One aspect o f the response to diversity concerns the content o f universities’ strategies regarding w idening participation. Gibbs found that only 35% o f English HEIs ‘...m ade explicit reference to their w idening participation statements in their teaching and learning strategies’ (H EFCE, 2001, para. 57). Since this study further studies indicated that although progress has been made in a number o f areas there is room for additional changes in learning and teaching (Gorard et al., 2006).
Whether there is any need for specific measures for disabled students within these strategies is contested. W hilst A vram idis and Skidmore (2004) argued against this on the grounds o f inclusion Hall and H ealey (2004) maintained that simply devising general policies around teaching and learning and assessment for disabled students sometimes fails to m eet specific need. They argued that the heterogeneity o f the group means that no one solution will be appropriate for all disabled students. However they also identified some evidence o f resistance from lecturers creating barriers to learning, such as not allow ing the tape recording o f lectures.
It has been noted that any response to diversity in the student population will inevitably be influenced by the contextual aspects o f higher education. Thus Lyons (2006:333) rem arked that,
G overnm ent policy (e.g. QAA, RAE) has created a culture o f com pliance in some H EIs as identified by A shley (2000), and it has led to less interest in teaching as lecturing s ta ff become fru stra ted by rigid systems, which potentially inhibit attempts to engage students in learning. This is at a time when it could be argued that the opposite sh ould be happening, with systems becoming more flexible to meet the needs o f students fr o m non-traditional backgrounds.
Henkel (2000:214) has also com m ented on the challenge presented to academics by greater diversity o f the student population but, in parallel with those studies that noted non-traditional stu dents’ choice o f new universities, sees there being a differential impact across the university sector. She stated that
The range o f abilities, a n d even more the range o f age, expectations and m otivations h a d widened. N ot surprisingly the difficulties these presented were fe ll to be greater, and in some cases markedly greater, in the less prestigious institutions. Their cohorts contained more students who in a p revious generation w ould not have entered higher education.
Bauman (1997:19) previously noted this differentiation o f university provision in the UK and applauded the fact that differences mean they are ‘...n o t comparable, not measurable by the same y a rd s tic k ...’ However, differential understandings and cultures can operate not only betw een universities, but also between and within the departments o f a single university. For exam ple Smith and W ebster (1997:5) have pointed to a “m utual contestation o f know ledge” within universities arising out o f specialisation. Subject level differences com bined with a more diverse population produce a variety o f discourses and ‘m eaning-m aking’ within the university and what Scott (1997:47) has term ed ‘local know ledges’. Thus responses to non-traditional students could show significant variation within a single university. In this vein, H enkel’s (2000) discussion o f difference between many students’, largely instrumental, conceptions o f the purpose o f higher education and those o f their teacher identified differences in lecturers’ attitude relative to their disciplinary community. Econom ists in her study were the most positive about the perceived
instrum entalism o f students but they were in a minority with many lecturers being dism ayed by w hat was viewed as students making minimal effort to achieve limited goals. She also found a particular concern across science departments in new universities about the im plications o f changing student and m anagement attitudes for minim um standards.
Bow l’s (2003:140) study o f non-traditional students in higher education cited above, although focussed on the students’ perception did imply certain reactions to a diverse student population. She thus described some o f the perceived negative responses to diversity and how lecturers could \ . . foster isolation and individualism and reinforce the hierarchical nature o f education, through m ystification o f the teaching and assessment processes’. She also showed other ways in which lecturers had the power to convey to students their inadequacy, for exam ple by labelling them as problematic and abnormal. H owever Bow l also recognised the relative powerlessness o f lecturers to develop more em ancipatory styles o f teaching and the constraints on their time. Pressures to research and publish w ere seen as devaluing pedagogy within institutions and increased num bers w ithout an increased resource also prevented close working relations between lecturers and individual students. The promotion o f emancipatory and inclusionary practice is thus viewed as possibly being compromised by other requirements.
3. 5 Perceptions o f and attitudes toward non-traditional students
A limited num ber o f studies have focused explicitly upon lecturers’ perception o f non-traditional students, and the m ajority o f those that exist are accounts o f students’ experiences o f lecturers’ perceptions (Baker et al., 2006). These accounts indicated that assumptions are m ade by academic staff about particular student groups. As
already indicated B ow l’s (2003) study demonstrated the tendency for lecturers to ‘problem atise’ non-traditional students, and, based on the reports o f m ature students, W ilson (1997) indicated that lecturers may perceive mature students as a threat. In a study w hich did undertake interview s with teaching staff Clegg et al. (2003) talked about a ‘racialising discourse’ w hen discussing the motivational problem s o f first- year students
However, M acdonald and Stratta (2001), after finding that students themselves believed they w ere view ed as a problem , undertook a series o f semi-structured interviews with tutors in a higher education institution. They reported a consensus view, am ongst the tutors interview ed, that ‘non standard entry’ students (defined as all those entering over 21 years o f age) should not be categorised separately and that integration rather than difference should be the focus. A b elief in equality o f treatment for all students w as offered as an explanation o f this position. In addition tutors identified a lack o f institutional provision to enable them to address the needs o f particular groups. H ow ever, they did not identify any inclination to changing practice, as the authors stated,
Opening up access to H E was about allownng students entry and support in fittin g into the undergraduate situation; it did not require any radical change on the p a rt o f tutors or the institution to deal with the new situation (M acdonald and Stratta, 2001:253).
It thus appears that research in this area indicates that whether tutors’ are reluctant to identify any difference betw een students or they focus on students’ assumed problem s, it is likely that strategies em phasising adaptation and change in students are promoted w hilst leaving institutional practices untouched. As the staff in a study regarding student diversity in A ustralian higher education maintained ‘...initiatives to address non-com pletion should focus on helping students to change, rather than
changing course design, teaching or institutional practices’ (Taylor and Bedford, 2004: 390). These contentions will be explored further in the next section which looks at theorising diversity in higher education.