Working-Class Participation, Middle-Class Aspiration? Value, Upward Mobility and Symbolic Indebtedness in Higher Education

Abstract

This paper interrogates the relationship between working-class participation in higher education (HE) in England and social and cultural mobility. It argues that embarking on a university education for working-class people has been construed in governmental discourses as an instrumental means of achieving upward mobility, or of aspiring to 'become middle class'. Education in this sense is thus not only understood as having the potential to confer value on individuals, as they pursue different 'forms of capital', or symbolic 'mastery' (Bourdieu, 1986), but as incurring a form of debt to society. In this sense, the university can be understood as a type of 'creditor' to whom the working-class participants are symbolically indebted, while the middle classes pass through unencumbered. Through the analysis of empirical research conducted with staff from working-class backgrounds employed on a university Widening Participation project in England, the article examines resistance to dominant educational discourses, which understand working-class culture as 'deficient' and working-class participation in HE as an instrumental means of securing upward mobility. Challenging the problematic notion of 'escape' implicit in mobility discourses, this paper concludes by positing the alternative concept of 'fugitivity', to contest the accepted relationship in HE between creditor and debtor.

Embodying Deficiency Through ‘Affective Practice’: Shame, Relationality, and the Lived Experience of Social Class and Gender in Higher Education

“…While all of the participants who mentioned the role of accent are at least implicitly aware of its shaming potential, this potentiality appears to be experienced in quite contingent ways. For example, Joe remains defiant in the face of negative evaluation of his Cockney accent: ‘I will never change the way I speak for anyone.’ His defiance suggests both a refusal to ‘submit’ to the ‘demands of the field’ (Skeggs, 2004b: 29, following Bourdieu) and a rejection of the legitimacy of that field’s dominant values (see also Loveday, 2014b; Skeggs, 2011; Skeggs and Loveday, 2012). Conversely, other participants felt acutely shamed by their accents, such as in the case of Lisa who recounts actively trying to adapt her regional accent when she first arrived at university to the point where ‘my voice wasn’t my own’.…”

“…1 Working-class participation in HE is represented in policy discourses (see e.g. Milburn, 2012) as an instrument in the facilitation of social mobility for those working-class people who are able to participate (see also Loveday, 2014b). Yet Boliver (2011: 240) claims that notwithstanding this expansion in access, ‘social class inequalities in British higher education have been both maximally and effectively maintained.’ The Office for Fair Access reported recently that ‘the most advantaged 20 per cent of young people were 2.5 times more likely to go to higher education ... than the most disadvantaged 40 per cent’ (OFFA, 2014: 2), and social class background also affects the type of institution attended 2 (Reay et al, 2009), retention (Quinn et al, 2005) and overall outcome (Stuart et al, 2012).…”

Who They Are and How to Engage Them: A Summary of the REACT Systematic Literature Review of the ‘Hard to Reach’ in Higher Education

“…Brooks-Wilson and Snell (2012) argue that it is imperative that we change the terminology in order to reach 'hard to reach' students. Additionally, Loveday (2015) argues that the term itself makes students 'hard to reach', owing to the negative connotations that are attached to it. This critique of 'hard to reach' seems to be gaining increasing traction amongst practitioners (Goddard, 2017).…”

‘Learning to play the game’: How schools with below average attainment can support the decision‐making processes for high‐potential learners in applying for university

“…Much research has focused on the relationship between attendance at elite universities and learner background characteristics, including social class, ethnicity and whether learners attended a state or a private school (e.g. Loveday, ; Boliver, ; Marginson, ; Wyness, ; Montacute, ). Thiele et al .…”

“…Much research has focused on the relationship between attendance at elite universities and learner background characteristics, including social class, ethnicity and whether learners attended a state or a private school (e.g. Loveday, 2015;Boliver, 2016;Marginson, 2016;Wyness, 2017;Montacute, 2018). Thiele et al (2016) highlight discourses in research literature and university admission policies around contextual data, where students from more disadvantaged schools and backgrounds have less stringent admissions requirements to high-tariff universities than those from more advantaged contexts.…”