Playing a different game: the contextualised decision‐making processes of minority ethnic students in choosing a higher education institution

Abstract

This paper adds to the small but growing body of literature which probes the complex decision‐making processes undertaken by minority ethnic students, and particularly working‐class minority ethnic students, when choosing a higher education institution. Previous studies have focussed on areas with ethnically diverse local populations. This article presents the findings of a small‐scale study examining the decision‐making processes of minority ethnic school, undergraduate and postgraduate (PGCE) students in a predominantly ‘white’ area of England. Some similarities with the previous research are found, but also some interesting contextual differences, particularly in students’ prioritisation of institutions with an ethnic mix. The paper discusses how students in this context make decisions about what is an acceptable choice based on a complex inter‐related web of factors relating to ethnicity, class and gender. The level of agency assumed within conceptions of habitus when applied to students’ decision‐making processes in the context of higher education is also discussed.

Notes

1. This research recognises the problematic and often binary conceptualisation of social class terminology and the fact that ‘whatever classification scheme we employ, we will find considerable internal variation … within each social class category, and substantial overlap between categories’ (Foster et al., 1996, p. 54). Social class terminology is applied herein empirically in terms of ‘the occupational positions … level of income and wealth, and standard of housing’ (ibid.) associated with the areas in which the interviewees live and study within this part of the north of the UK. Hence, socio‐economic factors are referred to throughout the paper. However, and crucially, social class is also applied theoretically, utilising Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital to capture ‘differential access to economic, social, and cultural resources’ and the ‘complex social and psychological dispositions that interact with gender and race to inform and influence everyday practice’ (Reay, 1997, p. 226).

2. Just as categorisation by class is problematic, this study acknowledges the social, historical cultural and political contingency within any conceptualisation of whiteness (e.g., Mahoney, 1997), and hence the term ‘white’ is enclosed within quote marks throughout the text. The category ‘white’ in this paper refers to ‘people who are positioned across multiple locations of privilege and subordination’ (Giroux, 1997, p. 383) within the local context, and is conceptualised as ‘a mark of ideology and racial privilege’ (ibid.) as enacted at the level of ‘staffing and power structures’ (Osler, 1997, p. 60) within HEIs.

3. With thanks to University A’s Teaching and Learning Committee for a small grant (Innovation Fund) to help undertake this research.

4. According to the most recent Ofsted reports, 17% of students attending School A are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, while the corresponding figure at School B is 30%. The report also notes that 34 languages are spoken as first/home languages among students at School B. Ofsted provides details of GCSE results (exams taken at age 16): on average 58% of pupils at School A achieve five GCSEs, whereas the average for School B is 22%—noticeably below the national average which is 56%.