors – to examine dominant constructions of the student in England.

Students as consumers?

A common view, held by many academic staff in general (as well as those who research higher education) is that students are now seen by key stakeholders, such as the government and senior university management, as consumers – and that this has had a significant effect on how students are treated and, increasingly, the way in which students themselves behave. For example, Molesworth et al. have written about how students have become more passive in their approach to learning. Our analysis of recent policy documents from the government, staff and student unions and organisations representing graduate employers, and of ministerial speeches, highlights a rather different picture, however.

Within the government documents, the consumer discourse is certainly strong. The ‘investment’ students make in their education is emphasised frequently, the concept of ‘value for money’ is regularly invoked, and ‘student choice’ is mentioned repeatedly. Moreover, assumptions are made throughout the government documents, and also those produced by graduate employer organisations, that simply providing more relevant information to prospective students, and increasing the number of providers from which they can choose, will inevitably result in ‘better choices’ and a more efficient functioning of the market.

But vulnerable and child-like consumers….

However, alongside such statements are others which construct the student, not as empowered by consumer choice, but as vulnerable in the face of not-fully-formed markets. Indeed, the vulnerability of students is a theme that pervades many of the speeches given by the Minister of State for Universities and Science, and the Green and White Papers published in 2015-16.  The examples below are illustrative.

For too long we have been overly tolerant of the fact that some providers have significantly and materially higher drop-out rates than others with very similar intakes in terms of demographics and prior attainment …. it represents thousands of life opportunities wasted, of young dreams unfulfilled, all because of teaching that was not as good as it should have been, or because students were recruited who were not capable of benefitting from higher education. (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, 2016, p.46)

… insufficient, inconsistent and inadequate information about the quality of teaching, means it is hard for prospective students to form a coherent picture of where excellence can be found within and between our higher education providers. (Department of Business, Education and Skills, 2015, p.19)

… teaching has regrettably been allowed to become something of a poor cousin to research in parts of our system. I hear this when I talk to worried parents, such as the physics teacher whose son dropped out at the start of year two of a humanities programme at a prestigious London university, having barely set eyes on his tutor. (Speech by Minister of State for Universities and Science, 2015)

The reference to students as ‘children’ in the speech above (‘Inspiring academics…are the people who will change our children’s lives’) further emphasises this construction of them as vulnerable dependents, rather than independent and powerful consumers. Students are positioned as vulnerable to ‘producer interests’ in particular, in which higher education staff allegedly devote insufficient attention to teaching, because of their preoccupation with their own research. The Minister of State for Universities and Science describes this as a ‘disengagement contract’, which ‘goes along the lines of “I don’t want to have to set and mark much by way of essays and assignments which would be a distraction from my research, and you don’t want to do coursework that would distract you from partying: so we’ll award you the degree as the hoped-for job ticket in return for compliance with minimal academic requirements and due receipt of fees”’. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are portrayed as particularly vulnerable because of the supposed failure, on the part of many higher education institutions (HEIs), to take widening participation seriously. The proposed requirement for HEIs to publish their statistics on student admissions, progression and attainment by gender, ethnicity and social class (what is termed the ‘transparency duty’ in the government documents) is indicative of the government’s view that social mobility is being impeded by the actions of HEIs, rather than employers, the government or wider social structures.

Shared understanding of students as vulnerable

The construction of students as vulnerable also pervades the union documents. The cause of this vulnerability is not, however, attributed to ‘producer interests’ or the failure to instantiate fully-functioning markets. Instead, it is viewed as a direct result of the market reforms introduced by previous UK governments. For example, the National Union of Students argues that students are in a ‘disadvantaged and disempowered position on issues such as hidden course costs, variable international tuition fees, [and] mis-selling of courses’ (p.11). Moreover, the additional market reforms outlined in the government documents, particularly to make it easier for new providers (including those operating on a for-profit basis) to offer degrees, are presented as likely to further the vulnerability of students:

If commercial providers are allowed a quick, low-quality route into establishing and awarding degrees, those studying and working in the sector are seriously vulnerable to the threat from for-profit organisations looking to move into the market for financial gain rather than any desire to provide students with a high quality education and teaching experience. (University and College Union document, p.5)

Thus, while there is fundamental disagreement between the government and unions (both staff and student) about the impact of marketization, both discursively construct students as vulnerable and in need of protection; the absence of the ‘empowered consumer’ is notable across both sets of documents. While in many ways, this emphasis on students as dependent, in need of protection and even child-like reflects the findings of previous analyses of youth policy in the UK and elsewhere, it brings into question assumptions that are often made about higher education policy being predicated on the notion of the authoritative student-consumer.

Further details can be found in our article in the British Journal of Sociology of Education.

You can catch Jessie next week at the Society for Research into Higher Education conference in Newport (6th -8th December). She will be presenting a paper entitled: ‘‘There’s a lot of us, if we wanted to make a difference we could’: Exploring undergraduate students’ understandings of themselves as ‘political actors’ in England and Ireland’. The paper explores early findings from the focus groups and policy documents in England and Ireland.

Abstract

Whilst higher education (HE) students have historically been conceptualised as important ‘political actors’, arguably the extent to which they are able to have a voice in society is likely to differ in particular contexts and countries. In this paper we draw upon data collected from focus groups with HE students in England and Ireland alongside analysis of policy documents in each country to consider the extent to which students are constructed (and feel) like important political actors. Findings suggest that, contrary to perceptions that English and Irish students are largely similar, Irish students appeared more empowered than English students in relation to perceptions of themselves as influencing policy. Narratives present in the policy documents mirror these findings, with students in Ireland located as key political actors to a greater extent than in the English documents.

You can read the full outline paper here

Jessie will be presenting this paper as part of a symposium with colleagues:  Laura Bentley; Kirsty Finn; Adam Formby; Nicola Ingram; Vanda Papafilippou. The session is entitled: Political Identities and Generational Solidarities: Students and Graduates Negotiating Contemporary Crises and will take place on Friday 8th December at 9:00am. 

More information can be found in the conference programme 

Over the past year, the project team has set up a sociology of higher education reading group at the University of Surrey. See here for a list of the various articles we’ve talked about so far.