Institutional Responses to Social Inclusion in Australian Higher Education: Responsible Citizenship or Political Pragmatism?

Abstract

Participation in higher education has widened in recent years, to include groups who are at risk of social exclusion. Public policy in many countries has promoted increased enrolments for non-traditional student groups. Social inclusion policy and practice is underpinned by differing ideological frameworks relating to the degree of social inclusion. This paper analyses Australian universities' high level, publicly available strategic planning documents for evidence of their strategies to implement the Australian Government's social inclusion agenda, and their position on a social inclusion continuum extending from neoliberal access to social justice participation to human potential empowerment. Longer-established, research-intensive universities' strategies are clustered at the neoliberal access end of the continuum, while universities articulating strategies at the human potential empowerment end of the continuum tended to be more recently established institutions, often located in rural regions. The findings suggest strongly that socially inclusive universities articulate a comprehensive and integrated suite of strategies spanning the access, participation and empowerment domains. Universities aspiring to be socially inclusive beyond any short-term government policy imperative require a high level plan or framework that articulates goals, agreed strategies for building and sustaining a socially inclusive organisation, and indicators of success

Social inclusion of refugees into higher education in Norway: A critical analysis of Norwegian higher education and integration policies

“…The access dimension of social inclusion, which is grounded in neoliberal ideology, primarily focuses on increasing enrolment numbers into higher education (Gidley et al., 2010); it is more about investing in human capital and ensuring the availability of (certain) skills for the sake of economic development (Gidley et al., 2010) and less about student participation or success (Basit, 2014). Neoliberalism makes individuals responsible for their failure and, in so doing, it undermines the impact of power imbalance when it comes to pursuing higher education (Kilpatrick and Johns, 2014; Raaper and Olssen, 2016) and other opportunities.…”

“…The participation dimension of social inclusion, which is more inclusive than the access dimension and is grounded in social justice principles (Gidley et al., 2010), deals with human and democratic rights, dignity, equal opportunity, and fairness for all. The collaborations between higher education institutions and communities to increase the participation of the underrepresented groups in higher education are also part and parcel of this dimension (Kilpatrick and Johns, 2014). By social justice, we mean the deliberate and explicit efforts made by the Government to increase and/or strengthen the participation of refugees in higher education by fostering fair treatment and equal opportunities and corresponding strategies to fight social inequalities (Furlong and Cartmel, 2009).…”

“…The empowerment dimension of social inclusion, which is embedded within human potential principles, seeks to increase the personal, interpersonal or political power of people so that they can make decisions to improve their situations and to achieve self-realization (Gidley et al., 2010; Licsandru and Cui, 2018). In contrast to neoliberalism, human potential appreciates differences and diversity as an important resource (Kilpatrick and Johns, 2014). Thus, the underlying principle is not to assimilate people into what is pre-existing, in Gidley et al.’s (2010: 137) terms, ‘Westerncentric society or factory model of education’, but rather to socially include them into the society with whatever individual differences they may have (Gidley et al., 2010).…”

Discursive constructions of equity in Australian higher education: Imagined worlds and the case of people seeking asylum

“…Chapman et al .’s (2015) analysis of the mission statements of three Australian universities, and interviews with staff in those universities, suggests that, despite the rhetoric in the official documents produced by the institutions, staff were largely suspicious of the commitment to equity. Moreover, Kilpatrick and Johns’ (2014) desktop audit of publicly available documents pertaining to social inclusion strategies in Australian public universities illustrates similar patterns. They found that, broadly, older and more research‐intensive universities index a more market‐driven, competitive positioning, compared with regional, newer universities, which communicate a more social justice/human potential‐driven view of social inclusion, with a significant absence of coordination or commonality in what social inclusion looks like across the sector.…”

Exclusion Factors in Latin American Higher Education

“…In addition, the public policies factor comprises elements associated with the lack of explicitly defined remedial actions, not establishing a quota or number of preferential entry university places for groups at risk of exclusion, ignoring priority groups, not recognizing university independence, and low levels of investment in public higher education. Evidently, these public policies respond to ideologies and underlying principles that inevitably shape the type of actions to be taken (Contreras, 2011;Kilpatrick & Johns, 2014;King, Marginson, & Naidoo, 2011). So, for example, Gidley et al (2010) identify three types of ideology that explain higher education social inclusion theories and policies: (a) neoliberal ideology, linked to those actions seeking to improve access; (b) social justice theory, which seeks to promote student participation and integration; and (c) human potential ideology, which focuses on success through empowerment.…”