Living with the consequences of policy decisions: reactions to student lifestyles in the neighbourhood

Abstract

A national (UK) policy to expand higher education has changed the demographic composition of communities in many university towns and cities and the social forces operating thereon. As the economy and services adapt, those already resident in such areas may be quite comfortable accommodating the changes. Those who are not may leave (exit/flight) or stay and either 'hunker down' (loyalty) or act to protect what it was they had come to value about the area (voice). The case examined here is that of a part of Leeds where the consequent 'studentification' prompted the exit of many residents, thereby making way for further students. Some residents, with strong roots in the area, remained loyal and it is their views, along with those of business people, councillors and others, that are examined in this paper. This study of reactions to student lifestyles was initially prompted by Cohen's notion of 'moral panic' that gradually revealed a contestation over the right to determine the character, the soul, of the area. In so doing it considers how, as soft or symbolic power ebbed, attempts were made by local residents to shape a policy response. However, in that arena too, the locus of control is shown to be elusive.

Studentified areas as contested heterotopias: Findings from Southampton

“…Litter, noise, crime, parking congestion and anti‐social behaviour are said to increase, the quality of the local environment deteriorates and community cohesion weakens (Sage et al., 2012b). Areas become synonymous with students; known and sometimes promoted as “student areas” (Sage et al., 2012a) or “student villages” (Long, ), they can form “exclusive geographies” within the city, introducing new forms of marginalisation and segregation (Chatterton, ). These changes, combined with some students’ “expressive lifestyles” (Smith, ), which can be perceived as deviating from societal norms and can identify students as “other” (Hubbard, ), often create a fractious relationship between the student and non‐student populations (Munro & Livingston, ).…”

“…In response, some established residents move away from areas experiencing studentification (Long, ), while others turn to resistance and activism (Hubbard, ). These residents can organise into groups and engage in campaigns that seek to disrupt or limit the extent and impacts of the process (Smith, ).…”

“…(2012a) found that the long‐term residents of a social housing estate experiencing significant student in‐migration identified student‐led demand as an important factor in driving forward appreciated improvements in the area's retail and transport facilities. Long () found that the established residents of a studentified area reported positive experiences with students and noted that they contributed to the area's vibrancy. For these individuals, problems arose from a small minority of inconsiderate students and the high volume of student households within the area (Long, ).…”

“…Long () found that the established residents of a studentified area reported positive experiences with students and noted that they contributed to the area's vibrancy. For these individuals, problems arose from a small minority of inconsiderate students and the high volume of student households within the area (Long, ). Munro et al.…”

“…Being in a “liminal, transitional time between adolescence and adulthood” (Munro et al., , p. 1688), in Foucault's view students might be considered “in crisis” and so studentified areas might be viewed as crisis heterotopias. Alternatively, with previous research indicating that established residents view students’ behaviour as deviating from societal norms (Long, ; Sage et al., 2012a), from the perspective of these individuals, studentified areas might be viewed as deviation heterotopias.…”