Successful university students from low socio-economic backgrounds’ perspectives on their academic success: a capital-based approach

ABSTRACT

In this paper we explore perspectives of academically successful students from low socio-economic status (LSES) backgrounds in an Australian university regarding their success. In response to initiatives arising from the Australian Government’s 2008 Review of Australian Higher Education, university cohorts have increasingly diversified. This diversification of student cohorts has been especially apparent for students from LSES backgrounds, who were found to be underrepresented in higher education. Previous researchers have investigated how traditional cultural norms within the field of higher education, and deficit perspectives of LSES background students, place these students at a disadvantage. Utilising a capital-based approach, we were interested in understanding students’ awareness of their strengths, and how they utilised and exchanged resources (i.e., capital) to leverage these strengths for success. It was indicated by participants that whilst they entered the field of higher education with little formal ‘know-how’, through a strong sense of identity and motivation they developed strategies to succeed. Of significance, these processes occurred with little institutional assistance.

KEYWORDS:

• student success
• socio-economic status
• capital
• Australia
• higher education

Introduction

Over the last decade there have been significant initiatives to increase the diversity of higher education student cohorts in Australia, especially concerning students from low socio-economic (LSES) backgrounds. These initiatives are in great part responsive to the Australian Government’s 2008 Review of Australian Higher Education, colloquially known as the Bradley Review (Bradley et al., 2008). As indicated in the review, students who are ‘disadvantaged by the circumstances of their birth’ are underrepresented in Australian higher education student cohorts, which may place Australia at a socio-economic disadvantage in meeting ‘the demands of a rapidly moving global economy’ (Bradley et al., 2008, p. xi). These students include: ‘Indigenous people, people with low socio-economic status, and those from regional and remote areas’ (Bradley et al., 2008, p. xi). As highlighted by Cuthill and Schmidt (2011) in response to the Bradley Review, the participation rates of LSES background students have proven to be persistently low, and as such, this has become a key area of government focus. Devlin, who has researched significantly in this area, has referred to the current epoch of Australian higher education as the ‘the post-Bradley era’ (Devlin & O’Shea, 2011).

Within the post-Bradley era, as higher education student cohorts diversify, this places an important responsibility on higher education institutions to ensure they are adequately supporting these diverse cohorts (Devlin, 2013). This considered, it has previously been argued that higher education institutions can face multiple challenges when supporting students from LSES backgrounds. These challenges can include pedagogical attitudes towards inclusion (O’Shea et al., 2016), institutional understandings of the strengths of LSES background students (Devlin, 2013) and adequate resources to develop evidence-based responses (Cuthill & Schmidt, 2011). Therefore, while there are initiatives to increase the diversification of student cohorts to include students from LSES backgrounds in higher education, responsive supports for these students throughout their studies is equally important.

It has been shown that while students from LSES backgrounds experience barriers to accessing higher education, when undertaking their higher education through to completion, these students’ academic outcomes are comparable to students from higher SES backgrounds (Devlin & O’Shea, 2011; McKay & Devlin, 2016). However, students from LSES background do experience unique challenges while studying. For example, it has been shown that these students lack relative levels of cultural capital (i.e., ‘know-how’) within university contexts (Brosnan et al., 2016; McIntyre et al., 2012). Additionally, Karimshah et al. (2013) have shown that stressors external to studies can be experienced at heightened levels for students from LSES backgrounds when compared with students from higher SES backgrounds. These include financial problems, health problems, family issues and relationship issues (Karimshah et al., 2013). Subsequently, while the academic outcomes of LSES background students are comparable to students from higher SES backgrounds, the unique challenges these students may face can lead to high attrition rates (Karimshah et al., 2013; Li et al., 2017). These high attrition rates are of concern, as the completion of their studies can have a significant impact on LSES background students’ future social and economic prosperity (Li et al., 2017).

As argued by Devlin (2013) and McKay and Devlin (2016), as students from LSES backgrounds negotiate their experiences in higher education, these students are often framed by their institutions as being at a deficit. This can result in a socio-cultural incongruence between students and their universities (Devlin, 2013). As such, this can be a missed opportunity for higher education institutions to assist students in identifying the strengths they bring to their studies to help them succeed during and through to completion (McKay & Devlin, 2016). In this study it was our intention to better understand these strengths through a capital-based approach. Underpinning this focus was the following research question, which guided the study: What types of resources (i.e., capital) do successful LSES background university students report as being important and influencing their success?

Theoretical framework

This study was framed through the lens of a capital-based approach. This approach was chosen as it was deemed useful to understand participants’ perspectives on their success in higher education. Capital can be understood as concrete and abstract resources that individuals possess, acquire, and trade to achieve social success (Bourdieu, 1998; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Therefore, in this study, a capital-based approach is used to better understand the resources that students from LSES draw upon to be successful within their university studies.

Utilising Bourdieu’s (1998), Bourdieu and Wacquant’s (1992), and Tomlinson’s (2017) theories of capital, the following types of capital were the focus in this study:

First, cultural capital refers to the knowledge of relative socio-cultural ‘know-how’ (Bourdieu, 1998). For example, an understanding of both implicit and explicit norms underpinning higher education practices.

Second, economic capital refers to wealth/monetary resources (Bourdieu, 1998). High levels of economic capital can afford university students with financial independence to spend more time concentrating on their studies. Conversely, for some students their time may need to be spent between balancing study and paid employment.

Third, human capital refers to technical knowledge and professional skills (Tomlinson, 2017). In the context of this study, this can refer to learnt discipline specific skills, as well as assumed technical skills, including study skills.

Fourth, identity capital refers to the understanding, formation, and presentation of who one is and who they aspire to be (Tomlinson, 2017). For participants in this study, this can refer to their understandings of their identity as coming from LSES backgrounds, an explicit understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, and their predicted sense of future self.

Fifth, psychological capital refers to an individual’s resilience, self-efficacy, and adaptability (Tomlinson, 2017). For participants in this study, this represents their recognition and ability to draw on their psychological capital when faced with challenges in their studies.

Finally, social capital refers to an individual’s social ties and networks (Bourdieu, 1998). These social ties and networks can be leveraged for success, and as such, within the context of this study social capital refers to how participants draw on social ties and networks for success.

Importantly, different types of capital can be traded for one another to achieve success. As such, a capital-based approach allowed for an understanding of the experiences and perspectives of successful students from LSES backgrounds relative to the resources they present as being important, and how they use these.

To understand the operation of capital, the concepts of habitus and fields are important. The Bourdieusian concept of habitus refers to the unconscious dispositions of social agents, which are structured by socio-cultural norms and in turn influence the structuring of those of norms (Bourdieu, 1977). As described by Heffernan (2022), ‘at its core, habitus is the elements and aspects of someone’s life that they are born into, raised in, and surrounded by throughout their life that shape them as an individual’ (p. 3). Further, habitus can exist at both the individual and group/class level, and as such, both individual and collective social experiences contribute to the shaping of one’s habitus. According to Hage (2013), within Bourdieu’s understanding of social practice, habitus is conceptualised as efficiency for social success. Therefore, for students from LSES backgrounds, their habitus as established by their previous experiences and socio-cultural, economic, and familial socialisation, can influence their approach and trajectory throughout their university studies. For example, being raised in an environment where tertiary education and its associated knowledges may be relatively unknown, never mentioned, seen as alien or mysterious, belonging to ‘the other’, or shrouded in prejudice.

Importantly, the operation of habitus and the value of capital are contextually dependent. Therefore, the concept of fields is important, as fields impose the rules for success and can be viewed as the arenas where social practice occurs (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). Examples of fields include the field of the family, the field of education, the field of politics, and so on. These fields have their own nuanced directives and depending on the habitus and relative value of capital an individual possesses when they enter a field, this will influence their efficacy and recognition relative to success. Within this study, we are interested in understanding the efficiency (i.e., habitus) and utilisation of resources (i.e., capital) of successful LSES students in the field of higher education.

Design

Participants

Utilising a single-site case design, participants were recruited into this study from Bachelor of Commerce (BCom) and Bachelor of Business (BBus) degrees offered by a Business and Law Faculty at an Australian University in the state of Victoria. These courses were chosen for purposes of sample representation, as it was deemed that they were representative of a variety of diverse demographic factors including gender, age, and mode of study, as well as a variety of Business and Law skill sets, which are broadly literacy, numeracy, and job-ready skills. Additionally, over 10% of all students in these courses came from LSES backgrounds. While we were all staff within the faculty where this research was conducted, we also had practical and academic interests in focusing on students within this faculty. First, as mentioned this faculty has a significantly diverse student cohort (particularly within the Business School), which is a trend that has been previously reported as being alike at other universities within a similar geographic location as ours (Jackling & Natoli, 2011). Therefore, understanding the experiences of students from this cohort is pertinent within our institution. Second, it has previously been indicated that there are certain disciplinary norms across faculties that may influence students’ experiences (Pretorius & Macaulay, 2021). In consideration of the size and scope of this study, we therefore were interested in exclusively focusing on students from a single faculty.

Successful students were selected using non-identifiable data made available to the researchers from the university. In line with the Australian Government Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program’s (HEPPP) framing of LSES, students were identified as belonging to this cohort if they were (a) a domestic student, and (b) their home address was in the lowest quartile of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Education and Occupation Index (ABS, 2022). Both full-time and part-time students were invited to participate. Analysis of the relevant student data identified that students change enrolment from full-time to part-time study and vice versa. The data did not reveal any discernible impact for this mode of study, but we deemed it prudent to ensure we captured the perspective of students irrespective of their enrolment preferences.

Student ‘success’ was determined via students’ weighted average mark (WAM) being in a range above 70%, which equates to a distinction or above average at this university.¹ This measure was used for both full-time and part-time students, and as such, length of time in study was not a factor used to measure success. If participants were in the acceptable allocated timeframe as per university policy to complete their degrees – even if this meant altering their mode of enrolment – we did not deem this to impact their success. Upon identifying suitable participants, a request was made to the university’s student administration department to obtain these individuals’ contact details. Twenty individuals were emailed an invite to partake in this research, with a total of ten individuals volunteering to participate. See Table 1 for participants’ demographic information.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Pseudonym	Age	Gender	Course	Year of Study	Study Mode	PT/FT
Anthony	24	Male	BCom	3	On-Campus	FT
Bella	37	Female	BBus	6	Off-Campus	PT
James	35	Male	BBus/BCom	2	Off-Campus	FT
Jesse	24	Male	BCom	4	On-Campus	PT
Maddison	22	Female	BCom	2	On-Campus	FT
Mangala	31	Male	BCom	3	Off-campus	FT
Nicole	29	Female	BCom	4	Off-Campus	PT
Rachael	24	Female	BBus	4	Off-campus	PT
Rhiannon	22	Female	BCom	4	On-Campus	PT
Simon	23	Male	BBus	2.5	Blended	FT

Data collection and analysis

All data were collected in 2020 via semi-structured one-on-one interviews. To ensure minimal disruption to participants’ studies, data were collected outside of the trimester period (between trimesters two and three). Considering social distancing restrictions resulting from COVID-19, and the influence of these on research practices at our university, all interviews were conducted remotely via a video conferencing platform. Interviews were guided by a semi-structured interview protocol. Questions were developed in consideration of the purpose and theoretical approach to the study as well as influenced by relevant reviewed literature. All interviews were recorded, and the audio of these interviews were transcribed.

Transcripts were analysed using NVivo 12 utilising the thematic analysis approaches outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) and Attride-Stirling (2001). While the data were analysed by a single member of the research team, analysis was regularly presented and critically discussed in team meetings to gain guidance and insights from the other members. First, all transcripts were thoroughly read for familiarisation and to ascertain any first impressions. Second, all transcripts were deductively coded. To do this, transcripts were coded using a coding structure of the forms of the capital that were of interest in this research. For greater depth and insight, all deductively coded data were inductively coded using the thematic network approach – basic themes, organising themes, and global themes – advocated by Attride-Stirling (2001). To do so, first the deductively coded dataset was coded for basic themes. Following this, these basic themes were defined and clustered into organising themes based on any identified patterns. These organising themes were defined and then further analysed to identify any clusters of key overarching global themes. The final step was for all analysed data to be presented to the research team, and for the key overarching global themes to be defined and critically discussed relative to their meaning and the aims of the project. The two key overarching global themes identified are the focus of the findings section of the paper.

Ethical considerations

Human Research Ethics approval was obtained for the study. All participants were provided with a plain language statement and all participants provided written consent to participate. While there were no discernible risks to participating in the study, a risk management plan was devised as part of the ethics approval. All interviews were scheduled at times convenient to the participants and it was frequently reiterated that participation in the study was completely voluntary and that participants could withdraw at any time without penalty.

Relationships between researchers and participants are an important component of consideration when adopting a qualitative interview approach (Dunwoodie et al., 2022). As we were staff in the faculty that participants belonged to, several steps regarding participant/researcher relations were taken to reduce any power imbalances – as well as to ensure the reliability of data collected and analysed. All interviews were conducted by one researcher, who coordinates a large first-year unit that can be taken as part of the BCom and BBus. As such, it was ensured that no participants in this study were enrolled in this unit at the time of their interview. While a handful of participants had taken this unit in the past, they were at least 18–24 months removed at the time of their interview. It was also ensured that the other two researchers had not taught any of the participants. Further, due to participants’ year of study, as well as the focus of the teaching responsibilities of the researchers, no participant will be taught by the researchers in the remainder of their studies. As such, any relationships between participants and researchers at the time of the study were either non-existent or sufficiently minimal.

Findings

Two key overarching global themes were identified through analysis and are presented below. These themes are university ‘know-how’ and identity awareness.

University ‘know-how’

The theme of university ‘know-how’ is defined as participants’ discussions of the implicit and/or explicit knowledge that is ‘assumed’ of them as being a university student. In navigating their university experiences, this form of assumed knowledge – or lack thereof – can have a significant impact on students’ success. This knowledge is a form of cultural knowledge, and as such, is strongly linked to the concept of cultural capital. All participants (except for one) did not have parents who went to university. Further, all participants had a break (in varying degrees) between completing high school and starting university. As such, it was reported that in varying degrees they lacked the assumed knowledge and cultural capital relative to the ‘know-how’ of university norms. As Maddison indicated, ‘I definitely wasn’t prepared coming into university. I didn’t know it would be this full on and I wasn’t really sure exactly what to expect … I felt a bit like an alien’. This sentiment was also shared by Jesse, who indicated that being the first in his family to attend university meant that he had to develop an understanding of university ‘know-how’ without the support of his immediate networks:

I didn’t have an immediate family network that were I guess gave me that, what would you say, reference experience or just family culture of what it’s like … I felt like that was a challenge … I didn’t have a mum who could say ‘oh well when I was at uni I did this and this is what you should do’. I had to work all this out myself. (Jesse)

However, given that this cohort of students have been successful in their studies, it was presented that they had developed strategies to gain cultural capital to support their success and improve their dispositional efficiency (i.e., habitus) within the field of higher education. As Jesse highlighted above, ‘I had to work all this out myself’.

Previous research has indicated that social capital can be a reliable resource to trade for cultural capital for students from LSES backgrounds in the field of higher education (Brosnan et al., 2016; Rubin & Wright, 2017). Not having large circles of friends or family from university backgrounds meant that these students needed to acquire new forms of social capital in order to experience the benefits of trading this for relevant cultural capital within the field of higher education. A common example was an explicit focus on developing relationships with academic staff. This was articulated by Anthony:

I would really stress you know through all of my learning, be it at a high school level or university level, talking to people, my teachers, building some sort of rapport with them I think is important and it means that I have some sort of connection level with the staff member and even if I’m not understanding I then feel comfortable enough to then go and approach and say hey what am I doing wrong here, can you help me? (Anthony)

For Anthony, making connections and developing relationships with academic staff was a key strategy utilised for success. Anthony recognised that the acquisition of social capital by way of academic staff could be leveraged to gain a better understanding of how to be successful. This was also articulated by Jesse:

I wanted to get Ds and HDs, so I just went to the professor and said, ‘hey look I really want to do well in this unit, I guess I am just wondering what are the common things that you see that high performing students do, and low performing students do and how can I be more like the HDs and less like the Cs and the Ps?’ (Jesse)²

Importantly, such an approach may require a habitus where one’s dispositional qualities lend themselves to a confidence to have these conversations with academic staff and for academic staff to be approachable and open to such conversations. While participants in this study indicated that academic staff at their university were approachable (e.g., ‘The lecturers and staff are quite friendly and are quite responsive to questions’ [Mangala]), not all participants felt they had the confidence and dispositional qualities to approach these staff. As Nicole stated, ‘engaging and trying to get in contact with lecturers and things, that gives me high anxiety … I’m not really one to contact people very often’. Therefore, Nicole’s ability to build her social capital with academic staff, and to experience the benefits of this, appears to be hindered by certain components of her habitus within this field.

In addition to acquiring social capital by way of academic staff, several participants also highlighted the value of developing relationships with peers. These types of relationships, with a shared experience of being a university student, could lead to the informal sharing of cultural capital. For example, Rhiannon stated:

Something I found was I'd be talking to someone, just one of my student colleagues and I'd say something along the lines of, ‘oh you know I'm really struggling with maybe say referencing’ or something, and they'd say, ‘oh there's actually a referencing sort of help section if you just go here’, and they'd send me like a link or something. (Rhiannon)

For Simon on the other hand, his academic approach to his studies meant that he undervalued the acquisition of social capital in the field of higher education. As Simon stated, ‘it’s not that I’m not a social person, I’m a very social person – but I didn’t really look to find friendships at university’. Subsequently, the opportunity to acquire and exchange social capital and informally exchange this for cultural capital could be markedly reduced.

Participants also reported acquiring cultural capital to support their success through ‘grit’, via their levels of psychological capital. This was primarily manifest through ‘motivation’. Several participants presented with a transactional attitude towards their studies, with clear future goals that contributed to their motivation. This is articulated by James in the following:

I’m very motivated, I’m very driven. I have a career aspiration in mind. I know where I want to be in the future. So, I’m willing to put in the hard work now … Even if it is a unit I’m not enjoying quite that much. (James)

Nicole shared a similar sentiment as James; however, she highlighted that when undertaking a particularly challenging unit that this requires psychological capital in and of itself to experience motivation. As Nicole highlighted:

I often find with units like this, my motivation’s out dancing in the sun somewhere, and trying to reel that in is really hard. So, I suppose, it’s more just you can’t wait for motivation to come and find you … you really just need to set aside that time and just get stuck into it. (Nicole)

Therefore, it would seem that for these students within the field of higher education that a key component of their success are the links between habitus and resilience and explicitly drawing on this resilience as a resource.

Another example presented by participants where they drew on their psychological capital by way of resilience and adaptability, was overcoming a lack of human capital that was assumed by their institution. In these instances, participants reported that they needed to upskill and self-educate in their own time outside of their official studies. This was articulated by Anthony:

The amount that I learnt through YouTube videos as opposed to through [university name] on how to do certain tasks in order to then be able to do my assignments more effectively was unbelievable. (Anthony)

Previous scholars have argued that an assumption that all students possess certain levels of human capital prior to commencing their studies can create substantial barriers for the students who do not possess this capital (Devlin, 2013; Lawrence, 2005). Problematically, from this perspective it is the student that is positioned as being at deficit and not the institution (Devlin, 2013). As such, this assumption places the onus on the students themselves to address the issue, as indicated by participants in this study. Therefore, participants reported the need to possess high levels of resilience and motivation, as well as needing to cultivate ‘grit’ in order to succeed and push through such challenges.

Identity awareness

The theme of identity awareness is defined as participants’ discussions relating to their explicit awareness of their identities within the context of their studies, and the subsequent strengths and weaknesses they possess, as well as the challenges that they face as possessing the identity of ‘students from LSES backgrounds’. Participants presented with high levels of identity capital and a strong awareness of how this form of capital could be utilised to achieve success. Yuval-Davis (2010) defines identity as the ‘stories that people tell themselves and others about who they are, and who they are not, as well as who and how they would like to/should be’ (p. 266). For participants in this study who were all identified as being successful LSES background students, an explicit awareness of variables related to their SES influenced how they approached their studies. This awareness was particularly evident in the relationship between identity capital and economic capital. All participants in this study indicated the ongoing need to produce economic capital throughout their studies, which in most instances was achieved through full-time employment outside of their studies. As such, time was presented as a commodity that needed to be managed with caution. The awareness of their identity of being a non-traditional and economically self-sufficient student meant that high levels of organisation and time management skills needed to be honed, which contributed to these students’ overall success. This was articulated by Rhiannon and Bella in the following:

I have to work to help support myself … For me personally having to juggle work and university, having a timeline of when everything throughout your units is due and sticking to that timeline is incredibly helpful. When you're just able to plan out things and think things through rather than leaving it to the last minute and rushing through everything makes a huge difference. (Rhiannon)

I use every bit of time available to me. I have 3 children so I’m constantly running around. I work full-time so I use those times in the train, on the weekends I use that time when we’re at soccer or tennis in the car to study. You know, waiting for my son to do soccer training at night, I’m in the car studying. So, every bit of time I have available I am studying. (Bella)

For students from LSES backgrounds, especially for those commencing their studies as mature age students, a key challenge can be balancing study with outside responsibilities which can create a series of barriers (Rubin & Wright, 2017). However, as indicated by Rhiannon and Bella above, by possessing high levels of identity capital relative to their social locations and personal responsibilities meant that they had an explicit awareness of how to approach their studies to be successful.

In addition, participants presented with relatively high levels of critical self-reflection regarding their strengths. As highlighted by Devlin (2013) and McKay and Devlin (2016), students from LSES backgrounds are often framed through a deficit lens by their institutions. Subsequently, opportunities for students to utilise their strengths in their education can be missed. Participants presented themselves with high levels of identity capital relative to possessing an explicit knowledge of their strengths to be leveraged for success. For example, recognising that she is a ‘visual person’ Rhiannon draws on this in her studies: ‘I like to initially write everything down and have it on a big piece of paper in front of me, I love timelines. I'm a visual person’. Additionally, Maddison stated, ‘I do think of myself as a very organised person, and I find it calming to know that I have a schedule in place and that I’m keeping on track with the unit requirements’. Therefore, while participants acknowledged that they possessed low levels of cultural capital within the field of higher education, it is evident that they do have levels of cultural capital to recognise how their identity capital can be leveraged to support their success in their studies.

As highlighted previously, all participants entered university from a non-traditional/non-linear pathway, with many having previous careers. As such, participants presented as having clear and concise goals regarding why they were attending university and how this would influence their future careers and identities. Such an approach led to participants adopting a transactional attitude towards their studies, whereby participants had clear goals regarding what they hoped to gain from obtaining a qualification in their field of study. This was presented by Nicole as follows:

I had a number of jobs, working split shifts, seven days a week, just trying to find something that I liked. I ended up getting a very good job actually with [name of university] and then, as a result of that, got me thinking about how I can better my career and how I can advance and, as a result, decided to study with [name of university] as well. (Nicole)

Such an approach led to increased levels of psychological capital that could be drawn on throughout the length of one’s studies. As participants indicated, completing a university degree can feel like a long period of time, especially if this degree needs to be undertaken part-time to allow for work commitments. As such, one’s motivation may be tested throughout this time. For example, Nicole stated, ‘after studying four years for the same degree, the motivation does get a bit tiring, and it does start to lose my focus’. Additionally, Bella stated, ‘I’m at the pointy end where if I don’t do 3 units with studying – with working full-time, I’m just prolonging my degree more and more’. However, participants’ high levels of identity capital relative to who/how they want to be (Yuval-Davis, 2010), was presented as being able to be exchanged for psychological capital to overcome such motivational challenges.

Discussion and concluding remarks

This research was underpinned by the following research question: What types of resources (i.e., capital) do successful LSES background university students report as being important and influencing their success? Utilising a capital-based approach, several key resources (i.e., capital) were reported by participants to influence their success. These forms of capital were identified as being related to two key overarching themes: university ‘know-how’ and identity awareness, which will be discussed respectively below.

In line with previous research focusing on the experiences of LSES background students (Brosnan et al., 2016; McIntyre et al., 2012), participants in this study reported possessing low levels of cultural capital relative to the field of higher education. Except for one participant, not having parents and large social networks that had attended university meant that these individuals lacked the ‘know-how’ of the field. As such, participants reported that they started their studies with little of the assumed knowledge regarding the norms of university practices. Yet, and importantly, participants presented as possessing a clear understanding of how to leverage other forms of capital to improve their success. For example, many participants understood that through building social capital that this could be traded for cultural capital, and thus they could develop greater understandings of the ‘know-how’ of university norms. Additionally, while participants navigated the acquisition of cultural capital, they presented as needing to draw on their psychological capital to overcome challenges throughout this period. This was primarily presented as participants’ explicit knowledge that they possessed high levels of motivation to succeed, as well as possessing high levels of grit, resilience and adaptability. A prime example of this is when participants were faced with challenges arising from not possessing forms of human capital assumed by the university, they developed strategies to gain this capital outside of the confines of the formal institution. Therefore, crucial to their success, resources drawn upon to gain university ‘know-how’ were an understanding of the value of social capital relative to cultural capital and an explicit awareness and ability to draw on psychological capital.

Participants’ awareness of the strengths of their identity meant that they could leverage these strengths for success. When it came to their identity, participants knew who they were and who they wanted to be (Yuval-Davis, 2010). For example, participants’ high levels of identity capital as being students from LSES backgrounds appears to have led to high levels of self-awareness and direction as learners. For example, the need to produce economic capital throughout their studies meant that time was a precious commodity when studying. Participants accepted their current situations and large workloads, and instead of lamenting these challenges, engaged in critical self-awareness regarding their strengths to adapt. Examples include the ability to be adaptable when presented with available time to study, as well as being highly organised to best use available time.

Seminal scholars within higher education research have championed the importance of conceptualising LSES background students through a strengths-based lens (Devlin, 2013; McKay & Devlin, 2016). In other words, instead of focusing on the areas that these students are at a deficit, educators and administrators should ask themselves what strengths do these students bring to their education to facilitate their success? The ways in which participants in this study explicitly indicated how they utilised non-traditional forms of capital relative to their habitus to succeed is testament to the importance of strength-based conceptualisations within the field.

These findings add to and are in concert with previous research from Australia and around the globe. For example, in the context of France, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, Crul et al. (2017) identified that for ethnically diverse students from LSES backgrounds, the ability to build and exchange social capital for cultural capital can heighten success in the field of higher education. Further, Crul et al. (2017) identified that motivation and resilience can be key determiners of success. Similar findings were presented by Addi-Raccah and Israelashvili (2014) in their study with LSES background students in Israel. Importantly, while high levels of psychological capital may facilitate success, this may also facilitate high levels of individual autonomy. While this can be viewed as a positive, it may result in students not accessing institutional support, and/or not acquiring the knowledge of the availability of such supports. A key finding of this study was that students had clear conceptualisations of the resources they employed to be successful, yet any mention of institutional resources used to support their success was nil to scarce.

Participants’ self-awareness and autonomy to succeed may be indicative of their habitus and certain forms of capital they possessed when entering the field. As such, they may simply not have felt the need to seek institutional support. Therefore, this self-awareness and autonomy could be a key component of these participants’ success as ‘non-traditional students’ within the field. This considered, it would be an inequitable mistake to assume that all students from LSES backgrounds possess these dispositional qualities.

The sample size of participants in this study is relatively small and comes from a single university and faculty. While there were practical reasons as well as research-driven decisions for this, based on the findings of the study, several areas for future research are recommended. Participants presented as having high levels of identity capital, which influenced how they perceived the purpose of their studies. For example, many participants viewed their studies through a transactional lens, whereby they had clear goals relative to the purpose of undertaking their degree. Of interest for future research is how participants’ habitus may have shaped such conceptualisations. Specifically, are their dispositional traits linked to the decision to study in a business-focused degree? Or alternatively, are these dispositional traits common amongst students from LSES backgrounds across a variety of disciplinary backgrounds within higher education?

Additionally, any mention of the influence of associated challenges of studying during the COVID-19 pandemic was noticeably absent. This may be accounted for by this research taking place relatively early during the pandemic. While studies exploring the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic for LSES backgrounds students are beginning to emerge (see for example da Silva et al., 2021), we recommend this as a pertinent area for future research. Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the participant cohort in this study, for the most part, came from culturally homogenous backgrounds. Given that a body of international literature has explored the links between students from LSES backgrounds and variables influenced by social inequalities relative to their cultural backgrounds, this is an additional recommended area for future research with successful students from LSES backgrounds in Australian higher education institutions.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This project was made possible by the Deakin’s 2022 HEPPP program with funds provided to the Equity-first Students as Partners Microgrant initiative via the Office of the Dean of Students, Deakin University.

Notes

1 We would like to acknowledge that student success can be viewed subjectively and can be measured in many ways (e.g., retention, wellbeing, post-graduate opportunities). Yet, as we set out to identify suitable participants for recruitment based on non-identifiable demographic information, an objective measurement such as WAM was deemed as an appropriate means to measure success.

2 The letters Jesse is referring to are the grading system at the university, as follows: High Distinction (HD) (80% and above); Distinction (D) (70%-79%); Credit (C) (60%-69%); and Pass (P) (50%-59%).