industry & research
campusreview.com.au
Equal opportunity
New research argues equity in
education is in everyone’s interests.
By Wade Zaglas
A
lthough many universities are no
longer the elitist institutions they
may have once been, there is little
doubt that for some students – particularly
those from disadvantaged or “equity”
backgrounds – they still present a rigid
“framework” that can detrimentally affect
their retention rates and success. This
framework includes a host of elements like
staff, students, curriculum, administration,
campus life and the physical environment.
To investigate this issue further, a new
study – Structural Inequality in Higher
Education: Creating Institutional Cultures
that Enable all Students – aimed to
answer the following question: “How can
institutions address systematic barriers
that may contribute to student attrition,
particularly in students from equity
backgrounds?”
Funded by the National Centre for
Student Equity in Higher Education
(NCSEHE) and led by Dr Ryan Naylor
from La Trobe University, the research
was premised on the belief that higher
education providers need to foster a culture
of equal opportunities and experiences,
instead of forcing students to adhere to
existing structures and norms that have an
exclusionary effect on their experience.
Importantly, Naylor and co-author
Dr Nathan Mifsud point out that creating
18
more inclusive institutions not only
serves a social justice function but is also
financially critical.
“With higher education funding through
the Commonwealth Grants Scheme
frozen in 2018 and 2019 to 2017 levels,
and with the idea of performance funding
floated from 2020 onwards, this pressure
is only likely to increase in the future. Thus,
ensuring positive outcomes for students,
particularly those from equity backgrounds,
is not only a matter of social justice for
higher education providers to actively
respond to — it is an increasing financial
necessity,” the paper states.
For the study, Naylor and Mifsud studied
14 higher education providers, including
12 universities, and found that all adopted
one of three approaches to improve
institutional inclusion. These included
structural enabling, where institutions
modify their structures to ensure a wider
range of people “can more freely engage
with their educations”; capacity building,
whereby students are provided support and
cultural resources to navigate the institution
and enable a better “fit”; and blended
approaches, which essentially combine
structural enabling with capacity building.
The research came up with 11
recommendations to create more
accommodating, inclusive institutions to
foster success and lower attrition rates.
Key recommendations included that
structural enabling practices should
largely replace capacity building practices
(therefore vanquishing a deficit model
of students from equity backgrounds);
that institutional leaders should identify
where structural barriers exist and explore
ways to minimise their impact on student
inclusion; that staff should focus on
improving the experiences and outcomes
of students from equity backgrounds;
that a diverse student cohort should be
involved in identifying structural barriers
and suggesting solutions, and should be
Building students’
personal capacity is important,
but this should be built upon
the removal of structural
barriers to successful
engagement.”
viewed as leaders in their own right; and,
where change is required, that “leaders
should adopt continuous, modular change
in local areas”.
According to NCSEHE director Professor
Sue Trinidad, the research highlighted
the difficulty in modifying institutional
structures to aid inclusion in the higher
education sector.
“Building students’ personal capacity is
important, but this should be built upon the
removal of structural barriers to successful
engagement,” she said.
“Academic leaders involved in the study
recognised the institution-wide benefits of
inclusive practices, and this report provides
direction for them to do so.” ■