Abstract:
Decisions to undertake university education and to select a particular institution, as well as the student experience once enrolled, are not the same for all students. The perceived and actual risks and benefits of higher education are differentiated according to social class (Archer & Hutchings, 2000) race/ethnicity (Byfield, 2008), gender (Burke, 2009), sexuality (Abes, 2012), and disability (Jacklin, 2011). As well, the intersection of dimensions of difference produces complex multi-layered experiences and identities. The project reported here aimed to investigate how higher education institutions’ discursive practices summon students to take-up, modify or set aside classed, gendered, raced and sexualised identities. The first phase was a critical discourse analysis of university promotional materials, which will be the focus of this paper. The second phase involves interviews with first year students from two universities located in SA and NSW to investigate how identity categories are formed relationally and in reference to learning experiences at university and influence access to formal and informal support.The data for stage 1 comprised web-based materials produced for the audience of potential university entrants collected from the web-sites of ten universities. Texts were selected that: persuaded potential entrants to select the university; positioned the university within a marketplace of alternative options; offered information about student life; and articulated institutional values. The analysis found that universities relied on visual markers of ethnic and gender identity to communicate a message of inclusivity. Certain dimensions of difference, particularly age and disability, were little in evidence. A major way in which difference was erased was through the constitution of the aspirational future self as a universal goal. However, the differential risks and benefits, that research indicates are critical to the experience of diverse students, were not explicitly referred to, which serves to maintain the privilege of those whose risks are minimized through the possession of financial and social capital. Abes, E. S. (2012). Constructivist and intersectional interpretations of a lesbian college student’s multiple social identities. The Journal of Higher Education,, 83(2), 186-216.Archer, L., & Hutchings, M. (2000). 'Bettering Yourself'? Discourse of risk, cost and benefit in ethnically diverse, young working-class non-participants' constructions of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(4), 555-574.Byfield, C. (2008). The impact of religion on the educational achievement of Black boys: A UK and USA study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 189-199.Burke, P. J. (2009). Men accessing higher education: Theorizing continuity and change in relation to masculine subjectivities. Higher Education Policy, 22, 81-100.Jacklin, A. (2011). To be or not to be ‘a disabled student’ in higher education: the case of a postgraduate ‘non-declaring’ (disabled) student. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(2), 99-106.