Belonging, pausing, feeling: a framework of “mobile dwelling” for U.K. university students that live at home

Abstract

Notions of place and dwelling have become increasingly dynamic of late. No longer is place considered the sedentary equivalent to mobility, instead the spaces at which place and mobility intersect have produced exciting new ways of thinking about liminoid and mobile places, and how one might dwell in and through these intersections. In this paper we develop a framework of mobile dwelling to better understand student mobilities within UK higher education (HE), a sector that is framed by a set of binary dualismsmobile/immobile, home/away, local/non-local. This dualistic thinking about im/mobility reflects the legacy of the 'boarding school' model attached to traditional (and elite) HE participation, and newer permutations of undergraduate entry which is increasingly skewed towards the local. The framework developed here challenges these binary conceptualisations, which unhelpfully cast the growing number of live-at-home (LAH) students as immobile, writing out everyday movements such as commuting, and social and digital interactions with (and off) campus. Thus, by applying our concept of mobile dwelling to two UK-based studies, we reveal the complexities of LAH students' daily mobilities; illuminating the pauses, the senses of belonging and the emotional reflections that are afforded by performances associated with commuting. By approaching everyday mobility as a tripartite experience of dwelling within/upon the liminoid spaces and experiences that constitute HE, we provide tools for understanding how marginal students make sense of their own identities, relationally understood against more traditional notions of studenthood.

Student loneliness through the pandemic: How, why and where?

“…Reflecting the scale of the project and in the interests of focus, we made the decision to work with higher education students studying at different institutions in one city: Sheffield. We sought participants in different stages of study at undergraduate and postgraduate level (during the 2020-2021 academic year); those in different forms of accommodation including residences, shared houses and family homes (Holton & Finn, 2020); on different courses; and domestic and international students Sawir et al, 2008. We tried to reach out to as diverse a group as possible, encompassing other differences including gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation (Holton & Riley, 2013). The final list of participants is shown in Table 1, where they are identified by a number, by the pseudonym they chose, and by their level of study: undergraduate (UG1-4), masters (PGT) and doctoral (PGR).…”

Geographies of purpose built student accommodation: Exclusivity, precarity and (im)mobility

“…Labelling students as “affluent movers” and “disadvantaged stayers” (Holdsworth, 2009) overlooks the complex motivations and decisions of students who decide to “stay” or “move.” Recent scholarship has critiqued the view that students are excluded from valuable experiences and opportunities by remaining local during their studies (Christie, 2007; Holton & Finn, 2020). Whilst it is important to not assume all local students present as evidence of immobility (Holton & Finn, 2020), exploring student (im)mobility is an important component in understanding changing patterns of student geographies. Whilst student geographies have become interested in the ability of students to be mobile in their HEI choice (Holton & Riley, 2016) and HE widening participation policies have encouraged the student body to reflect the diversity represented in wider society, the significance of student accommodation in determining the mobility of students has been largely omitted from discussion.…”

“…However, Holton and Finn (2020) note that by attaching a hierarchy of mobility practices to different groups of students based on their access to social, cultural, economic and mobility capital creates particular "ways of seeing" students. Labelling students as "affluent movers" and "disadvantaged stayers" (Holdsworth, 2009) overlooks the complex motivations and decisions of students who decide to "stay" or "move."…”

“…Labelling students as "affluent movers" and "disadvantaged stayers" (Holdsworth, 2009) overlooks the complex motivations and decisions of students who decide to "stay" or "move." Recent scholarship has critiqued the view that students are excluded from valuable experiences and opportunities by remaining local during their studies (Christie, 2007;Holton & Finn, 2020). Whilst it is important to not assume all local students present as evidence of immobility (Holton & Finn, 2020), exploring student (im)mobility is an important component in understanding changing patterns of student geographies.…”

Spatial structures of student mobility: Social, economic and ethnic ‘geometries of power'

“…Looking at the internal migration of students within the United Kingdom, work has addressed distance travelled and leaving home and regional patterns in student mobility (Duke‐Williams, ; Singleton, ). Research has also dealt with a more ontological questioning of the construct mobility , exploring interesting questions around the liminality of movement and the emotive and affective dimensions to being mobile (Finn, ; Holton & Finn, ). Other work has illustrated the problematic way in which neoliberal discourses around ‘aspirations' and the knowledge economy construct ‘immobility', which is considered to be a ‘hindrance' to life chances (Allen & Hollingworth, ).…”