Supporting students from equity groups: experiences of staff and considerations for institutions

ABSTRACT

In light of widening participation initiatives internationally, including those in Australia, much has been written about equity policies in education. There is a growing body of research related to the outcomes of such policies and the experiences of non-traditional students, including those from low socio-economic status (LSES) backgrounds and students who are First Generation and/or First in Family, as well as other equity groups. This paper presents data related to a less researched effect of widening participation: the experiences of and impact on academic staff and those providing support services to students. We focus particularly on students from LSES backgrounds. Qualitative data were collected through focus groups with academic and student support staff in a large regional Australian university, with several themes emerging. In this paper, we investigate staff experiences related to diversity in student cohorts, drawing on Bourdieu’s concept of capital. Results show that the academics are supportive of LSES students and sensitive to the range of student backgrounds in their courses, including differences in cultural capital and students experiencing extreme hardship, but the support provided is affected by staff gender. It is evident that staff endeavour pedagogically and pastorally to support students, often at personal cost. There are workload and welfare implications evident for staff, institutions and funding.

KEYWORDS:

• Widening participation
• equity
• diversity
• higher education
• low socio-economic status
• student support

SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION CODES:

• 390203

Introduction

In recent decades, many nations have attempted to widen access and participation in higher education (Leach 2013). The widening participation agenda focuses on attracting and retaining students from ‘non-traditional’ or historically under-represented backgrounds, including those of low socio-economic status (LSES) (Gale and Parker 2013). Terminology differs by country, with British research often referring to working-class students (Ball et al. 2002) and American studies to First Generation students (Schmidt 2010), and there have recently been calls for this term to be acknowledged in Australian policy too (Patfield, Gore, and Weaver 2022). This paper mostly uses the term ‘non-traditional’ as it is predominantly used in the literature reviewed in this paper. Widening participation has stemmed from the need to compete in a global market and knowledge economy, with an additional focus on social justice informing this policy trend (Gale and Tranter 2011). In Australia, the Review of Australian Higher Education (Bradley et al. 2008) recommended increasing the percentage of school-leavers enrolling in Higher Education (HE) generally, and students from LSES backgrounds specifically. Recent Australian research noted the need for adequate funding for students from LSES backgrounds, finding that they cost universities considerably more than other students (Devlin et al. 2022). Expenses are associated with developing aspirations, providing support services and maintaining multiple campuses including some in disadvantaged areas. LSES students are more likely to enrol in some universities and degrees than others (Cakitaki, Luckman, and Harvey 2022).

Not all non-traditional students are from LSES backgrounds, and LSES students are not a homogenous group (Burke, Crozier, and Misiaszek 2016). Other under-represented groups include students with disabilities, from Indigenous backgrounds, from regional and rural communities and more, and some non-traditional students have multiple indicators of disadvantage. They are often First Generation or First-in Family (FiF) to enter university (O’Shea 2015).

Australia has a history of social justice policy in education (Gale and Tranter 2011; Heffernan 2022), with equity a recurrent theme in Australian HE policies since the 1970s (Rizvi and Lingard 2011). Equity policies are not popular with all stakeholders: some representatives from elite Australian universities ‘see equity as compatible with excellence whereas others see the two as antithetical’ (Gale 2011, 11). Similar drives to increase HE enrolments have occurred in the UK (Walker 2008), US (Schmidt 2010), South Africa (National Planning Commission 2012), European nations (OECD 2020) and elsewhere. While there has been considerable focus on encouraging non-traditional students into HE, ‘access without a reasonable chance of success is an empty phrase’ (International Association of Universities 2008, 1).

Internationally, there is plentiful literature on the experiences of students from non-traditional backgrounds (e.g. Reay 2001; Bathmaker, Ingram, and Waller 2013; Gale and Parker 2013; Gibbons, Rhinehart, and Hardin 2019; Read, Burke, and Crozier 2018). Many studies have focussed on a mismatch between the cultural capital (Bourdieu 1973) of non-traditional students, and that valued by universities (Reay 2001; O’Shea 2016). Less is known about the experiences of academic and student support staff under widening participation. This is particularly true in the Australian context, regarding students from LSES backgrounds, yet changing student cohort characteristics (influenced by widening participation) must affect those delivering teaching and student support. Education involves encounters, care and nurture, with teaching and support practices evolving to meet learners’ needs (Connell 2013), and such roles are more often undertaken by female staff (Zembylas, Bozalek, and Shefer 2014). Bradley et al. (2008) suggested that widening participation would increase demand for support services (though this is not borne out by all research, see, e.g. Scobie and Picard 2018), so should we not also expect a similar increase in demands on teaching staff?

In this paper, we report on a qualitative study informed by the research question: What are the implications of widening participation for academic and support staff in universities? The study aimed to examine the experiences and views of academic and student-support staff who were in frequent contact with non-traditional student cohorts in order to understand how these staff think about, experience and respond to student diversity.

We begin by setting the scene in which widening participation occurs by outlining the literature on work-life within the neo-liberal ‘enterprise university’ and reviewing the literature on staff experiences of widening participation.

Work-life within the neo-liberal ‘enterprise university’

Academics and others currently working in HE in Australia (and elsewhere) are subject to neo-liberal approaches and policies which increasingly focus on financial outcomes and international rankings. Such performative approaches, grounded in accountability, individualism, competition and profitability, have led to ‘the commodification of our academic practice’ (Ball 2012, 18). Under such conditions, academic staff form part of a university’s capital, being assets through which the institution derives income, while at the same time being responsible for developing students’ cultural and academic capital (Bourdieu 1973, 1986).

Accountability of academic staff has increased (Ball 2012, 19) but job security in academia is tenuous for many, leading to increased stress about meeting university targets including disparate roles in management, administration and student counselling in addition to research and teaching (Berry and Cassidy 2013). Academic staff strive for competitive research grants and publications and for positive student satisfaction measures. Academics have experienced decreased autonomy, increased surveillance and constraints on practice (Collyer 2014). There is a complicating hierarchy of demands on academic staff: teaching activities have lower priority for institutions than research productivity (Hemer 2014). Under such conditions, ‘cultures of solidarity, care and collectivity’ are subsumed (Motta and Bennett 2018, 634). Invisible labour related to caring for students is not valued by the neo-liberal university (Motta and Bennett 2018), nor is it easily measurable, yet teacher–student relationships are a basic tenet of teaching (Lomax 2007).

University staff workload is impacted by the increasing proportion of students experiencing mental health issues (Universities UK 2015). Students from LSES backgrounds are more prone to experiencing mental health problems (McLafferty et al. 2017). Academic staff are often approached by students for help (Margrove, Gustowska, and Grove 2014) but may feel inadequately prepared for dealing with vulnerable or distressed students (Baker, Brown, and Fazey 2006). Much ‘caring’ work is undertaken by female staff and is neither included in workload calculations nor valued by institutions (Zembylas, Bozalek, and Shefer 2014), despite focus on student retention (Tight 2020). Caring by academics is valued by universities only when its outcomes are seen to benefit those institutions (Lund and Tienari 2019). The consequences of staff NOT intervening when help is sought can be dire on individual and institutional levels (Margrove, Gustowska, and Grove 2014). Workload stress and satisfaction for staff under these conditions are an issue (Fredman and Doughney 2012). Additionally, there are career progression implications for staff, often from under-represented groups themselves (Wallace et al. 2012), performing caring duties at the expense of other, more visible work.

Staff experiences of widening participation

Student experiences of widening participation have been widely studied in recent decades, with less research on the perceptions and experiences of university staff working with students from LSES backgrounds, barring a small number of exceptions (see, e.g. Forsyth et al. 2022). Non-traditional students’ views of academic staff have sometimes been unfavourable. Much early widening participation literature suggested that HE staff were responsible for barriers faced by non-traditional students (Baker, Brown, and Fazey 2006). Students in Bowl’s studies (2000, 2001) suggested that lecturers had little time for students and were not supportive.

Bamber and Tett (2001) claimed that lecturers needed to change their ‘attitudes and practices’ (8), while Leathwood and O’Connell (2003) suggested that tutors should create more inclusive spaces. Smith (2000) claimed that academic staff prioritised research above other concerns, while Baker, Brown, and Fazey (2006) found literature portraying staff as ‘at worst, elitist, hostile individuals, or at best, indifferent people … unconcerned about the difficulties non-traditional students face’ (175).

Deficit thinking has historically been directed at the poor, working-class and other socio-cultural groups (Ball et al. 2002; Reay 2001; Naylor and Mifsud 2020), with researchers noting the importance of avoiding a deficit view of non-traditional students (e.g. Devlin 2013). An early study found academics were unwilling to consider non-traditional students as an equity group, yet interview data showed that tutors viewed non-traditional student characteristics positively (Macdonald and Stratta 2001). Nevertheless, responsibility for learning was ascribed to the students after enrolment through widening access initiatives. This aligns with neo-liberal views of HE (Ball 2012; Rizvi and Lingard 2011) where individuals must ‘accept responsibility for self’ (Davies 2006, 436). Deficit views likely result from the mismatch between the cultural capital valued by universities and that possessed by students from non-traditional backgrounds (Reay 2001; Lessky, Nairz-Wirth, and Feldmann 2021; O’Shea 2016).

Recent research in the UK and South Africa interviewed 40 academic staff on their perceptions of first-generation university student experiences (Forsyth et al. 2022). Staff generally exhibited ‘willingness to adapt’ (317) to meet the needs of diverse students. Contradictorily, academic staff also presented deficit views, expecting students to adapt to university culture, echoing an earlier meta-analysis of international research on first-generation students (Spiegler and Bednarek 2013).

Literature on staff perspectives regarding other equity groups is relevant. Students from regional backgrounds often have multiple equity indicators and experience greater life disruptions to attend university than urban students, so have greater need of embedded support (Scobie and Picard 2018). Staff working on enabling courses deal predominantly with students from non-traditional backgrounds who may come to study ‘disbelieving their ability to know, their capacity to study, and their right to voice and agency’ (Motta and Bennett 2018, 638). Motta and Bennett claim a pedagogy of care is essential in facilitating success for enabling students. The ‘pedagogy of care’ concept can be traced to Nel Noddings (1984) who stated an ethic of care was central to teaching practice and required investment from the teacher.

Students with disabilities form another equity group, with studies showing that university staff generally have positive perceptions of students with disabilities and endeavour to accommodate student needs, considering that their role helps facilitate success (Becker and Palladino 2016). Still, some deficit views persist (Martins, Borges, and Gonclaves 2018). A cautionary approach should be taken surveying teachers’ attitudes, as staff’s reported attitudes to equity students are not always reflected in students’ experiences (Lopez-Gavira, Moriña, and Morgado 2021).

Method

The current study was undertaken in a regional Australian university with a history of equity in access to HE. It has seen a substantial increase in student numbers and diversity since the lifting of ‘caps’ on student numbers under the Labor Government’s (2008–2013) HE policy (Cunninghame and Trinidad 2017), particularly in degrees that are traditionally popular with working-class students such as teaching and nursing (Cakitaki, Luckman, and Harvey 2022).

A qualitative, exploratory design was chosen due to the lack of pre-existing studies on our focus of staff experiences under widening participation. A focus group method was selected to allow participants to reflect on their ideas, issues and experiences with peers through guided discussion, thus yielding a range of perspectives and views (Krueger & Casey, 2015). Incorporating multiple focus groups in a study is desirable so that outlying views cannot unduly influence results (Krueger & Casey, 2015).

Academics from nursing and the humanities (incorporating liberal arts and education) plus student support staff, were invited, via email, to participate in focus groups. These areas were targeted as they include high proportions of students from non-traditional (particularly LSES) backgrounds (Southgate and Bennett 2014). Focus groups were guided by a schedule of questions related to: experiences interacting with LSES background or non-traditional students; issues regarding learning, student social support and pastoral care; and institutional responses to student diversity.

In total, 14 staff volunteered to participate in three focus groups. Nine came from the humanities, four from student support services (counselling, learning support) and one from nursing, though some had worked in multiple areas. All staff volunteering to participate were included 12 were female and 2 were male. This was likely influenced by the gender difference in educators and staff across teaching, nursing and counselling fields (Wakeling and Kyriacou 2010). Participants’ experience working in HE ranged from 3 to 25 years (median 13 years). Focus groups were facilitated by an experienced researcher and were recorded, then transcribed.

Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun, Clarke, and Hayfield 2022; Braun and Clarke 2021) was conducted with focus group transcripts to develop themes and patterns (Braun and Clarke 2006). Because thematic analysis is a theoretically flexible approach (Braun and Clarke 2021), it suited the exploratory nature of the study. Repeated readings led to coding and theme development, which were compared across transcripts. This was completed by the lead author, then checked for agreement by the other authors. Here we present results related to: staff identification of students from LSES and/or non-traditional backgrounds; students experiencing substantial hardship; and the impact on staff of supporting students from LSES and/or non-traditional backgrounds. Gender issues are also discussed.

An ethical approach was applied to the research project. Ethical approval (H-2012-0228 University of Newcastle, Australia) was obtained through a rigorous process prior to participants being sought or data collected. Informed consent was obtained from focus group participants, who agreed to maintain confidentiality regarding focus group discussions. Participants were informed that they could request to have their data removed from transcripts up until such data were published. Focus groups were audio-recorded (with permission) then transcribed by a research assistant who had also signed a confidentiality agreement. Pseudonyms replaced the names of focus group participants on transcriptions.

Results

Identification of diversity

Staff noted several issues inherent in identifying students from equity groups, but also acknowledged LSES enrolments. They listed several ways that diversity was evident in cohorts and indicated issues arising (in probability) from this diversity.

Focus group participants noted difficulties in identifying students from LSES backgrounds, commenting

I just couldn’t label them unless they said. (Humanities)

I can’t make that judgement. (Humanities)

They acknowledged the statistical fact of a relatively high enrolment of students from LSES backgrounds at the university. One stated:

As a program convenor I get to look at all the data … in the first year cohort in the Bachelor of XXX program those identified as low SES it was 37 per cent of our cohort … You can bet that one in three - at least one in three have low socio-economic background. (Humanities)

Another concurred:

I have no official information that this student is from a low SES background for example. I just go on general picture of the cohort, and it’s such a substantial proportion. If I assume that someone is (from LSES background) I’m not likely to be wrong. (Humanities)

Anecdotally, staff discovered some students’ SES status, generally confirming the statistics:

Students will come and tell you their stories confidentially when you get to know them. They’ll say to you, “I’m the first person in my family that’s been to uni.” (Nursing)

Often when you talk to students the ones that I can tell are the ones that don’t have any spare time because they’ve got to work. Even though they get Centrelink support (Government payments to students from low-income families) they have to work. (Humanities)

Differences in diversity by program were acknowledged. In addition to SES, differences were noted regarding other groups such as working-class tradesmen retraining to teach. Comparisons were made by staff with experience at other institutions, claiming a distinct difference in SES between students at the current university and those at elite universities:

XXX uni students are different from Monash uni students. And UQ. And the University of Western Australia. (Humanities)

Not in Philosophy (at previous University) … Everybody’s up there. (Humanities)

Despite this, participants agreed that generalisations should be avoided:

You talked about low SES equating to a working-class background, but of course these days if you have a trade you can earn a lot more money than we do in actual fact. (Humanities)

One of the last of the graduates of that program just got first class honours, the university medal, a PhD. (Humanities)

Non-traditional and LSES students were seen as a diverse group including carers, single parents and mature-age students:

They’ll come and say to you, “I’ve got childcare issues.” (Humanities)

They’re often very bright people who have come to uni late. (Student support services)

Huge numbers of them are carers, usually for their own children, sometimes for parents or whatever. (Humanities)

The complexity of issues affecting non-traditional students, including cultural capital, was acknowledged:

So in terms of do students, first generation, whatever language we want to use, does a relationship-based learning environment, is that critical for students with those issues to help them engage in the environment and to help them engage in learning? Again, it’s about achieving the balance between what you’re teaching and how you're teaching and I’m not sure how some of our technology helps with relationship-based learning processes or that we should design them, those elements of our courses, in ways that facilitate at least some conversation or peer support, that’s mindful of that. I think relationship-based approaches seem to be central to this, because they have a sense of disconnect on arrival. They feel like they don’t belong here. (Humanities)

Students from non-traditional backgrounds were often identified through issues they experienced or when presenting to staff with a problem. Focus group comments noted students demonstrating a lack of belonging or student identity:

There’s a general lack of confidence with some students that I see. Even when they come to groups they’re not confident. They don’t have that belief in themselves and they don’t know that they can approach staff. (Student support services)

Non-traditional students’ self-effacing behaviour was noted, including comments overheard such as:

I got 75, imagine how the real uni students did. (Student support services)

Comments noted non-traditional students’ struggles regarding the cultural capital favoured by universities:

Then that comes back to this whole idea of cultural capital and awareness of the university culture. If they haven’t seen other people in their family or in their circle of friends go through the university process they don’t know the procedures … and they think it has to be an all or nothing situation. (Student support services)

Often the difficulties noted were of a practical nature, often related to finances:

… they haven’t got time to put into their work, like their uni work, because they’re so busy trying to work to make money, pay bills and  … . (Nursing)

I’ve had students actually say to me, “I’m going to drop this before the final assessment task” to keep Centrelink (social welfare payment) (Humanities)

They’ll say, “Rose, I can’t talk long” (due to the cost of phone calls) and I’ll ring them back. (Nursing)

I’ve got childcare issues, transport issues … . (Nursing)

Student hardship and resilience

For some students, the term ‘difficulties’ is grossly inadequate. Some students were experiencing extreme hardship, related to finances, carer responsibilities and other life situations:

I had a student ring up on the first day of her prac sobbing and saying, she’s living – all her goods and chattels are in her car and she’s couch surfing. (Humanities)

She was supporting herself, living in a bedsit because she couldn’t live at home. Her mother had mental illness. It just got too much. (Student support services)

So she just let it get on top of her and she came back to me after a two week break between assignment appointments and I said to her, “Darling, you’ve lost weight.” She said, “Yeah, 10 kilos.” In two weeks. I never saw her after that. I said to her, “Please go to counselling.” It was like, “I haven’t got time.” (Nursing)

Her sister and her mother had OD’d the previous weekend. She was living at her mother’s house. The sister had left – had dumped her three children in the family home. She had two other children – the mother had two other children – nine and ten year olds. The student was 19 and was desperately trying to keep the children from going into care. (Humanities)

The resilience of students in coping with challenging situations was admired by staff:

They’re clever how they’re working out the best way that they can survive and cope and stay here. It’s amazing really. (Nursing)

What an amazing capacity is demonstrated by this student. It’s there, we know it’s there, is held back constantly by all these responsibilities, these home responsibilities, these relationship challenges in trying to straddle home and university and work and technology, so that we never see the full extent of this student which is probably pretty amazing. (Humanities)

University enrolment was seen by some students as a balm to difficult life situations, both short and long term:

She said, “I’m desperate to stay here so that I can get out of this situation I’m in. This is the place I feel safe.” (Humanities)

The impacts on staff

Without exception, staff comments showed willingness to support non-traditional students. Support in several forms was discussed, from pedagogical strategies to personal modes of support, often surpassing the job description of tutor, lecturer, course coordinator or student support role.

Academic staff discussed their struggles in identifying pedagogies to support diverse students:

You’ve got this dichotomy in your tutorial group and it’s impossible because these students get frustrated and don’t come – the bright ones. Or else these other students get frustrated and don’t come because they need to know and can’t understand. So how do you get over that? I don’t know. I try. (Nursing)

I’m not so sure lectures are the way to go. I mean, should we just be doing workshops? I don’t know. I’ve got no idea what works better for these students. Do we do lumps? Do they come in for a few days and then they can work the rest of the semester? I don’t know. (Student support services)

University staff indicated that the support they provided non-traditional students was not only related to educational matters:

She actually had one of the children with her and said, “I really need to go and see the counsellor.” … and she’d had an appointment but she had to bring the child with her. So I said, “Look, I’ll look after the child, the four year old, while you go and see the counsellor because you want to be able to speak to the counsellor on their own.” (Humanities)

Efforts to support struggling students sometimes came at a personal cost for staff; emotionally, professionally and in workload.

Sometimes the counsellors aren’t there and you have a sobbing mess in your office who is totally losing it. You know they cannot leave your office because they should not be driving in the state they’re in. So you keep them there and you talk them down and you talk them through and you come up with options and alternatives and ways that they can deal with what they’re dealing with, plus they can remain at university. (Humanities)

My PhD struggles because I really go out of whack for my students, for sure. (Nursing)

Staff also noted that their efforts to support students in need impacted time with their families.

On gender

All staff quotes to this point were from female staff members. Having realised this, we returned to the transcripts to examine comments made by male staff. Like female participants, they agreed it was sometimes possible to identify students from non-traditional backgrounds, noting the former tradesmen as a group who struggled with the cultural shift to HE. Male academics also acknowledged the cultural mismatch experienced by some students entering university:

They’re resistant to the language. They’re resistant to the elaboration. They’re resistant to the need to explain things which seem obvious. Now – and this all is socio-culturally sort of based. But if we can’t help them to become less resistant to those things they will not function effectively within our context. Let’s be blunt it is our context. It’s not necessarily the only context or even the best context. (Humanities)

Their other comments often related to pragmatic assistance for students

The recorder’s on, but, you know, so what you do is you set them an alternate task. You take them into your office and you say to them, “Now, look, you tell nobody about this because if your class mates find out about it then there’ll be trouble and I won’t be able to do it for anybody else”. (Humanities)

This demonstrates an understanding of the issues and a willingness to work outside usual practices to support students experiencing difficulty, but the emotion and investment of care evident from female staff are not replicated. It is a markedly different way of supporting disadvantaged students, and could possibly undermine an emerging student identity if the student perceived they were in need of special treatment which was not condoned by the university. This could reinforce feelings of not being ‘real’ university students (see earlier quote).

Scenarios discussed predominantly involved female students. The majority of students in teaching and nursing courses are female (OECD 2020), and females undertake more carer responsibilities, so this is not surprising. This combination of factors leads to a concentration of LSES students with carer responsibilities in certain courses.

Discussion

Staff in focus groups demonstrated a sensitive, nuanced view of students from LSES backgrounds. A deficit view, of concern in other research (e.g. Devlin 2013) was less evident here. Our participants acknowledged that a substantial proportion of their students have LSES backgrounds, and that the cultural mismatch (Devlin 2013) presents challenges. Like Forsyth et al.’s (2022) study with UK and South African academics working with first-generation students, staff were willing to change their practices to suit LSES students. As in O’Shea’s (2014) study with female first-in-family students, our participants professed admiration for the capacity and resilience of students negotiating difficult pathways through university (Macqueen 2018). Many challenges experienced by students stem from the practicalities of supporting themselves while caring for family. The challenges relate to financial, familial and personal factors, all related to cultural capital (Bourdieu 1986), and cannot be overcome by a one-size-fits-all approach in catering for non-traditional students. Indeed, issues are often very individual, making it difficult for university services to assist. Our findings are similar to those related to staff catering for students with disabilities (e.g. Martins, Borges, and Goncalves 2018).

University staff in this study were proactive in supporting students experiencing difficulties, both academically and personally. An ethic of care (Nel Noddings 1984) is conspicuous in these accounts. Staff in our study often struggled with this emotional work, sometimes to their detriment in terms of personal time and career progress, as also noted elsewhere (such as Wallace et al. 2012, reporting on female academics from minority groups). Such work is mostly undertaken by women (Zembylas, Bozalek, and Shefer 2014), another aspect of the field which requires change to be equitable.

Institutional measures for equity groups are often inadequate when facing high levels of diversity. Supporting LSES students involves higher costs (Devlin et al. 2022) but it is unethical to invite non-traditional students into HE without providing the support necessary for them to succeed (Devlin 2013). Services require expansion and variation to suit student needs, and staff require specialised training, so student potential can be realised. Staff noted the importance of relationship-building, which is challenging with large cohorts and limited face-to-face opportunities, so changes regarding teaching structures may be warranted. Smaller class sizes in cohorts with high numbers of equity students is a change staff suggested would be welcome. This would facilitate levels of contact and relationships valued by non-traditional students, which can build social and cultural capital (Mishra 2020).

Conclusion

Through focus group data, we examined the impact of cohorts with significant numbers of students from non-traditional backgrounds, notably LSES, on university staff, and have also glimpsed the realities of some of our students’ lives. We have, as suggested by Gale and Parker (2014), foregrounded ‘students’ lived realities’ (734) as understood by university staff.

Institutions enrolling non-traditional students must consider the students’ realities of life when organising resources, course delivery and staff workload, particularly when the students are concentrated in specific degrees (Cakitaki, Luckman, and Harvey 2022). Likewise, students’ cultural capital must be recognised and valued (Gale 2011) to optimise their progress. Workload models for academic staff should be configured to account for equity groups enrolled in programs due to the extra time and emotional energy expended by staff supporting individuals in need as well as developing appropriate teaching models. It is also necessary to recognise and disrupt the ‘privileged irresponsibility’ (Tronto, 1990 cited in Michalinos, Bozalek and Shefer 2014) which sees this undervalued work undertaken predominantly by female staff. Student care should be a concern and focus of all university staff. Incorporating inclusive strategies wholistically would benefit all students and have greater success than add-on support services which vulnerable students may be unwilling or unable to access (Scobie and Picard 2018). Advertising and recommending the available support services in tutorials may help to reduce the stigma attached to these, and encourage previously reluctant students to use services in a timely manner rather than unburden to academic staff once a situation is critical.

It is encouraging that university staff are willing to devote time and energy to maintaining the relational, caring aspect of teaching despite the devaluing of such work under neoliberalism. Support from staff is crucial, as non-traditional students attribute university success to teacher availability (Devlin and O'Shea 2011), and stories from this study reinforce the importance of student access to staff. Systemic changes are required at the institutional level, to address structural inequalities (Naylor and Mifsud 2020) and ensure the wellbeing of all students, regardless of backgrounds and needs (Heffernan 2022), and that of the staff who support them.

This study was conducted in one regional Australian university, with mostly female staff from limited disciplines. Participants were self-selected, so less likely to have deficit views of non-traditional students. Despite these limitations, it provides useful direction for further research on issues around widening participation which should incorporate greater numbers of staff at a range of institutions.

Acknowledgements

We thank participants and Research Assistant Neville Clements.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program.