Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods

Abstract

This paper will review the existing student voice work in higher education and critique its current weaknesses, particularly in relation to conceptualisations of and commitments to participation, transformation and empowerment. It will be argued that the employment of participatory methods in higher education student voice work, offers a way to address these weaknesses. The potential of participatory methods is illustrated and discussed using two case examples drawn from one higher education

“I am wary of giving too much power to students:” Addressing the “but” in the Principle of Staff-Student Partnership

“…In a study in a law school in the UK, Brooman, Darwent, and Pimor (2015) found that although staff were concerned about the need to maintain control due to the external body requirements, staff-student collaboration enhanced teaching and learning practice. Seale (2009) suggests that this new area of participation has the power to both empower students and increase the possibility that staff will respond to student voices.…”

La tutoría académica en la educación superior. Una investigación a partir de entrevistas y grupos de discusión en la Universidad de Cantabria (España)

“…De esta forma, hemos considerado a los estudiantes como "informantes expertos" en este área, situándonos en la línea de otros trabajos que, tanto en el panorama nacional (Giné, 2009;Hernández et al, 2011) como en el internacional (Hayes y Ljungberg, 2011;Seale, 2010) tratan de indagar en determinados aspectos de los procesos de educación superior desde la experiencia y visión de los aprendices, otorgándoles un rol mucho más activo.…”

How can we confidently judge the extent to which student voice in higher education has been genuinely amplified? A proposal for a new evaluation framework

“…When given the time to engage with the rich, detailed and complete stories contributed by participants and to discuss with colleagues and reflect, teachers began to indicate that the stories were quite powerful for them, because they revealed not only the factors that were important to students, but the impact that these factors had on their academic and personal lives. Seale (2010) referred to this as a transformation of the familiar. For example, when reading about the positive impact of supportive tutors, teachers commented on how they had learnt that the seemingly little things (such as smiling at a student in the corridor) can have a large impact.…”

“…The first student voice project, PAIRS, was undertaken in the 2007/2008 academic year (Seale, 2010); whilst the second project, PIE, was undertaken in the 2011/2012 academic year in a different institution (Seale et al in press). Formal ethical approval for both projects was obtained through the School of Education Ethics Committee of each university.…”

“…This disconnect between my post-hoc personal reflections and recruitment data, led me to ask the question: Can I make legitimate claims regarding the success or failure of either of these projects in the absence of an explicit evaluation framework? This question led to a process of critical evaluation where, in addition to my own personal reflections I consulted four sources of evidence: descriptions of the process and outcomes of the PAIRS project published by Seale (2010); post-hoc reflections of some of the PIE team members which included one student co-researcher and two programme tutors published by Seale et al (in press); student voice literature and participatory research literature.…”