Content uploaded by Kate Carruthers Thomas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kate Carruthers Thomas on May 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Thinking spatially: mature, part-time learners in
higher education
Kate Thomas, Birkbeck, University of London, UK
Introduction
This paper presents a process of ‘thinking spatially’ to problematise accepted
versions of retention and belonging in higher education (HE) which themselves
problematise those who fall outside ‘the norm’. The paper draws on methods and
findings from recent multiple case study research with four English universities
investigating part-timei undergraduates, retention and dimensions of belonging in
HE. The research critiques a discourse of ‘belonging’ prominent in retention and First
Year Experience literature, one often formalised in institutional strategy and practice.
A sense of belonging, Thomas argues, is ‘closely aligned with the concepts of
academic and social engagement’ (2012:12) and ‘critical to retention and success’
(ibid:10). This discourse is problematic in relation to part-time undergraduates
whose age, life stage and mode of attendance, combined with other attributes
related to non-traditional participation in HE, restrict access to practices of belonging
recognised and validated in institutional strategy.
Thinking spatially invites attention to the spatial relationships of HE, uncovering
power dynamics within the institution (HEI) and in campus spaces. It considers how
space is appropriated and inhabited and by whom, thus highlighting dominant – and
marginal - practices of belonging. The paper considers how thinking spatially from
institutional, staff and student perspectives can contribute to an enriched
understanding of mature, part-time learners’ experiences of belonging in HE. Three
examples are presented: conceptualising the institution as an ‘extroverted activity
space’ (Massey, 2005), tracking strategy pathways through institutional structures
and ‘mapping belonging’ onto two-dimensional campus maps.
Context: Part-Time Students and Belonging
Frequently categorised under the generic label ‘non-traditional’ or non-standard,
there is no ‘typical’ part-time student in English HE, but distinctive characteristics
distinguish them from their full-time peers. They are more likely to be female, White,
studying in a post-1992 HEIii and for a sub-degree level qualification, have family
responsibilities and to be employed. They are also more likely to have higher entry
qualifications or to have lower or no prior educational attainment (Callender and
Wilkinson, 2011).
There is considerable disparity between retention rates for full and part-time
students. A recent study involving 107 English HEIs found that 33% of part-time,
first degree entrants withdrew from their course prior to completion of the equivalent
of the first year of study, compared to 8.6% of full-time students (Rose-Adams,
2012:12). In 2009, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
reported ‘Only 44% of part-time students commencing programmes at UK HEIs
other than the Open University at 30% or higher intensities go on to complete that
programme within seven academic years’ (HEFCE, 2009:3). There is general
agreement in the literature that external circumstances are more likely to disrupt
their learning. The multiple responsibilities which accrue with age, including
employment and family/caring commitments, mean that students’ learning careers
are more vulnerable to disruption by redundancy, relocation, family break-up or
illness and the fact that family and caring responsibilities tend to be carried by
women increases the risk of withdrawal by female part-time undergraduates.
Part-time undergraduates are peripherally and increasingly precariously positioned
in English HE. A typology of part-time undergraduate providers (Pollard, 2012)
confirms that part-time provision is skewed across the UK sector as a whole, with
significant populations concentrated in a relatively small number of institutions,
primarily, although not exclusively, post-1992. Following the funding changes
triggered by the Browne Review (2010); a perfect storm of high tuition fees, debt
aversion and recession led to a sharp decline in part-time undergraduate entrants in
2012 and a 37% decline overall between 2010-2015. The Open University ‘the
largest single provider of part-time undergraduate studies and the largest specialist
provider of part-time study’ (Pollard et al., 2012:53) across the UK has lost more
than a quarter of its total student numbers since 2011, something its Vice-Chancellor
described as ‘a tragedy for individual lives …for our wider society and economy’
(Coughlan, 2015).
A discourse of belonging is embedded in the report of the influential UK national
research programme What Works (HEFCE, 2012) and builds on Tinto’s Student
Integration Model (1975). Tinto describes ‘the longitudinal process by which
individuals come to leave educational institutions and how difficulty, incongruence
and isolation influence different forms of student departure’ (1987:112). In her meta-
analysis of What Works, Thomas concurs with Tinto in acknowledging that ‘the
academic sphere is the most important site for nurturing participation of the type
which engenders a sense of belonging’ (Thomas, 2012:6) and that belonging is an
‘outcome’ of multiple factors including meaningful relationships with peers and staff,
a developing identity as an ‘HE learner’ and an HE experience which is relevant to
future goals (ibid). However, the discourse assumes a ‘typical’ HE student:
residential, full-time and young, setting conditions of ‘belonging’ in HE which
students not matching those characteristics find difficult if not impossible to meet.
Thomas positions students who live at home, combine study with employment and
enter HE later as problematic, noting that these ways of engaging with HE are
factors which ‘make it more difficult for student to fully participate, integrate and feel
like they belong in HE, which can impact on their retention and success’ (ibid: 5).
Absence as well as difference is regarded as problematic.
A borderland analysis
A borderland analysis (Abes, 2009) contributes to an enriched theorising of
belonging in HE. Abes states that ‘to realize the complexity of student development
it is important to use multiple theoretical perspectives in conjunction with one
another, even when they contradict’ (2012:190). This argues against ‘the typical
paradigmatic categories into which studies are generally categorized’ and for
uncovering ‘the potential of using interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives in
research’ (2009:142). A borderland analysis requires the researcher to ‘straddle
multiple theories using ideas from each to portray a more complete picture of
identity…a new theoretical space’ (2012:190). In this research, new theoretical
space is sought in the borderlands between a Bourdieusian field analysis of HE,
Brah’s conceptualisation of ‘diaspora’ and Massey’s concepts of space-time, activity
space and extroverted place. Synergies and productive tensions in the
interdisciplinary spaces between the three approaches are exploited to interrogate
‘belonging’ through ideas of space, power and difference.
A Bourdieusian analysis of belonging roots it in social structures and worlds, with
habitus, capital and field, ‘an inter-dependent and co-constructed trio’ (Thomson,
2008:69). Bourdieu’s theoretical framework of habitus, field and capital – his
‘thinking tools’ - theorises belonging as relational, as a practice and a product of the
relations of power embedded in the field of HE, constructed around the privileged
identities of the ‘typical’ or ‘authentic’ student: young, full-time and residential. A
Bourdieusian analysis articulates the way in which habitus positions the individual in
relation to utilising, maintaining and increasing their cultural capital in HE and the
structural relations of the field which shape their actions within it. ‘When habitus
encounters a social world of which it is the product, it is like a “fish in water”: it does
not feel the weight of the water and it takes the world about itself for granted’
(Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1990:127). This metaphor powerfully expresses not only
the effortless of belonging, but the uncomfortable experience of unbelonging.
Considering HE as a structured social space captures the sense of an arena in
which institutions and individuals interact in ways determined by inherent
conventions and principles, such as the disciplinary tradition and the academic
hierarchy.
Like, Bourdieu’s theoretical framework, Brah’s concept of ‘diaspora’ which has
emerged from contexts of migrancy and post-colonial experience, does the work of
describing the uneven distribution of power in particular spaces, but also succeeds
in conveying the complexity of lived experience in those spaces. Both the dynamic
and psychosocial dimension of diaspora resonate with the marginalisation of part-
time, mature undergraduates in the stratified social space of HE. Brah’s
interpretation maps contested territories and trajectories of privilege and
disadvantage in social contexts. The power of diaspora as an explanatory
framework lies in the fact that it questions ‘not simply who travels, but when, how
and under what circumstances?’ (Brah,1996:179). Brah proposes that relational
positioning uncovers ‘regimes of power which operate to differentiate one group from
another; to represent them as similar or different; to include or exclude them from
constructions of the ‘nation’ and the body politic’ (ibid:180). Viewed through the lens
of diaspora, regimes of power within HE construct the ‘identity’ of the part-time,
mature student as different from the norm of the ‘typical’ student. Not only are they a
minority group in most universities, they engage differently with HE, have differential
access to financial support and are frequently excluded in statistical, national and
media reports and in institutional literature. Their status as ‘other’ problematises
their claim to ‘belong’ in the space of HE, thus relational positioning shapes the ‘lived
experience of a locality’ (ibid:189).
Like Bourdieu and Brah, Massey’s concepts articulate HE as a hierarchical social
space in which dominant players define and control rules and borders. For Massey,
space itself is the product of social relations shaped by power and inherently
temporal: ‘space-time’ (2005). Space, according to Massey, is ‘always under
construction…never finished, never closed’ (ibid:9). Understanding space, as
Massey does, as a ‘simultaneity of stories-so-far’ (ibid:11) imagines a new spatial
dimension to belonging: space ‘as the sphere of the possibility of … plurality, a
sphere in which distinct trajectories coexist (ibid:10).
Putting theory into practice
The paper now presents three examples of thinking spatially: conceptualising the
institution as an ‘extroverted activity space’ (ibid); tracking pathways of retention
strategy through institutional structures and mapping belonging on campus maps.
Each was applied in the context of a multiple case study involving four English HEIs
offering face-to-face, part-time, first degree provision, three post-1992 and one pre-
1992. The HEIs were of varying overall size, campus type and geographical location
and had varying relative part-time populations (three of the four had declining part-
time numbers). They had all reported high retention rates for part-time entrants
relative to the sector in the most recent academic year for which data is available
and continuously rising retention rates overall for part-time entrants between 2006/7
and 2009/10. The examples are illustrated with anonymised excerpts from the case
study reports (quoted speech in italics).
Institution as activity space
This device captures ‘the spatial network of links and activities, of spatial
connections and of locations, within which a particular agent operates … within each
activity space there is a geography of power’ (ibid:55). It forms the basis for the
concept of a ‘power geometry’ in which place is given specificity by ‘a particular
constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus…
articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings’
(Massey,1997). Viewing the HEI as an activity space locates it within the extended
networks of the HE sector and a globalised economy:
Modern Eastern is constantly adapting to a changing environment. It has
three campuses, but its dispersed activity space extends beyond their
physical constraints. The university operates a number of franchises
elsewhere in the UK and overseas, delivers online distance learning and
serves the training requirements of multiple agencies through its health, social
care and education programmes.
The device of activity space also captures a sense of a changing student population
over time and exposes geographies of power which position certain student
constituencies as central and others as peripheral:
Part-time is contracting slightly for us now. But I think there’s a realisation
that we can’t always rely on that traditional full-time undergraduate. And of
course we’re going to be looking to attract more international students.
Using this approach also positions the institution within a stratified HE system and
highlights the impact of changing funding and policy environments on student
populations:
We’re a modern university … somewhere towards the group of universities
that embrace more of a widening access agenda. We have students coming
from a variety of backgrounds and we perhaps take more students than we’d
like through Clearing. Health, Social Care and Education … and to an extent
Business have the biggest recruitment locally.
We’re very proud when our entry requirements go up,’ says the Engagement
Officer. ‘But are we being fair? As a university we’ve always been open to
different groups. Are we setting qualifications that some people are unlikely
to reach, because of where they’re from? Staff are noticing the difference.
‘Over time, the kind of students we’re getting in is changing because our
tariffs have gone up massively, says the Faculty Head. These are much more
able students that we’re getting in compared to the past. I ask whether those
higher tariff students are likely to be part-time or mature? No, they almost
never are.
Tracking strategy pathways
Retention strategy is tracked through institutional structures and hierarchies
enriching document analysis which follows strategy production, consumption and
use (Prior, 2003) through one-to-one interviews with staff, The process reveals
evidence of inconsistency and disruption:
Of the Retention Strategy, he says: There was a broad consultation that went
through Delivery Groups, Working Groups, Committees, Boards … it had the
full range. But once you’ve got a strategy, then the question you’re really
asking is, how does it find its way out?
I interview a Faculty executive whose role it is to mediate between the
university’s administrative centre and the Faculty. Whatever the university
does at university level, at the moment there’s no way of it filtering down into
all the Faculties. We’re good at developing policy and strategy, but it doesn’t
always reach all the areas it should reach. We have a bit of an
implementation gap … I think maybe it’s simply scale.
Following strategy documents ‘in use’ reveals that retention strategy loses currency
the further it moves from the executive function:
Are you aware of an institutional retention strategy? I ask a programme tutor.
He makes a face. I probably should be. If I’m brutally honest, no. We do talk
a lot about recruitment though, because we have to get bums on seats.
Retention can also become absorbed in or enlisted by institutional agendas with
greater immediate priority:
In my interview with a lecturer I ask whether they are aware of any Faculty or
University strategy for retention. All I hear about is the NSS, they say. That’s
what I hear at our level. I suppose it’s part of the strategy for retention? The
NSS seems to be the main barometer of how the university’s doing.
Mapping belonging
This is a form of participatory diagramming, a method widely used in geographical
and development studies. Its visual/tactile nature not only facilitates the contribution
of less vocal participants but ‘encourages distance from what they are usually
immersed in and allows them to articulate thoughts and feelings that usually remain
implicit’ (Rose, 2014:27). As part of student workshops, participants were provided
with a photocopy of their campus map and asked to use different coloured pens to
mark places on campus where they felt they ‘belonged’ and places where they ‘did
not’, alternatively referred to as ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ spots. .
In all four cases, students’ necessarily instrumental engagement with HE resulted in
a very limited use campus space:
Each of the students highlights only the primary building in which they are
taught and the Learning Centre. Julie says: There’s loads of buildings but I
don’t find a need to go to them. I know you can get support for
Accommodation but I don’t need it, I’ve come to university having got my
career. I know what I want to do in the future as well.
One student looks at the map and exclaims: Is it that big? I’ve only ever been
in two buildings on this campus. Are we allowed in that Sports Hall? Another
shrugs: I’ve got so much stuff needs doing at home, why would I want to
spend any more time here than I need to?
In some cases, but not all, this is linked to a low sense of belonging to the institution.
Jess rates her sense of belonging to the university and the campus at a low 1.
Other than her departmental building and the Learning Centre, her map
consists almost entirely of ‘cold spots’ she colours in with a green pen. I don’t
feel comfortable in this building. No idea what that is, no idea what’s there.
Don’t know my way around there. Sorry, there’s a lot of green on this map!
The exercise also revealed that part-time, mature students are often, literally, ‘off the
map’.
The students are taught in a satellite building a few miles out of the city which
doesn’t feature on the campus map. Some students draw it on the edge of
the sheet of paper, some use arrows to indicate its location. One student
rings the entire main campus site in blue. I’ve just said ‘cold’ for the whole
thing because I don’t even know where it is.
The Mapping Belonging exercise triggered discussion about specific campus
buildings, notably the Student Union and also hinted at negotiated versions of
belonging:
One student complains: ‘Even though I’ve got disabilities and I’m old and all
that, I’m still a bit of a party animal and one thing I’ve definitely realised is that
this is our bit and we don’t belong in that bit. We’re not accepted anywhere
else. You can walk through the Students Union and they don’t even look at
you.’ But another protests I brought my grandson in and played snooker on
the tables they’ve got in the Union. It was lovely. I thought, this is my
university, I can do what I want!
Concluding Remarks
At the heart of this research is a ‘complex social process of student-institution
negotiation’ (Ozga and Sukhnandan, 1998:316), a site of tension between
measurable outcomes and a lived experience’; between a linear process and a
‘multiplicity of trajectories’ (Massey, 2005:4). The diversity of the part-time, mature
undergraduate population and the complexity of their engagement with HE are
arguments against universal statements of belonging as a retention solution. The
paper has detailed a borderland analysis which supports and enriches a
Bourdieusian theorising of belonging with the psychosocial and spatial dynamics
offered by Brah’s diaspora and Massey’s spatial concepts. It has shown how
thinking spatially - thinking about space in an active manner conceptually and
methodologically, interrogates ‘belonging’ through ideas of space and power and
problematises accepted versions of belonging and retention in HE. Thinking
spatially invites a consideration of universities as diverse, unfixed spaces/places with
potential for multiple versions of belonging.
References
Abes L (2012) ‘Constructivist and Intersectional Interpretations of a Lesbian College
Student’s Multiple Social Identities’, Journal of Higher Education 83, 2, pp.186-216.
Abes L (2009) ‘Theoretical Borderlands: Using Multiple Theoretical Perspectives to
Challenge Inequitable Power Structures in Student Development Theory’, Journal of
College Student Development 50, 2, pp.141-156.
Bourdieu P (1998) (1984) Homo Academicus, P. Collier (trans) Cambridge, Polity.
(Originally published as Homo Academicus (Paris:Les Editions de Minuit).
Bourdieu P and Wacquant L (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology,
L Wacquant (trans) Cambridge, Polity.
Brah A (1996) Cartographies of Disapora: Contesting Identities, London, Routledge.
Callender C and Wilkinson D (2011) The impact of higher education for part-time
students. Evidence Report 36. UKCES. [online] Available at
http://www.ukces.org.uk/assets/ukces/docs/publications/evidence-report-36-impact-
of-he-for-pt-students.pdf (Accessed 8 March 2013).
Coughlan, S. (2015) ‘Warning on loss of part-time students’ BBC News 23 April,
[online] Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32412745 (Accessed 30
April 2015).
HEFCE (2009) Part-time first degree study: entry and completion, Issues Paper
2009/18. [online] Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/data/year/2009/part-
timefirstdegreestudyentryandcompletion/ (Accessed 11 July 2013).
Independent Review of Higher Education Funding and Student Finance (2010)
Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher
education funding and student finance. 62 pp www.independent.gov.uk/browne-
report (Accessed 10/09/2013).
Massey D (2005) For Space, London, Sage
Massey D (1997) ‘A Global Sense of Place’ in Barnes T and Gregory D (eds)
Reading Human Geography, London, Arnold.
Ozga J and Sukhnandan L (1998) Undergraduate Non-Completion: Developing an
Explanatory Model, Higher Education Quarterly, 52,3, pp.316-333.
Pollard E, Newton B and Hillage J (2012) Expanding and Improving Part-time Higher
Education, Research Paper 68, London, Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills.
Prior L (2003) Using Documents in Social Research, London, Sage.
Rose-Adams J (2012) Leaving University Early: A Research Report from the back on
course project, Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Thomas L (2012) Engagement and belonging in Higher Education in a time of
change: a summary of findings and recommendations from the What Works?
Student Retention & Success programme Executive Summary, Bristol, HEFCE.
Thomson P (2008) ‘Field’ in M Grenfell (ed) Pierre Bourdieu: Key Concepts,
Stocksfield, Acumen.
Tinto V (1987) Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student
Attrition, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Tinto V (1975) ‘Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent
research’, Review of Education Research, 45, pp.89–125.
i 90.9% of UK domiciled, first year, first degree part-time students are 21 years old or over,
49% of these are aged between 30 and 49 (HESA, 2011/12).
ii Institutions which gained university title following the 1988 Education Reform Act.
