Inequalities in students’ union leadership: the role of social networks

Abstract

Drawing on a national survey of students’ union officers and staff, and a series of 24 focus groups involving both union officers and institutional senior managers, this article explores the characteristics of those who take up leadership roles in their (higher education) students’ union. We show that, in several areas – and particularly in relation to gender, ethnicity and age – union leaders do not represent well the diversity of the wider student body. In explaining these inequalities, we argue that friendship groups and other peer networks play a significant role in determining who does and does not take up leadership positions. Moreover, as friendship groups are often formed on the basis of ‘differential association’ and are thus frequently socially homogenous, inequalities tend to be perpetuated. Wider institutional cultures and societal norms are also implicated.

Keywords:

• higher education
• students’ unions
• friendship groups
• social networks
• diversity

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the National Union of Students and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education for funding the project upon which this paper is based, and all the respondents who kindly gave up their time to take part. We would also like to thank the anonymous referees whose extremely helpful comments strengthened the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. We note that there may well be some bias in the responses. For example, those who chose to complete the survey may have had stronger views about the issues covered than those who did not complete it. Nevertheless, the survey responses cover a wide variety of views and, with respect to the reported social characteristics of students’ union leaders, are broadly in line with the findings of other research.

2. The Russell Group is comprised of 24 ‘research intensive’ HEIs, which typically occupy high positions in national league tables.

3. Institutions in neither of the final two categories are part of the Russell Group.

4. No data were collected about the political orientation of the students’ unions leaders. We thus do not have any robust evidence about the relationship between the political orientation of unions and their inclusiveness. However, the patterns discussed in this article were common across a large number of unions, which would suggest that political orientation may have a relatively limited effect.

5. Education officers oversee matters related to teaching and learning; welfare officers typically offer support to individual students on any welfare matter, and lead their union’s work on welfare and student rights; and activities officers hold responsibility for student societies (including, in some cases, sports clubs).