Access and equity programme provision-evaluation in Australian higher education: a what matters approach

ABSTRACT

This article draws on findings from a national review of the evaluation of access and equity initiatives across Australian higher education to argue that utilising responsive mixed methods focused on the values of participants enables crucial understanding of what matters to the people involved. Based on the evidence collected, a “what matters” conceptual guide is provided to assist with programme design and evaluation. The approach enables identification of the multiple complex variables involved in generating programme outcomes that matter to the groups they are intended for. Provision and evaluation processes must be iteratively connected so that they are responsive to changing contexts and needs over time. Key concepts from critical realism and complexity theory are applied to highlight that context, complexity, and temporality are critical elements to incorporate into approaches to provision-evaluation. The “what matters” guide is designed to enable programmes that are accessible, engaging, and valuable to all participants.

KEYWORDS:

• Higher education
• equity
• access
• widening participation
• evaluation

Acknowledgements

The national review discussed, Equity initiatives in Australian Higher Education: A review of evidence of impact (2015) by Bennett, A., Naylor, R., Mellor, K., Brett, M., Gore, J., Harvey, A., Munn, B., James, R., Smith, M., and Whitty, G., was funded by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Education and Training. The grant was made under the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program.

Dedications

This article is dedicated to the late Professor Geoff Whitty, CBE, without whom the national review and insights later developed in this article would not exist. Special thanks also to Professor Penny Jane Burke, who served as the project’s International External Reference Group Chair.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Anna Bennett serves as Director and Head of Research Development at the English Language and Foundation Studies Centre (ELFSC), which offers higher education access and transition programmes at the University of Newcastle (UON), Australia. The Centre is the largest and oldest pathways provider, with its first programme established in 1974. Since then, more than 60,000 people have engaged in them. Every year at Newcastle 25% of students enter their degrees through these pathways. Others go on to study at other institutions or find more rewarding forms of work as a result of their pathways study. Dr Bennett has a PhD in Sociology, with publications and projects that explore higher education equity programmes and their evaluation, and issues of access, participation, and equity in the field. Dr Bennett is Editor of the Centre of Excellence for Equity in Higher Education (CEEHE) hosted journal, International Studies in Widening Participation, and on the editorial board of Teaching in Higher Education. She is a member of the National Association of Enabling Educators Australia (NAEEA) Executive Committee and leads a NAEEA enabling programmes advocacy subcommittee. Dr Bennett is Co-convenor of the NAEEA Research Development and Collaboration Special Interest Group, and Co-creator of the Australian National Writing Program first sponsored by OFFA, UK, and continued with the support of the Equity Practitioners in Higher Education Australasia (EPHEA) and National Association of Enabling Educators Australia (NAEEA).

Notes

1 The institutions participating in the study included only Australian Table A (public) universities, which are defined in section 16-15 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003. Table A universities are eligible for all teaching and research funding schemes, unlike other higher education providers such as “non-university higher education providers” (NUHEPs), which do not receive government funding for access and equity initiatives.

2 For detailed information about approaches to evaluation by initiative type, see specific chapters in Bennett et al. (2015).

3 For more information about theoretically informed approaches to evaluation in the field, see Burke & Lumb (2018).