How do universities recognise student volunteering? A symbolic interactionist perspective on the recognition of student engagement in higher education

ABSTRACT

Student volunteering in the higher education context has been studied vastly over the last years. Kahu provided three valuable perspectives on student engagement including the behavioural, the psychological, and the sociocultural perspective on why and how students engage. This study adds a recognition perspective to student engagement, which has so far remained an under-researched topic. In this study, we apply a recognition-sensitive social theory and symbolic interactionist perspective on the topic of student engagement. Empirically, we explore the perspectives of engaged students and lecturers at the largest Austrian university, using semi-structured interviews with N = 18 participants in two fields of practice: student unions and peer mentoring. In the findings, the study identified six categories of student engagement recognition: (1) general expectations relating to recognition, (2) recognition through formal validation in the curriculum, (3) recognition through valorisation using awards, certificates, and confirmations, (4) recognition through bonus points, (5) recognition through institutional support, and (6) the process of recognition. The findings give a differentiated insight into an important and unsolved policy issue in higher education using interview data to show how student volunteering can be recognised in higher education. We conclude the article with recommendations for higher education policy and future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Student engagement
• social recognition
• formal recognition
• student volunteering
• civic education

Introduction to student volunteering

There is a vast body of evidence about the effects of student engagement on learning, retention, and study success (Kahu 2013; Kahu and Nelson 2018). However, the concept of student engagement is broad, context-specific, and has different traditions in different countries (Bryson 2014). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and its subsequent publications have had a tremendous impact on research in this field. The NSSE categorises the broad concept of student engagement as academic challenge, active and collaborate learning, experiences with faculty, campus environment, or high-impact practices, such as student volunteering, service learning, internships, or placements abroad (Bryson 2014).

This study concentrates on student volunteering in higher education as one form of student engagement, which can take different forms with students engaging with a wide variety of audiences and activities (Franz, Childers, and Sanderlin 2012). Student volunteering means being of service to others in either the academic community or to citizens outside the university in curricular or extracurricular activities (McIlrath and Tansey 2013). It is embedded in the institutional structure of the university and allows participation for a civic purpose. In contrast to other forms of engagement in other life stages, student volunteering ends when membership of the higher education institution ceases upon completion of studies. Healey, Flint, and Harrington (2014) studied how students can partake in educational change and differentiate between four types of engagement: students as evaluators of their higher education experience, as participants in decision-making processes, as partners or co-creators, and as agents of change. While the first two emphasise student voice, the latter two focus on student engagement.

Engaging in student unions or peer-mentoring activities are frequent forms of engagement within higher education (Ribaric, Nimac, and Nad 2013). In student unions, students can bring about educational change, while as peer mentors they are partners and co-creators in learning processes (Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014). Several studies indicate positive effects between student engagement and academic success in terms of graduation, grades and continuing one’s studies as well as academic and professional identity formation (Zhang, Wenhua, and McNamara 2015; Jensen and Jetten 2018). This also applies to peer mentoring in particular (Sambell and Graham 2014). Student engagement enhances social and cultural capital of engaged students (Print and Coleman 2003) and raises awareness for diverse social problems (Mooney and Edwards 2001). The concept of student engagement covers behavioural (effort, participation, positive implementation), cognitive (learning objectives, self-regulation, investment in learning) and social-emotional components (interest, identification and belonging, positive attitudes towards learning) (Kuh 2003).

While students are responsible for their own learning processes, higher education institutions should stimulate opportunities for engagement. Student volunteering – while initially appearing uncontroversial (Holdsworth and Quinn 2010, 2012) – is, however, not free of criticism. Not all students can ‘afford’ student volunteering, as working students with caring responsibilities or those who do not live close to the university cannot be engaged at all times (Clegg, Stevenson, and Willott 2010). Viewing student engagement through an equity lens, in particular for specific student groups such as parenting students or first-generation students, has been viewed as helpful in the past (Quaye, Harper, and Pendakur 2020). There is a certain risk with the concept of student engagement to place all pressure on individual students, rather than institutional responsibility, as Trowler critically states (2015, 305): ‘Students who are not engaged have failed to engage'. This bears the risk of institutions not providing resources, structures, or changes in curricula for engagement. Other criticism involves policy reforms in higher education requiring universities to assume social responsibility (Resch et al. 2020; Schober et al. 2016) and to report their efforts in this area as a means of accreditation, budget and impact justification (Sandmann, Williams, and Abrams 2009).

Kahu (2013) provided three valuable perspectives on student engagement: the behavioural, the psychological, and the sociocultural, emphasising the broader institutional context of engagement. The behavioural perspective focuses on student engagement behaviour and teaching practice, while the psychological perspective views engagement as an internal socio-emotional development process. The sociocultural perspective considers the influence of the sociocultural and institutional context on engagement. This study extends Kahu’s conceptual framework and adds the recognition perspective to this field of research.

Student engagement has been studied extensively in recent years (Holdsworth 2010; Drezner 2010; Holdsworth and Quinn 2012), however, recognition of student engagement has not been widely researched so far. It remains open how forms of recognition are reproduced in social interactions and how they are given meaning by both students and lecturers. Recognition can be viewed from two perspectives: on the one hand as a formal act of credit transfer for (extra)curricular activities and on the other hand as a personally and socially gratifying experience of participation in services for others. If student volunteering is to be viewed as part of the academic culture, it needs both forms of recognition. This assumption gives rise to the question of how higher education institutions formally and informally recognise their students’ engagement. Consequently, it needs to be questioned which value a recognition perspective can add to the field of student engagement extending Kahu’s conceptual framework (2013). We thereby acknowledge that recognition might be critically viewed as being on a different level of differentiation compared to the behavioural, the psychological, and the sociocultural perspective Kahu (2013) offers. In this study, we nevertheless intend to embed student engagement into a recognition-sensitive social theory by applying an interactionist approach to student engagement in relation to recognition.

Student engagement recognition through a symbolic interactionist lens

We draw on symbolic interactionism (Mead 1934, 1938; Blumer 1969) and its interpretation by Honneth in his theory of recognition (1995) as we outline core concepts of student engagement in relation to recognition. Student volunteering offers opportunities to practise other roles outside the traditional ‘student’ role that, when internalised through repeated social interaction, contribute to students’ self-identity (Mead 1934). Honneth (1995) argues that people earn respect from their fellow peers for the distinctive contributions they make to society that enables them to develop positive identities. This refers to ‘the systematic assertion that the experience of recognition corresponds to a mode of practical relation-to-self, in which one can be sure of the social value of one’s identity’ (Honneth 1995, 79). Hence, the driving force of volunteering in higher education can be understood as an act of solidarity, which aims at gaining social esteem and in turn allows students to relate positively to their self-concept.

As we know little about student engagement in relation to recognition in higher education, the skills gained from student volunteering tend to remain invisible (Ribaric, Nimac, and Nad 2013). Student engagement is based on three pillars (Stachowski and Frey 2005; Watkins, Hayes, and Sarubbi 2015). First, students engage in social interactions and social roles with members of the wider community or peer students and receive insights into diverse realities of life (Reality). Second, personal development and learning is based on a continuous reflection of the experiences made (Reflection). Third, student volunteering needs to be acknowledged and recognised (Recognition). The act of recognising and being recognised by others is considered essential to constituting the self. This act of recognising the ‘other’ serves to unite both ‘self’ and ‘other’ in a single overarching collective identity (Wendt 2003). Honneth develops his notion of (self-)esteem based on the idea that ‘subjects reciprocally recognise each other with regard to their status as morally responsible’ (Honneth 1995, 110). Reciprocal esteem replaces the recognition of social status based on vertically stratified roles and social hierarchy (Honneth 1995, 123). Social roles play an important part in all forms of student engagement, thus the collective ‘We’ is a result of mutual recognition between students, peers, and their lecturers (Wendt 2003, 564). Interactions in student volunteering, as for example in peer-mentoring activities, among students and faculty involve behavioural expectations in the form of social roles. Certain role expectations are connected to their roles as ‘engaged students’, ascribed to their position as ‘engaged students’, for example, following hierarchical rules of communication. Role taking is an important process through which routines of recognition arise and recur (Mead 1934).

A study by Franz and colleagues (2012) clearly shows the need for recognition in relation to student engagement as study participants reported that volunteering fails to count as much as it should. Following a symbolic interactionist approach under a recognition theory perspective, this means there is a blank space ascribed to student volunteering when it comes to appreciating its inherent value. Mead's symbolic interactionism (1934) rests on the assumption that people act on the basis of meaning, that meaning arises out of social interaction, and that meaning can be modified through social interaction. In the study by Franz and colleagues (2012), student volunteering was highly valued both personally and professionally yet there was a lack of shared meaning of how to recognise the volunteering as such. In symbolic interactionism, repetitive joint action is at the core of such processes of sharing meanings (Blumer 1969). When a gesture has the same meaning for both, then the gesture becomes a ‘significant symbol’ (Mead 1934, 46).

We consider recognition of student volunteering as formal validation when offering credits. This is repeated action of giving meaning to a form of action performed by students in curricular activities. When this is not possible, valorisation can take place through rewards, prices, awards, certificates, annual receptions for engaged students (Sandmann, Williams, and Abrams 2009) or when recognising student engagement in the diploma supplement. According to Blumer’s second premise (1969), meanings are derived from social interaction. Certificates proving involvement in student engagement only have meaning when students and lecturers give them meaning through interaction. As a consequence of this interaction, the certificate can point to formal recognition. The object, the certificate, is a written representation of student volunteering, just like a desk is a material representation of a workplace. The certificate can then become a symbol for employability, just like a dove symbolises peace, if these jointly established meanings are internalised and sustained through interaction in the academic community. At the core of such routines is repetitive joint action (Blumer 1969), as for example valorisation in repeated award ceremonies for student volunteering, in which certificates are handed over. Additional forms of recognition could be bonus systems in which students can earn points for student engagement, and which could have an impact on access to fellowships or study grants. Furthermore, institutional support measures support the recognition process, such as faculties offering resources, training sessions or rooms for the engagement of students – what Cooley calls ‘material conditions’ (Cooley 1902). Thus, symbolic interactionism constitutes the process through which meaning is created, shared, maintained, and can be changed after all. Seen from a recognition-theoretic perspective the shared meanings merge into a common value-horizon, which serves as an ‘overarching system of esteem’ (Honneth 1995, 126). It is this value-horizon, which provides a basis for the recognition of student engagement and reaches even beyond the validation and valorisation strategies mentioned above.

Undertaking the research endeavour at hand is important for several reasons. Research has highlighted many conceptualisations, motives and forms of student engagement, yet from our review of the literature, we have not come across research studies examining student engagement through the theoretical lens of symbolic interactionism and Honneth’s social recognition theory, while at the same time focusing on recognition strategies in relation to student engagement. Based on Mead’s theory of the self (1934), lecturers and peers can be understood as ‘significant others’ for students, when it comes to acknowledging their engagement in the academic community. In this sense, students consider them as relevant actors in a shared praxis based on common values (Honneth 1995, 126). For this reason, unveiling perspectives of both students and lecturers enables us to outline basic concepts and empirical insights into student volunteering. This could be an important step towards an advanced conceptual understanding of student engagement, contributing to the field by extending Kahu’s (2013) behavioural, psychological, and sociocultural perspectives with the perspective of recognition. Thus, the main research questions are: Which forms of recognition do students and lecturers perceive in their daily work? How do different formal and informal forms of recognition obtain collective meaning for both students and lecturers in two fields of practice (student unions and mentoring programmes)?

Empirical study

The research team used qualitative semi-structured interviews with both students and lecturers in order to answer the research questions. Since student engagement is often criticised as being a concept which is too broad (Ashwin and McVitty 2015), referring to too many different activities, this study deliberately limits student engagement to volunteering in student unions / associations or engaging in peer-mentoring activities for other students as two frequent forms of engagement in higher education (Ribaric, Nimac, and Nad 2013).

Student engagement in local student unions (field of practice 1) offers students multiple opportunities to participate – they can act as organisers, counsellors for other students or as student representatives on university boards. This applies to all student unions in Austria. Student engagement on different boards may involve getting to know lecturers or other faculty members on a more personal level. It is generally possible to receive credits for this form of engagement, depending on the specific curriculum and the study programme director’s decision. Activities in the student union can incorporate political work (lobbying, advocacy, student union elections, etc.). However, this form of engagement does not follow a specific path or structure but is subject to individual negotiation.

Mentoring programmes are also common fields for student engagement (field of practice 2), e.g. peer mentoring or mentoring for academic writing. In contrast to volunteering in student unions, this form of engagement follows a specific structure whereby students have to complete a training programme in order to become a volunteer mentor. They may then volunteer to be mentors in their respective faculties once a week. The faculty peer-mentoring sessions follow a structured sequence and students can attend guidance counselling. It is possible to receive credits for this form of student engagement in the form of an elective module. Additionally, students receive a certificate confirming their acquired skills in academic writing and mentoring. This form of student engagement ends after one to three semesters, in contrast to volunteering in a student union, which has no defined end. This form of engagement is available in most Austrian universities, depending on the specific conditions on faculty level, however, it is a common form of engagement for Austrian students seeking to support other students.

Procedures

We recruited participants for our study by means of desk and website research searching for lecturers involved in the two fields of practice mentioned above or who hold a responsible or a coordinating position at faculty level at the largest Austrian university. An information letter with key information about the study was sent to potential participants via email. Participants were then asked to register for an interview via email or telephone. Students were recruited using convenience sampling (Schreier 2018) via the two fields of practice mentioned above. The interviews were conducted in the period from October to December 2019 on campus and the average duration was 37 min. All interviews were audio-taped and fully transcribed in German and then translated into English. All study participants signed an informed consent form. As the study was conducted as part of the European Student Engagement Project (STEP), the study was approved in the context of applying for project funding.

Study participants

In total, nine students and nine lecturers took part in the study (n = 18 interviews in total). Of the nine students, six were engaged in the student union and three in the peer-mentoring programme. All three students in the peer-mentoring programme had completed the training and had already gained experience as mentors. Of the nine members of faculty, five lecturers mainly taught applied coursework, while four also had an additional coordinating function (e.g. study programme director). Ten participants were female (three lecturers, six students) and eight were male (five lecturers, three students). Six students were under 30 years old and three students were over 30 years old. Their study progress was between the fifth and eleventh semester. Four of the nine lecturers hold a professorship, three a doctorate with a research position and three were graduates working as lecturers. Students and lecturers came from different faculties of the University of Vienna, Austria, which hosts over 20 faculties and about 90,000 students.

Methods

This study applied a qualitative multi-perspective approach to student engagement in relation to recognition from both the perspectives of students and lecturers from different faculties. The semi-structured interview guides (one for lecturers, one for students) contained 14 open-ended questions following a three-fold structure based on the three R’s subject areas (Stachowski and Frey 2005; Watkins, Hayes, and Sarubbi 2015): the Reality of Student Engagement (e.g. As a lecturer, how do you promote student engagement at your faculty? As an engaged student, how and why did you get involved?), the Reflection of student engagement (e.g. Which skills do you think can be derived from student engagement in a student union/the mentoring programme?), and the Recognition of student engagement (How does your university recognise student engagement?).

Data analysis

The interviews are analysed using qualitative content analysis and Maxqda data analysis software. About 538 codes were deduced from the interview transcripts, resulting in six main categories of student engagement recognition: (1) general expectations relating to recognition, (2) recognition through formal validation in the curriculum, (3) recognition through valorisation using awards, certificates, and confirmations, (4) recognition through bonus points, (5) recognition through institutional support, and (6) the process of recognition. Codes for general motives and perspectives about student engagement (Reality) were not taken into account for this paper since the focus lies solely on the recognition experience of students (ST) and lecturers (L).

Findings

General expectations relating to student engagement recognition

An openness on the part of lecturers regarding students’ concerns is generally considered to be conducive to student engagement (L1, L4, ST3). From the students’ perspective, social appreciation of their commitment is of prime importance. Expressions of a grateful attitude in relation to their work, e.g. in words of recognition, give meaning to their action. This opinion is shared by students who report that they are happy when someone notices their commitment (ST2) or when they hear words of recognition (ST1, ST6, ST7).

Students involved in the practice field of the local student union explain that their recognition needs are not always met: Some lecturers find it positive that students are engaged, while for others it is ‘a thorn in their side’ (ST4). In the field of practice of mentoring some lecturers are not aware that such student engagement exists, and as a consequence, they do not attach meaning to it, while others appreciate it very much and thus, deduce action from this shared meaning, by e.g. recommending it to others.

Local student unions as a field of practice are legally required by the Austrian Student Union Act (HSG 2014), but students do not always perceive the cooperation with other hierarchical stakeholders in this field as a partnership (ST4). However, engaged students attach meaning to networking. Establishing contacts is considered more important than a formal recognition of the activity (L7). This is different in mentoring where collaboration is experienced in a more cooperative way. In this field of practice, friendships and ‘small family-like groups’ have developed between mentors and mentees in the course of their training, and there is considerable mutual recognition of their commitment (L6, ST7). For example, students mention their mentors in their final papers, thus attaching meaning to the activity and reflecting its value in a formal way (ST3).

Recognition through formal validation

The respondents speak of different forms of formal validation, saying that commitment should be ‘rewarded’, ‘acknowledged’ or ‘recognised’ (L2, L5). Commitment is thereby conceptualised as a reward or recompense by lecturers (L5, L6), representative of the principle that financial compensation for commitment excludes any other form of formal recognition: ‘As a basic rule … either money or ECTS because otherwise it is a bit unfair’ (L5). A double recognition is described as being impossible (L8). In principle, it is possible to fill a quota of credits by pursuing personal interests within the university curriculum. For example, one lecturer (L8) reports that 20 ECTS points are kept free for additions to the master curriculum, five of which may be non-subject related, i.e. students may have activities such as voluntary work or non-subject related courses formally recognised for their studies. This curricular leeway is central to the recognition of student engagement but has decreased since introduction of the Bologna reform (L3). ‘This is an inevitable consequence of the Bologna reform process, which is simply aimed at (…) educational output’ (ST5). The Bachelor's degree in chemistry, for example, requires the acquisition of 180 ECTS points, which are predetermined – this leaves no scope for the recognition of student engagement (ST2).

Formal acknowledgment of student engagement varies in the two examined practice fields. In the field of practice in a student union, recognition of such activity is formally possible up to maximally of 15 ECTS points. In the field of practice of mentoring, students can receive ECTS points twice (L1, L6) but must attend an accompanying course (L5). In practice, it may occur that students work as mentors for more than 6–7 semesters, but that this is only recognised twice. Students evaluate the formal acknowledgment by ECTS points partly as important, partly as unimportant. Some students (ST6, ST8) feel student engagement to be an important learning process, which earns ECTS points, while for example another student (ST7) represents a contrary perspective. ‘I do not actually connect it at all with the course of studies’ (ST7). In both fields of practice, formal recognition by means of ECTS points is limited to a maximum of 15 ECTS points. It is only the recognition of the activity that is discussed and not the recognition of the skills acquired in the process. ‘No, competences are not validated by the university’ (ST4).

The formal acknowledgment of student volunteering is accompanied by the concern among lecturers that study achievements are being replaced without simultaneous acquisition of specialised knowledge, for example by ‘sitting’ on panels or boards (L1). Here, the lecturers’ expectations of student behaviour in terms of study performance are at stake. A further concern is that false incentive systems will be established and intrinsically motivated students will ‘go unrecognised’ (L5). Institutional recognition would mean that one system would apply to all, whether or not they are exceptionally engaged. ‘Which means that the people in these (…) programmes (…) just stand somewhere to collect their points, but actually don't like doing it or don't do it well, they just do it’ (L5).

Recognition through valorisation using awards, certificates, and confirmations

There is a tendency among both lecturers and students to attach shared meaning to student volunteering through valorisation in the form of confirmations and certificates. Certificates are awarded within the framework of mentoring programmes, for example. In comparison to awards and prizes, the award of certificates is seen as a better representation of shared meaning for student engagement, particularly in the context of the curriculum. Lecturers also refer to requests from students for letters of recommendation as ‘symbolic’ objects of recognition (L1, L5, L6). In this context, an increased demand among students is perceived. ‘We provide them with participation certificates that show what they have learned and how much practice they have had. This is extremely popular when people apply for jobs. Because then they already have proof of practical experience’ (L9).

Students who are involved in the mentoring programme feel a joint collective identity and accept a formal valorisation of their commitment through the award of a training certificate, which is collectively shared as a meaningful object of recognition for their later professional activities (ST7). A graduation celebration held at the end of the academic year and involving all graduates from the programme was also reported as demonstrating an appreciation of their commitment in the wider academic community. Students who were involved in the field of practice of a student union experienced this differently. They did not refer to any form of shared collective identity or recognition in the form of valorisation.

The awarding of prizes and awards is the subject of controversial discussion among lecturers. While some see them as a way of creating an incentive for students (L2, L6, L8), others express reservations about them (L3, L4). The task of having to compare and evaluate different forms of engagement is seen as problematic ‘And that could then relatively quickly lead to such prizes and awards being subject to the Matthew effect (…) because then institutions that already have academic recognition will be awarded another jewel in their crown. But someone who organizes something on their own initiative where it may be urgently necessary (…) goes unrecognized’ (L3). In this context there is also the fear of creating competition between students and different forms of engagement (L4).

Students often experience the awarding of prizes and awards as a form of recognition as being hard to reconcile with their engagement: ‘I would find it difficult if you thought I was getting an award now just because somehow I’m involved in university politics’ (ST6). Responses given by students from the student union and from the mentoring programme are very similar on this point.

Recognition through bonus points

The use of reward systems can be understood as a ‘substitute’ (remuneration) for engagement or as an ‘addition’ (bonus) to study achievements, for example as an additional qualification for certain scholarships (L0) or as additional points for the application for a study-abroad placement (L1). Bonus points are understood as symbols of entry to accessing relevant next steps in a study programme, support services, or job placements. The attitudes of students and lecturers towards reward systems in the form of replacement by scholarships or substitution of study-related achievements are shown to concur, thus, they hold shared meanings of what bonus points represent.

Both groups of respondents report that remuneration systems for student union activities are already legally established. For example, students who are involved in a first semester tutoring programme can apply for an extension of their family allowance as financial support (HSG 2014, 1) – the family allowance being a means of financial support to students, which is then granted for a longer time. Other options include exemption from tuition fees and the extension of the tolerance semester. Typically, students in Austria are granted one tolerance semester, which can in the case of student engagement be extended to more than one. This reduction in terms of financial burden and time pressure is appreciated by student representatives. On the one hand, students perceive the demand on the part of the university to be as versatile and active as possible, and on the other hand, they are simultaneously faced with the pressure to complete their studies as quickly as possible, which can, however, make it difficult to familiarise themselves with the work of the student union and to ensure that they remain consistent.

Lecturers examine the use of bonus points for study achievements from the perspective of a lack of comparability of engagement. Such a situation also makes it difficult to assess their performance (L5, L6, L7). Compared to the assessment and evaluation of student commitment, one lecturer is critical: ‘The problem is always, how do I measure this and how do I correlate it with other achievements’ (L7).

Recognition through institutional support

Universities support student engagement by making rooms available, by showing goodwill in exam periods or with regard to attendance in class and by enabling participation in training courses.

At the university, rooms are described as a ‘delicate good’ that is only available to students on a subordinated basis (L1). Students are often allocated rooms ‘that are left over’ (L1), since there is no specific contingent of rooms for students. Some faculties have made arrangements for students to book rooms that are not needed. ‘We live here at the university, we get involved here at the university, we help shape the university here, and this also necessitates this available space and this recognition through availability of space’ (L4). According to the Student Union Act (HSG 2014, §14 (1)), rooms and office equipment are to be made available to support student engagement in the field of practice of local student unions. This is not regulated by law for other fields of student engagement. Students involved in mentoring often need rooms for study groups or tutorials (L5). Both groups emphasise the scarcity of this resource (L5, L9, ST3, ST4). In the field of practice of mentoring it is reported that certain activities are becoming increasingly popular, e.g. writing marathons, for which rooms are regularly required (L9). This presents the university with considerable organisational problems.

A lecturer of educational science (L2) is of the opinion that engaged students need to find a balance between engagement and studying. If there are time conflicts, they must decide for themselves which area takes priority for them. Support would then be provided based on individual case decisions, but this would not be applicable on a general level (L5). ‘If a student in the 6th semester comes to us and says that I am now sitting on 3 appointment committees and could I have another 2 weeks to complete the seminar paper, then that would certainly not be a problem, yes’ (L5). In the opinion of this lecturer, the completion of the bachelor thesis would be a good opportunity for the provision of an accommodating solution, with deadlines in such cases being extended for committed students. The students report that committee work, as part of volunteering in a student union, is for example a reason to excuse an absence (ST2, ST3, ST4). Here lecturers would show more consideration for engaged students. From the perspective of the students, it would be desirable if an additional tolerance semester could be agreed upon for certain activities (ST4).

The motivation of students to participate in further education and continuing education courses that do not count towards their studies is considered rather low (L1). In the field of practice of mentoring, additional training is offered in the form of workshops for students (L9). These additional training courses would also be important steps in the professionalisation of students as mentors. This training is to be regarded as ‘payment’ for the voluntary work performed by the students: ‘They do not get paid, but they receive training’ (L9). This training is viewed as the material representation of the social interaction in the training, and thus becomes a valid symbol for employability. In the field of practice of mentoring additional supervision is provided for students (ST7, ST8, ST9).

Process of recognition

Lecturers in the study question who is responsible for the process of recognition (L0) as this can be perceived as both an ‘administrative’ (e.g. issuing a confirmation) and ‘didactic’ task (e.g. evaluating learning success). Social interaction about student engagement is still segregated interaction, preventing the development of a shared collective identity of all those engaged within the academic community.

With regard to the recognition of a particular type of engagement, the majority of lecturers referred to the curriculum as being the basis for determining what can and cannot be formally recognised (‘I can’t recognize it because the curriculum does not provide for it’, L5). The curriculum gives meaning to the activities within it – it is the binding ‘currency’ in the academic world. The possibility of transferring the engagement into a subject matter is considered the most important criterion. The process of formal recognition can be understood on the one hand as a translation of the engagement into disciplinary and university-legitimate content and activities, and on the other hand as a transfer into curricular credits. In order to facilitate this transfer process, sufficient ‘documentation of the scope, duration and content of the activity’ (L3) is considered necessary as an intermediate step in order to demonstrate the relevance of the engagement to the respective discipline, but also to justify the award of credits.

Mentoring programmes or Law Clinics were cited in the interviews as curriculum-based forms of student engagement (L7, L9). The assessment, evaluation and comparability of the quality of engagement is considered difficult (L4, L7, L9). In the context of ECTS-based recognition, it is discussed whether a particular type of engagement can be assessed with a grade or with a simple ‘participated/not participated’ (L4). ‘And who evaluates this and how? That is really very difficult. You could take a test during the course, that is no problem. But for a counselling activity it is incredibly difficult. And that's why we said, no, we won't do that, but instead assess it as participated with success’ (L7). Writing and documentation such as exercises, reflections, recorded final projects or academic papers, on the other hand, are introduced as an academically legitimate means of linking and documenting engagement in terms of curricular content and thus establishing formal recognition.

In cases where there is no provision for formal recognition of student engagement in the curriculum (‘Our curriculum does not explicitly provide for this’, L5), ‘creative’ solutions are pointed out on case-by-case basis, for example, by combining participation in professorial and appointment committees with a written paper and thus allowing credits to be awarded. This in turn facilitates the transfer of engagement in curricular and academically grounded learning.

Discussion

This study focused on student engagement in relation to recognition applying a symbolic interactionist and recognition-theoretic lens, thereby contributing to the field by extending Kahu’s (2013) behavioural, psychological, and sociocultural perspective on student engagement by a recognition perspective. The recognition of student engagement is highly relevant from two perspectives since, firstly, universities are confronted with an increasing demand to present their impact on communities in terms of their Third Sector activities (Resch et al. 2020), which implies offering opportunities for student volunteering that are both institutionalised and credit-bearing (formal recognition). Secondly, universities in democratic societies should be a place, where student engagement is encouraged as an involvement in shared values, an expression of solidarity and as a personally and socially gratifying experience (informal recognition). Recognition as a process of maintaining and intensifying social interactions can lead to a more engaged society (Honneth 2003). This makes considerations about various forms of student engagement in relation to recognition a highly prioritised matter for higher education.

Recognition is a complex prerequisite and foundation for any pedagogical behaviour and refers to questions of power, social belonging, inclusion and identity formation (Balzer and Ricken 2010). The act of being recognised by others is considered essential to constituting the ‘self’ (Mead 1934). This act of recognising each other in student volunteering serves to unite both students and lecturers in a single overarching collective identity and system of shared values, both contributing to socially responsible academia (Wendt 2003). The recognition needs of an individual student within a social group or programme are fully congruent with the ongoing recognition needs of the larger group of students in that programme to which that individuals belongs (Wendt 2003). Thus, a shared sense of identity emerges from the process of recognition and recognition serves the purpose to reunite social groups rather than dividing them. ‘When a teacher recognises her students, she recognises that while her role is certainly different from that of her students, both she and her students are nonetheless part of the same academic community’ (Greenhill 2008, 352).

Jensen and Jetten (2018) state three forms of interpersonal recognition based on Honneth (1995; 2003): respect based on equal rights, solidarity based on mutual esteem and empathy based on love. While empathy refers to family and friends, respect and solidarity are widely experienced in a working and learning environment, such as the university, and are a central element of students’ identity formation in their interactions with staff. The findings of the study suggest that students assess the recognition of student engagement slightly more negatively than lecturers. Lecturers see their responsibility in parts of student engagement recognition, but mostly in the responsibility of peer students in the same field of practice. Previous studies underline mutual responsibility (Trowler 2015). Students should attach meaning to social interactions on an interpersonal level. In the study, students expressed the need for interpersonal recognition to validate their identity at university. Verbal recognition is a valid response to this need in the form of social interaction because ‘words count’ in this matter of recognition (Franz, Childers, and Sanderlin 2012, 36). Recognition without social interaction is not possible. Our study confirms the importance of respect for student engagement in this sense. The need for recognition is met by various acts of recognition or the refusal of recognition in social interactions between students and lecturers or among peer students (Jonasson 2012).

The findings of the present study show a great demand for extending the recognition of student engagement in various faculty-based forms. Validation through the curriculum, including awarding credits for engagement, is the form of recognition perceived by lecturers as the safest, system-inherent and most convenient form of recognition. They are familiar with its structure and logic and it is connected to their inherent work of teaching. Valorisation measures such as certificates, confirmations, diploma supplements or awards are favoured by lecturers and students because of the shared symbolic meaning of such documents for employability reasons, and the individual, adaptive usage of them, however, only when they are certified for the ‘right’ reasons.

While lecturers in our study report that student engagement strongly depends on formal validation or valorisation, students in our study do not report this in the same way. Students emphasised the voluntary aspect of their engagement and insisted that formal validation or valorisation were not their primary motivators. As a consequence, besides formal recognition possibilities, the second option to be discussed in the future are forms of informal recognition using more sophisticated support structures at the faculty level. Lecturers are concerned that students might benefit from student engagement recognition for the wrong reasons. This is in line with previous studies that recognition should not distract students from their studies or potential benefits of student engagement (Clegg, Stevenson, and Willott 2010).

Sandmann, Williams, and Abrams (2009) also suggest focusing on valorisation measures, such as creating incentives and rewards to encourage the interest of faculty members in student engagement. Most students and lecturers in our study were not familiar with bonification measures and the level of institutional support varied between the explored fields of practice. Training sessions, guidance counselling and rooms were provided more regularly for students involved in the field of mentoring than for students in the field of student union volunteering. The challenge of recognition – based on the perception of social reality and its reflection – could be conceptualised as creating a split moral between more informal forms of recognition and objective formal forms of recognition (Boltanski and Honneth 2009, 83). The desire for recognition could cause students and lecturers to challenge existing systems of order in a way that, if successful, gives rise to new forms of recognition that more adequately fulfil their recognition needs (Honneth 1995, 17).

When leaving the micro-sociological perspective behind, we also take into account macro-sociological structures which are relevant for student engagement in relation to recognition, as we do not fully understand the complex interplay between personal and institutional influences on student engagement yet (Kahu and Nelson 2018). In recent years, the Bologna curricula reform has often been criticised with regard to its effects on higher education (Wihlborg 2019) and has influenced the possibilities of student engagement recognition as it seems to have left only a marginal space for formal validation of student engagement. This is especially relevant for curricula in social sciences as they focus on social, civic or community-related content and can only to a limited extent offer students practical opportunities for engagement. However, the Bologna architecture promotes the concept of employability and practicability of curricula. Restructuring curricula and identifying gaps, for example by implementing an elective module in which activities of student engagement find their place, is one option for the future. Further integration of the service learning approach in curricula would also offer opportunities for students to engage in the community (Clayton, Bringle, and Hatcher 2013).

The study faces the limitation of a small sample size and includes only two fields of practice in student volunteering, nevertheless, the two fields of practice are ‘typical’ fields of student volunteering in Austrian higher education. The study is an institutional case study from only one university in Austria, therefore, there may have been a risk of anonymity not being guaranteed. However, the university is the largest in Austria and many students engage in the fields of practice studied at hand. Through anonymous data analysis and reporting, it is impossible to track participants with the information given, referring only to students (ST) and lecturers (L) in the two fields of practice.

Conclusion

Based on our empirical findings, guidelines for student engagement recognition can be recommended, especially as the topic is left to institutional decision makers and is mostly unregulated by national law. Nevertheless, more studies on the perceptions of lecturers and students are needed in future research which are theory-driven rather than data-driven.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

Raw data were generated at the University of Vienna. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [KR] on request.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the [Erasmus+ Programme, Strategic Partnerships] under grant no. 2018-1-FR01-KA203-047985.

Notes on contributors

Katharina Resch

Katharina Resch is post-doctoral researcher at the University of Vienna, Center for Teacher Education and Faculty of Educational Science. Katharina holds a PhD in Sociology and focuses primarily in her research on higher education research and service learning. She is a member of the EERA Higher Education Research Network and has initiated several European projects dealing with student engagement.

Mariella Knapp

Mariella Knapp is pre-doctoral researcher at the University of Vienna, Center for Teacher Education and Faculty of Educational Science. Her research focuses on service learning and student engagement projects.

Ilse Schrittesser

Ilse Schrittesser is Professor of School Research and Teacher Education at the University of Vienna and has been Director of the Teacher Education study programme since 2016. From 2008 to 2010, she was Associate Head of the Teacher Education Division at the Austrian Association for Educational Research and Development. Ilse is also the editor of the Austrian-German-Swiss Journal of Teacher Education and the author of several publications on school research.