Ethnicity and Gender in Degree Attainment – extensive research

Dr. Susie Jacobs Julia Owen, Paula Sergeant,Prof. John Schostak Manchester Metropolitan University

methodologies

Questionnaire through HEA contacts Questionnaire distributed through web

contacts Researchers’ web searches for all English

HEIs; also looked for initiatives 22 follow-up interviews, semi-structured

responses

61 questionnaire responses from 54 HEIs 40% of the 133 English HEIs completed a

questionnaire [+ 7 shorter responses = 47%] Which institutions? 18 ‘old’ universities (inc. 10

Russell Group); number of specialist HEIs;

16 ex-Polytechnics Range of respondents - Registrars, Equality and

Diversity Officers, lecturers - both ‘institutional’ and individual responses

Are data concerning degree attainment analysed at institutional level?

By ethnicity:YES: 69%

NO: 21% DK: 10%

By gender:YES: 78.3%

NO: 13.3% DK: 9.3%

Reasons given for differential BME attainment - questionnaire and interviews

84% said differential attainment by ethnicity relevant at their HEI;

Main reasons given: - social class background - financial factors; need to work - prior educational experiences - difficulties with written English for some groups - family pressure to study particular subjects,

affecting motivation to study

other reasons: ‘marginalisation’ of ethnic minority people:

16% said relevant at their own HEIs; but in open-ended questions and interviews more discussed related factors: e.g.

prior racism may affect students’ confidence lack of visible ethnic minority staff representation ‘attitudes’ of some staff; or of other students feeling of not belonging direct experiences of racism and discrimination

Differential attainment by gender

79% said ‘relevant’ to their HEI Main reasons given for women’s better attainment of

‘good’ degrees: - women students’ greater maturity - women work harder, are more diligent - have better study skills - women’s caring responsibilities mentioned - naturalisation of working-class male ‘underachievement’?

Some relevant initiatives

Monitoring student progression and achievement at departmental/ Faculty/university levels

Underachieving students given individual support Curriculum audits to ensure diversity Small group teaching Mentoring Schemes to support men – counselling AND: view that much caution should be used before

‘targetting’ BME students exclusively; could lead to stigma

The general ‘atmosphere’ or ethos

NOT (only) mission statements; publicity Inclusive atmosphere in terms of everyday life and

practice critical ‘Inclusivity’: intangible? easier ‘accomplish’ with large

minorities/majority of BME students; but evident in e.g. staff profiles; extent of inter-group

interactions; profile of equality and diversity policies in the HEI; effective harrassment procedures…

View that initiatives best built on inclusive foundation

Some recommendations

Focus on outcomes and on attainment WP and retention have had higher profiles Data collection and analysis important ‘baseline’ focus on attainment likely to imply attention to student

work; to study skills; to assessment and procedures need for student ‘voice/s’ and views various types of qualitative research illuminating? – e.g. HEIs or departments which do not follow hierarchy

of attainment; efficacy of particular initiatives; experiences of different minorities

lastly: …

support from centre within HEIs likely to be important

possible that no ‘one size fits all’ solution; HEIs vary

development of shared ethos of equity important, and

Resourcing will be needed to put into practice