A question of motives

The drive to widen participation is valid only if it addresses social inequality, says Louise Archer.

Alison Wolf raises important questions for widening participation policies and practices ( THES , Features, May 24). Despite appeals to social justice, new Labour's commitment to widening participation is primarily economically motivated. Yet the validity of these motivations is questionable and tensions exist between social justice and economic rationales. Moreover, strategies for diversifying participation have proved relatively ineffective for increasing the proportions of students from manual-working backgrounds. A critical questioning of the widening participation agenda is required.

It is widely assumed that widening participation is a "good thing", evidenced by an abundance of projects and publications concerned with discovering "what works". Such approaches are clearly driven by the government's promotion of evidence-based practice. However, an uncritical focus on "what works" runs the risk of reproducing, rather than tackling, inequalities.

In striving to achieve the 50 per cent target, it is imperative that definitions of access and participation are questioned: namely, access to what? And for whom? There is no single higher education experience: institutions are hierarchically differentiated, and expansion has been uneven, with post-1992 universities predominantly catering for "non-traditional" entrants. Even within institutions, experiences vary - working-class students experience greater financial hardship and undertake more term-time employment.

Not all degrees carry an equal value in the labour market and students from non-traditional backgrounds are far more likely to be on less prestigious degree courses. Indications suggest that achievement of the 50 per cent target will involve substantial expansion at sub-degree level.

The assumptions underpinning widening participation also require interrogation. Who counts as "normal"? Is expansion aiming to create a diversified system or is it aiming to assimilate non-traditional students into an unchanged system?

Many policy discourses are also founded on an unquestioned assumption that participation is an obvious and desirable goal for all. Our research at the University of North London, conducted with non-participants, would suggest that many working-class people do not share this view. Respondents cited a range of rational reasons to explain why participation would be too risky, costly and impractical. Yet many policies address non-participation by the working classes as due to a lack of aspiration and knowledge, rather than challenging the inequalities that circumscribe different life-chances. There is little incentive to study if outcomes are not equal - such as potential earnings. An expanding system also generates a wider gap between those with and those without qualifications, creating further social problems.

It is thus vital to engage critically with the widening participation agenda. Social justice concerns must be privileged above economic motivations, but this will entail rethinking many common-sense assumptions. Many institutions pursue widening participation as part of marketing agendas for institutional survival, rather than as a democratising and equality-oriented mission. The current hierarchy of institutions also protects the privileges of elite universities.

University participation is not yet as good an investment for working-class students as it is for middle-class ones. The system remains elitist and divided. The risks and costs of participation must be equalised and inequalities must be targeted and challenged throughout the education system. Not least, open challenges must be brought against the pervasive classism, demonstrated by Richard Brown's outrageous reference to the "unwashed" ( THES , News, May 17), that sustains these inequalities.

The ideology of widening participation does provide a crucially important challenge to elitism in higher education, but it must be approached critically to maximise its potential.

Louise Archer is senior research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Education, University of North London.

* Alison Wolf questions the wisdom of widening participation targets. Join the debate on: www.thes.co.uk/commonroom