Another area of interest for WP is retention (or conversely attrition) and success (i.e. completion with a good class degree). In this section I argue that the
literature investigation into retention and success of BME students has moved away from student deficit models and started paying more attention to
institutional factors creating disadvantage.
The increased focus on the issues faced by WP students while at university has been especially strong in recent years with the concentration of the policy
making bodies (like HEFCE and OFFA until recently, now taken over by the Office for Students) driving the agenda (BIS, 2014; OfS, 2018b). While investigating retention, researchers looked at such factors as institutional habitus and the idea of fitting in (Bhatti, 2011; Callender and Jackson, 2008; Chowdry et al., 2009; Furlong, 2005; Reay et al., 2001; Reay and Crozier, 2010), the influence of curriculum, which reflects the diversity of the student body (Holgate, 2015; Jessop and Williams, 2009; Smith, 2002), students’ expectations and pre-course information, advice and guidance meeting the reality (Bennett and Kane, 2010; Quinn et al., 2005; Roberts, 2011; Schofield and Dismore, 2010; Thomas, 2011) and student finance (Harrison and Baxter, 2007; Hatt et al., 2005; OFFA, 2015). A major influence on retention efforts has been a report “What works?” (Thomas, 2012) which, based on an extensive literature review and case studies from seven projects across the country, concluded that developing a student’s sense of belonging with the institution was the best way to improve retention.
Retention has been investigated in general for a long time with models ranging from emphasis on the student to emphasis on institutional factors (Bean and Metzner, 1985; Tinto, 1975). However, relatively little attention has been paid to explaining BME retention in particular. It is well known that BME students, and in particular Black students, have had higher attrition rates than their White counterparts. From 1996/97 all the way until the latest figures of 2018 Black
students have consistently had the lowest retention rates (Advance HE, 2018c; ECU, 2017; HEFCE, 2010), with the worst drop-out rates being in London (SMF, 2017). However, there is a need for further investigations into the
reasons behind the higher attrition rates among BME students, as this may lead to lower rates of them progressing to postgraduate education, where in turn retention issues may be replicated. However, data on retention in PG education is not currently widely available. For example, while HEFCE produced reports on the state of PG education (see: HEFCE, 2012b, 2013c) including rates of retention and completion, these neither broke down the data by ethnicity nor were regular, annual reports.
From the limited research it is known that there is a statistically significant positive correlation between the proportion of Black students at an institution and their drop-out rate (SMF, 2017), i.e. the more Black students at an institution, the more likely they are to drop out, which could partly account for the higher London BME drop out effect, with the region having the highest proportion of Black learners (16%). While this research does not presuppose causality between a number of Black students and their retention rates, I argue that it may problematise the assumptions of building the feeling of belonging as an answer to retention issues, which were argued for in the “What works?” (Thomas, 2012) report. The relatively limited literature on the specific BME retention gap has argued that a complex matrix of factors can be responsible for the attrition, including but not limited to: non-inclusive curricula, lack of rapport with academic staff, lack of friendships with students of similar
ethnicities, student satisfaction or living off campus and other financial factors (SMF, 2017; Stevenson, 2012). However, a quick analysis of these can exclude some of the above factors. For example, a HEFCE (2013b) report looked at retention differentials adjusted for age, subject and entry qualifications and found that these could not explain the gap among different ethnic groups. There is also a big difference between satisfaction levels (as measured by the
National Student Survey) of Black or Black British African students versus Black or Black British Caribbean students, with the latter being significantly less
satisfied with their course (HEFCE, 2018) but hardly any difference in the attrition rates between the two groups (ECU, 2017). Ability (or lack thereof) to form friendships with people who “look like me” also does not easily explain
increased attrition, as higher rates of BME students drop out in more diverse universities where these student would have higher chances of meeting other students from similar backgrounds (SMF, 2017). Additionally, finance has been shown to be a weak predictor of attrition, particularly in London (Nursaw
Associates, 2015; SMF, 2017), suggesting that issues of retention are complex and demand further investigations.
As stated earlier, successful completion is commonly understood as achieving a good class of degree, i.e. first or 2.1. degree classification. The debates here have concentrated on the so-called racialised degree awarding gap, which, arguably, has become the most visible and researched topic concerning the intersections of ‘race’ and WP scholarship. The racialised degree awarding gap can be understood as the difference between rates/likelihood of attaining a good degree along ethnicty lines. Currently this gap stands at around 14
percentage points between White and BME students in UG education in favour of the former (Advance HE, 2018c).
Again, the explanations for this phenomenon have approached the issue from two standpoints. On the one hand, reasons entrenched in the deficit models pointed to the differences between White and BME students based on the type of qualifications (e.g. A-levels vs BTECs), subjects studied, attendance and time spent outside of classroom, including on paid work, or socio-economic
background (Connor et al., 2004; Lipsedge et al., 2015; NUS, 2011; Stevenson, 2012; Stuart et al., 2011). However, research showed that when accounting for the entry qualifications, choice of subject, social class, and attainment, (among others), this could not entirely close (or explain) the gap (Broecke and Hamed, 2008; HEFCE, 2015a; Ling, 2015), suggesting there were other factors at play with researchers pointing to institutional racism affecting BME students (McDuff et al., 2018; Pilkington, 2013). This is to say that the way HEIs operate
disadvantages BME students. In particular, researchers looked at the influence of the lack of inclusive cultures on campus (Singh, 2009; Stevenson, 2012), non-inclusive curricula and pedagogy (Au, 2008; Haigh, 2002; Holgate, 2015; Jessop and Williams, 2009; Smeding et al., 2013; Smith, 2002), creating false expectations of diversity and recognition (Stevenson, 2012), and the negative role of stereotype threat, understood as students’ anxiety and
underperformance caused by educators’ perceived or actual expectations of the students’ inferiority, stemming from negative societal stereotypes (Beasley and Fischer, 2012; Berry and Loke, 2011; Cousin and Cuerton, 2012; Leathwood et al., 2011; Youdell, 2003), Therefore, researchers suggested a holistic,
institutional-culture change approach which concentrated on fixing the
institution rather than the student in order to close the ‘stubborn’ attainment gap (McDuff et al., 2018).