‘The whole world was lifted off me’: the importance of relational supports and peer mentoring for under-represented students accessing university in Ireland

ABSTRACT

Despite efforts to increase the number of students from socio-economically marginalised communities in higher education (HE) they remain under-represented, a situation likely to perpetuate economic and social inequality. University is a form of HE that is especially vulnerable to decreased representation of students from marginalised communities. This study draws on the perspectives of multiple stakeholders in HE access to identify contemporary barriers to attending university in the Republic of Ireland. It highlights the perspectives of stakeholder groups connected with a university peer mentoring access initiative, including secondary education students and their parents, HE students and graduates, and university and secondary school staff. Findings suggest that contemporary barriers to accessing universities are manifold and include socio-cultural, financial and structural factors involved in applying for, and attending, university. Stakeholders identified supports that would address these factors, with a strong emphasis on the need for relational supports provided through the peer mentoring programme to ensure students feel included in, and prepared to succeed at university. Differences in perspectives by stakeholder group were evident. Secondary education students frequently highlighted socio-cultural and structural barriers to university, for example the low expectations of themselves or others and the ‘points’ entry system. In contrast, university students and graduates emphasised the need for relational support, knowledge and preparedness in applying for and attending university. The series of barriers identified in this study begin in secondary education and continue throughout HE indicating a need for ongoing responsive supports at various stages throughout students’ educational journey.

KEYWORDS:

• Access to higher education
• peer mentoring
• educational marginalisation
• barriers to participation

Introduction

Education has been recognised as a key driver for individual, economic and societal prosperity (Baum, Ma, and Payea 2013). Of particular importance for these advances is the continuation of education beyond secondary education, known as Higher Education (HE) (Câmpeanu et al. 2017). In Ireland, HE institutions include universities, Institutes of Technology (ITs), colleges and as of 2019, a number of newly founded Technological Universities. Given the wide range of benefits of participating in education, policy in Ireland has focused on increasing HE access and participation (Walsh, Flannery, and Cullinan 2015) such that HE better reflects diverse social, cultural and economic backgrounds (Higher Education Authority [HEA] 2015).

Internationally, Ireland is performing well with regard to levels of participation in HE. 46% of the overall adult population has attained a degree, a figure well above the OECD average of 38% (OECD 2018). While data suggests an increase in overall HE participation in recent years, this is not representative of all members of society. Of the 44,124 full-time undergraduate student entrants in the 2017–18 academic year, 38.5% came from higher socio-economic families (professional/managerial), while only 10.3% came from lower socio-economic families (semi-skilled and unskilled groups) (HEA, 2018). Breaking these figures down further, students from unskilled families show the lowest representation of 4.8% of full-time new entrants in 2017/18 (HEA, 2018).

Reporting on overall access to HE rates may obscure a subtler disadvantage within the educational system with regards to the type of HE options students are choosing. Working class and minority students’ attendance at HE has increased, but these students attend different institutions to their middle class counterparts (Reay 2004, 2018). Graduate earnings and rates of employment reflect persistent inequalities related to social class. As high-status positions are disproportionately filled by those from socially privileged backgrounds, many professions are becoming less socially representative (Ingram and Allen 2018). Since the mid-1990s a pattern has emerged in which students proceeding to HE programmes that require higher points (which are derived from grades attained in the nationally standardised Leaving Certificate examinations) and studying for professions such medicine, veterinary science, dentistry and law are almost exclusively from the middle and upper middle classes (Clancy 1995; HEA, 2001, 2015). Exploring the participation rates within HE in Ireland confirms this pattern: data from new entrants in 2017/18 show a higher percentage of students from professional families enrolling in the University sector (43.7%) compared to ITs (29.6%). Conversely, students from lower socio-economic families (semi-/unskilled groups) showed higher participation rates in ITs (14%) compared to Universities (8.3%) (Higher Education Authority [HEA] 2018). Unequal representation across socio-economic divides in HE may lead to a corresponding segregation at a societal level with professions requiring university attendance being less accessible to more marginalised groups. The term ‘marginalized community’ can refer to specific geographical locations. Significant differences exist in HE participation rates between postal districts in Ireland, with over 99% of 18–20 year olds in one postal district progressing to HE, while in another, the rate is as low as 15% (Higher Education Authority [HEA] 2015).

Higher education access and participation

Research on social inequalities in accessing, and participating in, HE has explored the socially-structured barriers facing students, with research highlighting the economic, cultural and social barriers impacting on progression to HE for certain students (Archer, Hollingworth, and Halsall 2007; Ingram 2011; Byrne and McCoy 2017; Forsyth and Furlong 2003; Iannelli 2007; McCoy et al. 2010; McCoy and Byrne 2011; Scanlon et al. 2019a). In Ireland, identified barriers for students from lower socio-economic groups include; having less access to financial resources to support the cost of HE (Byrne and McCoy 2017; McCoy and Byrne 2011; Scanlon et al. 2019c), stronger motivation to earn money immediately in order to support oneself or the family (Doyle and Keane 2019; McCoy and Byrne 2011); challenges of geographic accessibility of HE institutions (Flannery and Cullinan 2014; Walsh, Flannery, and Cullinan 2015); and less knowledge and guidance on how to access HE (Byrne and McCoy 2017; Iannelli, Smyth, and Klein 2016; Smyth and Banks 2012). Progression to HE in Ireland has also been found to be negatively affected by lower societal expectations from parents and teachers (McCoy and Byrne 2011; Smyth and Banks 2012). Internationally, accessing HE has been reported to be a challenge for students from lower socio-economic status backgrounds due to the cultural norms and values of the HE system being different to their own (Archer, Hollingworth, and Halsall 2007; Harackiewicz et al. 2014; Jetten et al. 2008; Jury et al. 2017; Reay et al. 2001). Differences in cultural norms and expectations may be compounded by lower perceptions of an individual’s own ability to access HE (Jury et al. 2017) and negative experiences of the education system (McCoy and Byrne 2011).

Theoretical frameworks for understanding progression to higher education

Two prominent theoretical frameworks in educational research, namely cultural capital (Bourdieu 1977) and rational action theory (Glaesser and Cooper 2014), offer additional insight as to why and how students from marginalised communities may experience challenges in accessing and progressing to university.

Bourdieu (1977, 1984, 1986) proposed a theory of cultural capital to account for the cultural reproduction of social inequalities within the educational system through cultural codes within a society. Cultural capital refers to an individual’s ability to relate to the culture of the educational system. The under representations of certain social groups within HE is said to be attributed to individuals from higher social classes having more cultural capital available to them (Bourdieu 1977, 1984). Bourdieu (1977), 1986, Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977, Bourdieu and Passeron (1979)) developed the idea of habitus to account for this cultural capital which denotes how class-conditional behaviours, skills and dispositions match the requirements of the education system (Glaesser and Cooper 2014). Further, Bourdieu argued that cultural capital is continually inherited, transmitted and accumulated from immediate and extended family and community, perpetuating social inequalities (Reay 2004). Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds for example, often have difficulties in the education system due to their habitus being different from the overall beliefs, expectations and values of the school. Indeed, it has been argued that the HE system is built upon a system of upper-class values and norms therefore disadvantaging those from other social backgrounds (Archer, Hollingworth, and Halsall 2007; Jury et al. 2017). The type and quality of capital at a student’s disposal plays a role in identifying the options available to them in HE. Reay (2018) concludes that in addition to cultural capital, social and economic capital influence the way individuals respond to the choices facing them during educational transitions. As a consequence, the same range of options is not available to working class students as ‘horizons are inevitably wider for some than for others, permeated by both structural and cultural factors’ (Reay 2018, 529).

Using Bourdieu’s theory of habitus, Ingram (2011) argues that reconciling the conflict between identity based on experiences of growing up in a working-class culture and identity as a prospective student can cause internal conflict. This can make it difficult for the individual to operate successfully across two competing fields of home and education, resulting in a ‘habitus-tug’ where conflicting identities, dispositions and practices can lead to the individual being pulled in different directions (Ingram 2011).

An alternative perspective in accounting for some of the differences in accessing universities across social classes is Rational Action Theory (RAT). This theory is based on the variations in resources and limitations being experienced by individuals from different socio-economic backgrounds. Based on these variations, it is proposed that individuals act rationally based on their individual situation, by weighing up the costs and benefits. This theory assumes that in progressing through the education system, children and their parents make multiple decisions which involve partaking in a cost-benefit analysis of engagement in education. Within this theory, perceptions of the costs and benefits of education are said to be influenced by social class. Additionally, the perceived likelihood of success is said to be considered (Glaesser and Cooper 2014).

Provision of financial supports for HE

Tuition fees in Ireland are amongst the highest in the EU (European Commission/ Eurydice, 2018). Including tuition fees, the average annual cost of attending university is as much as €12,171 (Donnelly 2019). State-led student loan structures have not been established but a universal means-tested grant, known as SUSI, is available to cover the cost of fees and maintenance support. SUSI takes into account factors such as family size, nationality, previous academic attainment, dependents and distance from HE institutions (Government of Ireland 2020). Maintenance grants are paid during term time up to a maximum of €5915 per academic year. There is, therefore, a substantial financial short fall to be addressed, as students can expect to incur costs of €1,494 per month when living away from home (McGuire 2020). Most HE institutions operate a student hardship fund to help with costs. Students must support applications with proof of income or receipts for rent, bills or childcare (HEA, 2021), suggesting that costs are often required to be paid up front and reimbursed.

An investigation into the social and living conditions of Irish HE students by Harmon and Erskine (2016) found that expenses often surpass income. Over a third of students reported facing serious financial difficulties and relying heavily on support from their parents or partners. Moreover, the study found that students in ITs, where a higher percentage of the student population are from lower socio-economic backgrounds, were more likely to experience financial difficulties than students in universities. Using the highest level of parental education as a proxy for social class, a clear relationship emerges ‘with higher levels of parental education corresponding with lower levels of financial insecurity.” (Harmon and Erskine 2016, 72).

The current study

Notwithstanding the greater policy focus on increasing access to HE in recent years, challenges persist for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in accessing university as a specific type of HE institution. Previous research within the Irish context has explored patterns of social-class inequality (Byrne and McCoy 2017; Finnegan and Merrill 2017), the social difficulties in transitioning to university (Scanlon et al. 2019b), the importance of upper secondary subject choice and results (Iannelli, Smyth, and Klein 2016), parents’ expectations and aspirations for their children’s education and future occupations (Scanlon et al. 2019c) and geographic accessibility (Flannery and Cullinan 2014; Walsh, Flannery, and Cullinan 2015). However, few studies have explored the socio-cultural barriers to participation in universities in Ireland from the student’s perspective. McCoy and Byrne (2011) drew on data which is now over a decade old to identify the economic, cultural and educational factors shaping progression to HE in Ireland among students from non-manual social class backgrounds. More recently, Scanlon et al. (2019a, 2019b) found that parents and students from lower SES areas continue to identify cost as a major factor in accessing HE, and while many have aspirations to progress to HE this can often be countered by lack of social and academic confidence. This study will contribute further to understanding the mechanisms underlying lower rates of entry and progression in universities by students from marginalised communities. Secondary- and Higher- education students’ perspectives will be presented in the context of other stakeholders’ reports on the issues which surround access to university in Ireland.

Method

Data for this study were collected as part of an evaluation of a peer mentoring programme in a major Irish university which aimed to support secondary education students in accessing university (authors’ published report, year). The programme recruited mentees via their secondary school as they began the two-year senior cycle, at the end of which students take the nationally standardised Leaving Certificate examination. The aim of the programme was to raise aspirations about progression to university (rather than higher education more generally) through a range of activities, including campus visits, student shadowing days, and summer schools. Typically, mentors on the programme had participated in the peer mentoring programme themselves as secondary education students and took on a mentoring role as students at the university which ran the programme. Peer mentoring involved meeting with new university students,

Ethics

Ethical approval was given by the Research Ethics Committee of the lead researcher’s institution. Participants were given detailed information about the study and intended research outputs and were asked to sign a consent form. Attention was placed on ensuring participants fully understood the study and provided informed consent. Participants were reminded of their rights to withdraw from the study at any time. The parents of secondary education participants who were under the age of 18 at the time of data collection were also asked to sign a consent form for their children’s participation in the study.

Participants

The research team identified several stakeholder groups, including: (1) secondary education students participating in the peer mentoring programme at the time of the study; (2) parents of secondary education students participating in the programme; (3) university students who were former participants of the programme during secondary education and who were studying at the university; (4) university students and graduates who were peer mentors for secondary education students, many of whom had received peer mentoring through the programme as secondary education students themselves; (5) young people who had participated in the programme but did not attend university; and (6) guidance counsellors from schools participating in the programme and university staff involved in delivery of the programme. A total of 38 participants took part in the current study. Table 1 outlines participant stakeholder groups, number of participants per group, approximate participant ages, and type of interview conducted.

Table 1. Overview of participant information.

Group description	Number of participants	Approximate Age	Type of interview	Reference
Secondary education students in the peer mentoring programme	14	15–18 years	Focus groups	Secondary education students
Parents of secondary education students in the programme	3	35–45	Focus group	Parents
University students and graduates who were peer mentors for secondary education students (many were former recipients of peer mentoring in secondary education)	13	18–25 years	Focus group	University Peer Mentor
University education students who were former recipients of peer mentoring at secondary education	3	18–21 years	Focus group	Past recipient of peer mentoring
Young people who had participated in the programme but did not progress to university	3	18–22 years	Interview	Past recipient of peer mentoring not in HE
Secondary education guidance counsellors and university staff	2	Unknown	Interview	Guidance counsellor/university staff

Two sampling strategies were used to recruit participants. Due to the large number of students who participated in the peer mentoring programme in secondary schools, criterion sampling was used to ensure that both male and female students took part in the focus groups and that focus groups included students from a variety of locations in Dublin, Ireland. Due to the smaller number of parents and mentors who participated in the programme, availability sampling was used to recruit all other participants for focus groups and interviews.

Data collection

The study used a mixed-methods approach, employing the use of focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Focus groups were the primary method of data collection as these allowed the research team to capture stakeholders’ views in a naturalistic context, one that would encourage participants to share and elaborate on opinions (King, Horrocks, and Brooks 2019). Working within an interpretivist paradigm (Schutz 1962), we sought to describe the perspectives of participants through detailed accounts of their views of accessing HE in Ireland, and focus groups were selected as an especially effective way to support participants’ interactions with each other and as a way for participants to explore and share their own understanding of issues in accessing HE (King, Horrocks, and Brooks 2019). Semi-structured interviews were used as a method of data collection to gain the perspective of stakeholders who were unable to join the scheduled focus groups. While this format allowed for the contribution of stakeholders’ views and thoughts on accessing HE, discussion was not shaped by interaction with a larger group and there was less development of participants’ thinking; interviews were typically shorter than the focus groups.

Throughout the data collection process consideration was given to group dynamics and the environment within which the research was being conducted to ensure careful consideration of students’ welfare throughout. To open up discussions in focus groups and to encourage conversation in interviews, participants were asked a set of broad questions about their views of HE and the strengths and limitations of the peer mentoring programme. All focus groups and interviews were audio recorded using the Audacity programme and transcribed verbatim. For the purposes of the study, participant responses to questions regarding accessing university and barriers faced by communities in gaining access to HE were identified and analysed.

Data analysis

Transcriptions were anonymised, ensuring that participants’ views are unidentifiable beyond the participant group. A qualitative approach was adopted for this study (Hogan 1996) and privileged the participants’ accounts. Data were analysed for major themes using thematic analysis. This is primarily a descriptive method which allows for the identification, analysis and reporting of patterns in the data (Braun and Clarke 2006). Using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis frame (2006), the initial step in the analysis involved reading through all transcripts several times to get a sense of the findings. Through a process of open coding, the transcripts were broken down into meaningful units of data from which themes could be identified by the researcher. Themes were then reviewed before being defined and labelled.

The approach was inductive and we sought to establish themes based on the data collected (Nowell et al. 2017). Thus while many of the themes related to the questions asked in the focus groups and interviews, several themes bore no relation to these questions (Nowell et al. 2017). Findings are presented and discussed under theme headings. Participants’ quotes are regularly used throughout to illustrate the experiences and perspectives of participants.

Results

Two overarching themes were identified and analysed in the data: (1) barriers to accessing higher education and (2) ways to improve access to higher education. The findings presented here highlight issues with accessing university for students from marginalised communities and stakeholder views with regard to how those barriers may be overcome. Four sub-themes were identified which relate to both of the major themes: (1) socio-cultural constraints; (2) low expectations for success; (3) financial and structural constraints; and (4) information and guidance gaps. The two major themes will be discussed in light of each of the four sub-themes, and differences in perspectives among participant groups will be highlighted. It should be noted that the term ‘third-level’ used in many of the supporting quotes below refers to HE including universities, ITs and colleges.

Socio-cultural constraints

Fear of the unknown and a negative school experience at secondary education were highlighted across several stakeholder groups as barriers to accessing university. Some secondary education students reported feeling ‘kinda afraid’ to attend open days or ask questions and seek information that may otherwise have supported them in making decisions about progressing to university. Among parent stakeholders, low confidence and fear of failure was noted. This may be reflective of parents noticing the pressures being faced by their children:

They don’t want to fail! They’re going, ‘well I’m not going to be able to make it, if I could hardly make it through school I’m not going to be able to make it. [mother of secondary education student]

Parents also spoke about the impact of what they perceived to be poor teaching practices. While students in more affluent areas may counter this by attending additional private classes, this may not be a feasible option for many families. For students already in university, the importance of having friends and seeing those who look like them was vitally important. Having the support of people who they knew and recognised was highlighted often:

Joan was in my class in school so I knew her so when she told me she’s in [name of xuniversity], I was like ‘oh wow’ ‘oh you’re in [x university] too?’ it was literally likethe whole world was lifted off my shoulders because like I had someone there, Iwasn’t being sent out on my own [female university student and peer mentor]

At first the idea of going to university was alien almost … I knew one person going to[x university] so I sorta felt like adjusting is like … it’s sort of like being thrown intothe deep end you know? It’s like you either swim or you don’t, youknow? [male university student and peer mentor]

Several participants highlighted the importance of peer-mentoring at secondary education in enabling them to access and understand critical information. For example, how to complete the central application office (CAO¹) forms, ranking preferences for courses and meeting application deadlines. Secondary education students and university peer mentors felt that programmes that target secondary education students to support access to university should be available to all, while university staff and guidance counsellors suggested that the such programmes should begin earlier:

There should be more programs in the disadvantaged areas to encourage people to goto college. I know there’s (x peer mentoring programme) but only people that want togo to college sign up for things like that … classes like that should be obligatory forstudents that don’t think about college because it might encourage them to actuallythink about it. [female university student]

University peer mentors had many recommendations, all of which were practical and focused on activities and processes that would help students access university, ease transition from secondary education to HE and aid student retention. Recommendations included choosing a university course carefully and selecting a course that the student thought they might like and enjoy. A support as practical as having a travel plan was highlighted as an important way to ease transition and stay in university once there. However, many of the peer mentors highlighted the relational aspects of peer mentoring and the importance of knowing and trusting someone who has had similar experiences and has gone on to access university. The relational aspect was also picked up by school and university staff who worked to support secondary education students prepare for and access universities:

It makes your goal a lot more realistic you know, like a lot more achievable when yousee someone in the exact same scenario you were in has already gone there. [maleuniversity peer mentor]

Helping somebody and also by motivating them, you’re also motivated to do well.And be a good example. [female university peer mentor]

I know to help somebody that their own age group per say you know that they beatthrough that system and that are from disadvantage areas and you know, like theywould take a lot more notice of what they have to say. [female guidance counsellor]

Low expectations for success

Across all participant groups, there was evidence of cultural capital effects impacting on society’s expectations for students to progress to university. This included cultural stigma associated with attending university and low expectations from their community, teachers, families and peers. University students highlighted that the stigma against attending university can come from multiple sources and can lead students to believe they are not able for university or that they don’t belong there:

Particularly the areas where we’re from there’s this stigma against going to third-level mostly because … students that came before you haven’t gone on to third-level. [male university peer mentor]

Like I remember growing up in my area some people … with the mentality like, ‘oh university? that’s stupid why would you go there? [female university peer mentor]

[if someone expressed a desire to attend university] their family’s like ‘why would you want to do that’, you know ‘why don’t you just go out and work’? there mightn’t be much support there like if their family hasn’t been [female university peer mentor]

These findings highlight the effects of social class on entry to HE. A secondary education student who had received peer mentoring and was planning to progress to university highlighted the demoralising aspect of these low societal expectations, especially from peer groups. In this quotation, she shares her experiences in her locality:

It’s like sometimes when you actually have the motivation and drive, and like you’re not trying to sell yourself short, there’s always gonna be people that you socialise with that like try and make you feel stupid for having that much drive … Yeah. It’s like they, they make that as if you think you’re better than people. Just because you have the drive that they don’t. [female secondary education student]

The majority of participants who mentioned societal expectations were peer mentors who were attending or had graduated from university, and therefore it is likely these perceptions are experienced-based. Findings suggest that low expectations from members of their school, the media, family, peers and their own expectation of themselves compound feelings of inadequacy and become a barrier:

my guidance counsellor was saying, ‘Do a PLC² before you go to third-level just to see how it is’, but I said, ‘No, I don’t want to’ … I was like, ‘You really don’t have any faith in me’ [female university peer mentor]

The negative perception of the areas they came from and the role of labels in perpetuating barriers was also strongly felt by peer mentors and parents:

I think the first thing they could do is stop referring to it us as ‘disadvantaged’ because when that’s drilled into your head the whole way through school, you think like it’s just like people use it as an excuse not to go to college just like, you’re from a disadvantaged area it’s not acceptable to go. [female participant of peer mentoring programme who had not progressed to university]

Economic and structural constraints

The challenge faced by students from marginalised communities in accessing financial resources for university attendance was highlighted by all stakeholder groups, particularly in relation to tuition fees and the costs associated with travelling to and from HE. This is illustrated by reports of families not being able to cover ongoing expenses requiring students to work in order to support themselves financially. Peer mentors had experienced these challenges personally, and discussed these challenges from their own experience and from the perspective of the students they mentored. Financial challenges and the impact these had on students’ ability to participate and achieve in university were also noted by parents:

A lot are trying to work and go to college. So their college work is suffering because they’re trying to work six or seven hours throughout the night to have the money to pay their things, to pay for bus fare so they can’t do the homework that they’re meant to do … so they’re struggling to keep their grades up and pay for a roof over their head. [mother of secondary education student]

However, the findings also highlighted that financial constraints were less of an obstacle than may have previously been assumed. For university peer mentors and university staff, discussions about financial constraints centred on the lack of information about the real cost of a university education and the supports that are available to enable students to participate in HE:

People that wouldn’t have the information [about grants] would be scared, and that would kinda put them off like, thinking it might put pressure on the family to pay for third-level but there is also grants that people wouldn’t know about and scholarships [female university peer mentor]

I mean, finances will always come up. People will be worried about money but in reality with information they realise that finance shouldn’t be as much of a barrier as it is. Now it will be tough, I mean you know, when you go to college and you’re reliant on a grant, there’s certain sacrifices going to be made but it’s not impossible, you know. But there’s an impression that it is. [university staff]

Secondary education students suggested that to support progression to university, it would be useful to provide additional funding programmes, whilst making students aware of the current schemes and how to access these. Interestingly, parents’ suggestions for overcoming financial barriers often related to the day-to-day expenses such as travel, meals and purchasing necessary equipment (e.g. a laptop computer). Both the guidance counsellor interviewed and a past participant of the peer mentoring programme who did not progress to university felt registration fees should be abolished completely to enable more students from marginalised backgrounds to access university.

In addition to financial barriers, secondary education students and their parents highlighted the Leaving Certificate exam itself as a major factor in accessing university. The Leaving Certificate is a competitive points system in Ireland on which entry to HE is based. Many stakeholders questioned whether the points system was a suitable vehicle to assess students’ abilities and expressed concern over the attainability of university within this current format. Secondary education students and their parents reported feelings of stress stemming from the points-system, referring to it as ‘ridiculous’, ‘off-putting’ and ‘daunting’:

I think like the way the point system and all is it can be a lot like, it can be very scary for some people because people aren’t just comfortable with test papers. So I think maybe base it more on your aptitude for that subject [female secondary education student]

Not many students want to go to college ‘cause they think they are not able to achieve the points to get into college and that sort of brings you down. [female secondary education student]

[my child] is stressed out to the max. And I can see that with her, she’s so stressed out a couple of weeks ago, she would’ve been just happy to […], refuse point blank to go to school. [mother of secondary education student]

This barrier may be compounded by the fact that almost all students make decisions about whether to take higher or ordinary level subjects at the beginning of the two-year senior cycle immediately preceding the transition to HE. In some cases, students do not have an option to choose higher subjects due to decisions made in preceding years. The ramifications of these decisions for progression to HE might not be fully understood by students at the time these decisions are being made. For example, a high grade in an ‘ordinary level’ subject is awarded relatively few points. This can lead to a sense of fait accompli meaning students do not work towards a goal of accessing higher education..

Just say you get a D3 in ordinary level … that might only be worth five points … you’re not gonna put like as much effort as you can into it. [male secondary education student]

The subject levels that they’re taking at Leaving Cert is another very real barrier, and can be very demotivating when suddenly the information does get through that you need at least two higher level (subjects) to even think about university. [university staff]

Information and knowledge gap

This last quote from a member of the university team who supported peer mentoring at secondary education, highlights that in addition to the points structure of the Leaving Certificate, students from marginalised communities were also potentially facing a knowledge gap. The lack of access to networks that could support progression to HE was identified by all stakeholder groups, but particularly by university students who had experienced peer mentoring in secondary education. The inability to access critical information about admission routes, financial entitlements, picking the correct course and the subjects needed for progression, were identified as significant barriers:

Picking a course is hard … And then some people don’t really … know what they want to do and they panic and pick one [female university peer mentor]

Not doing the right … subjects for the course. Like not doing science for veterinary or if you want to do Engineering. [female university student]

Guidance and support were identified as factors which positively addressed this knowledge gap. University staff in particular recognised the key role of parental involvement in accessing university. Parents noted they had witnessed a lack of parental support of secondary education students where some young people are left ‘on their own’ in home environments not conducive to studying. Lack of study skills, supports and resources were also identified by secondary education students.

Secondary education students, university students and university staff stated that guidance counsellors often took a pragmatic approach to information-sharing and supports, a barrier that was linked to low expectations of students throughout the discussions. While secondary education students stated that supports offered were for a select few, university students and university staff reflected on their experiences wherein not everyone at school was pushed to achieve:

Within school it was more them pushing for things sort of below what you could achieve, if that makes sense? … they weren’t trying to get everybody to move on to third-level more so get them into whatever the next best thing you can, you know. [male university peer mentor]

It seems like they don’t really think any of us can actually go to university … they think we’re not good enough for like [x university] so they’re bringing the PLC colleges to our school to talk to us. [female university peer mentor]

Discussion

With evidence of continued inequality in accessing HE across marginalised communities in Ireland (Higher Education Authority [HEA] 2018), this study outlines contemporary factors inhibiting progression to universities from the perspectives of key stakeholder groups. Overall, the identified barriers were largely consistent with previous research (Archer, Hollingworth, and Halsall 2007; Byrne and McCoy 2017; Iannelli 2007; Scanlon et al. 2019a) highlighting the socio-cultural and economic barriers impacting on progression to HE for certain students.

Drawing on the dominant theoretical frameworks of cultural capital and rational action theory in understanding experiences of educational inequalities, the processes shaping the educational pathways of young people were interpreted in relation to their unique cultural backgrounds and resource limitations. Responses illustrate evidence of cultural capital influencing students’ progression to university through class-conditional behaviours, skills and dispositions (Glaesser and Cooper 2014). Indeed, these findings support previous research which has highlighted similar culturally specific barriers to HE progression such as limitations in knowledge, guidance and support available (Byrne and McCoy 2017; Finnegan and Merrill 2017; Iannelli, Smyth, and Klein 2016; Scanlon et al. 2019a), the ‘institutional habitus’ or variation in the kind and amount of knowledge secondary schools provide in relation to HE (Reay, David, and Ball 2001, 2005; Smyth and Banks 2012), and lower societal expectations from parents, teachers and peers (McCoy and Byrne 2011; Scanlon et al. 2019b; Jury et al. 2017).

In support of the rational action perspective there was evidence of rational behaviour, through engaging in a cost-benefit analysis for the cost of progression against the likelihood of succeeding. Particularly, the financial implications of progression to HE was noted such as the competing need to earn money while studying, while a fear of failure was also evident, predominantly from the parents’ perspectives. These findings align with previous research highlighting how a lack of financial resources (Whitty, Hayton, and Tang 2015) and the stronger motivation to earn money (Doyle and Keane 2019) may play a role in decision making around attending university. The notion of pragmatic rationality (Reay 2018) was also evident as the structural, social and cultural context in which individuals were living exerted influence on decisions to transition to HE.

Similar to findings from a series of recent studies carried out in Ireland (Scanlon et al. 2019a, 2019b), this study confirms that the barriers to accessing HE are complex and numerous, with many overlapping and compounding factors. Across the various perspectives captured in this study, there was evidence of differences among stakeholder groups. This is likely to be reflective of the varying responsibilities and positions of each stakeholder in supporting or embarking on the journey towards and through university. Secondary education students were primarily concerned with perceived structural barriers, specifically the nature of the Leaving Certificate itself, the points system and poor teaching, while their parents’ concerns centred around access to knowledge and financial resources. University students who had received peer mentoring supports before moving on to HE emphasised the importance of relational supports to enhance: (1) motivation, (2) academic preparedness in getting into university and (3) knowledge of their specific course and of university life more generally. In particular, university graduates interviewed as part of this study said they benefitted greatly from peer mentoring in secondary education and emphasised the importance of relationships, identity and seeing others ‘like them’ on the university campus in succeeding.

Together the findings indicated that students from marginalised communities must overcome a series of barriers, starting in secondary education and continuing on through university. Internationally studies have found that the relationship between membership of a marginalised community and academic achievement is complex: child-parent relational supports (Chen et al. 2018), the role of self-concept (Li, Xu and Xia 2020), and a student’s age at the time of starting university (Craft 2019) can impact on academic progression, and our findings add to this discussion by presenting perspectives of a range of stakeholders in improving access to university. The numerous barriers and concerns raised by each of the key stakeholders in this study requires careful consideration by policy-makers and society at large, in international efforts towards more inclusive universities, specifically, and the wider HE system.

There are some limitations of this study. Data were drawn from individuals connected to a university access programme and therefore perspectives on accessing university may be more similar than among stakeholders drawn from non-participating schools and universities. In light of this and the relatively small sample size, further research is needed to examine the perspectives of secondary education students who do not progress to university, or who progress to a different form of HE (IT, College, post Leaving Certificate course or apprenticeship). It would be of interest to examine in a larger sample of students, whether differences emerge in terms of students’ gender and also students from a rural background. Similarly, the small sample of parents who participated in this research were deeply committed to their children’s academic development and progression. Given the strong evidence that parents’ aspirations and expectations influence adolescents’ choices with regard to HE (Kirk et al. 2011; Irwin and Elley 2013), further research with a larger more diverse sample of parents of secondary education and university students is warranted.

With evidence of a hidden educational disadvantage in the type of HE institutions students attend in Ireland, the focus of the current paper on university access fills an important gap. While previous research completed in an Irish context explored barriers to accessing higher education in general (McCoy and Byrne 2011; Scanlon et al. 2019a, 2019b), exploring access to universities in particular is timely and important. Considering the current discrepancy in attendance rates across the different types of HE institutions in Ireland (Higher Education Authority [HEA] 2018), the data collected here allowed for a deep exploration of factors related to accessing universities. Future research investigating the disproportionately low attendance of students from marginalised communities at universities may benefit by targeting stakeholders who attend a range of HE institutions and examining the processes which impacted their choice of HE institution.

Participants in this study identified a number of different supports to improve access to university for students from marginalised communities. While policy in Ireland has focused on providing funding for students from socio-economically marginalised groups to attend college, the perspectives of stakeholders in this study highlight the need for a more complex intervention, and especially highlight the role of relational supports in the successful navigation of accessing and participating in university education.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants who supported the wider evaluation work on which this research is based.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Sinéad McNally

Sinéad McNally is Assistant Professor in Psychology (birth to six) at Dublin City University’s Institute of Education. Her research focuses on play and shared reading as important, inclusive early contexts for children’s learning and development.

Paul Downes

Paul Downes is Professor of Education (Psychology), Director of the Educational Disadvantage Centre, Institute of Education, Dublin City University, Ireland and Affiliate Professor, University of Malta, Centre for Resilience and Socio-Emotional Health.

Laura O’Halloran

Laura O’Halloran completed her PhD at the Institute of Neuroscience at Trinity College 2018. Her research focus has been on identifying diagnostic markers of addiction, namely alcohol and nicotine, and developing personalised treatment of addiction.

Gráinne Kent

Gráinne Kent is a Researcher and Lecturer in Developmental Psychology at the National College of Ireland. Dr Kent graduated from the National University of Ireland Maynooth with a Doctorate in Psychological Science and holds a BSc Psychology from Queens University Belfast.

Sandra O’Neill

Sandra O’Neill is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at Dublin City University’s Institute of Education. Prior to her appointment she was the National Aistear Coordinator for National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Notes

1. The Central Applications Office (CAO) is the organisation responsible for overseeing undergraduate applications to colleges and universities in the Republic of Ireland.

2. Post Leaving Certificate (PLC) courses are full-time programmes for young people who have completed the Leaving Certificate Examination and take place in schools, colleges and community education centres. The courses offer a mixture of practical work, academic work and work experience to develop technical and practical skills for an industry recognised qualification. Awards are at a level 5 or 6 on the national framework for qualifications.