Research in your own institution
We discussed reasons for an against researching in your own institution. My initial thought, pre-class, was that it could be extremely positive to research within UAL – the opportunity to influence policy and practice is a fantastic motivator, I would feel like I was able to achieve tangible change. Motivators of this nature are necessary when conducting any longitudinal piece of research, you need something to keep the fire burning… My initial apprehension was about how challenging it might be to ensure anonymity of contributors, and recognising the limits imposed by my own bias.
The conversations in-session gave me food for thought, particularly in considering the duality of role you have as a member of an academic staff in an institution vs. your behaviour as a researcher in an institution. I want to pursue the MA in Academic Practice, and eventually endeavour to undertake a PhD in academic development. I had always assumed I would research my own institution – I would have the advantage of knowing who to engage, how the ‘system’ worked. However, I’ve worked at UAL since 2014, and this session encouraged me to reflect on all the tacit knowledge I would bring to my work, the unconscious bias, and – inevitably – concern over how any criticism would be digested by my employer. It is a long way off for me, but this session has been useful in helping me reevaluate my future plans for study.
More immediately, this session has encouraged me to reflect on how I approach my teaching – perhaps I presume tacit knowledge of the institution when I engage with students? This is a particular useful reflection as we slowly migrate out of the global pandemic – it is no longer realistic to assume that year 3 undergraduate students are familiar with the facilities, the spaces, the resources available to support them – they have broadly been at home for two years. Following this, I have begun to top and tail my workshops with a refresher on what resources are available to support them in their time at UAL.
Data Stories and Epistemic Donuts
Reflections on the UAL data dashboard
When I worked at CSM, I worked in Quality, so these dashboards are nothing new to me. I find them easy to navigate and interpret, but I’m acutely aware that they are broadly exclusive.
I decide to look at the Student Profile: Characteristics of the School I teach within. What strikes me first is how misleading these data sets are. As a First Generation student myself, I’m always keen to see how students from this background are represented. I find that 44% don’t declare whether they are First Generation or not. Why? My initial response (prompted by a well-developed chip on my shoulder) is that students who aren’t first generation don’t want to disclose – I sometimes imagine there might be a ‘privilege’ chip on some students shoulders that is similarly detrimental to their experience of belonging. Do they think that, by disclosing, they might be seen as getting here not on their own merit, but on the coat-tails of their family? Or is it that First Generation students still feel shame, perhaps imposter syndrome. ‘Why are you asking me?’ was my anxious response during my UG interview almost 15 years ago. It turned out they were asking me because they had some First Generation Access Scholarships to dole out, and I was to be the lucky recipient for my programme. Unfortunately the support started and ended there.
The chip on my shoulder spied a second provocation. The majority of students are from SEC 1-3. 45.4%, but with 25.6% failing to disclose. Perhaps surprisingly, I don’t think further and higher education is for everyone. My sister-in-law is currently applying to HE study, and it’s palpably clear it isn’t the best route for her. Neither of my parents, nor my step dad, nor anyone in my family went to university. My cousins who stopped at general education all earn far more money than me (not that it’s a measure of satisfaction…but I do begrudge it, slightly) and I have 6+ years of additional education on top of them. However, I’m still saddened to see that the majority of our students are from more financially privileged families. Taking the above reflections into consideration, I’m not sure if this response is a projection of that aforementioned chip (I was from a single parent lower-SEC household). Perhaps it’s because, again, these data sets only tell half of the story. Why do we have less SEC 4-7 students? Do they apply and not get in? Not apply at all? Why? There’s room for a lot of interpretation, and it’s incredibly unsatisfying.
Finally, I review the Disability data. Equally frustrating.
83.1% without a declared disability – all HEIs know that disabled students encounter barriers to disclosing – so I’m again doubtful that this is an accurate representation of our population. I’m enjoying the addition of disability breakdown into: MH; SpLD; sensory, medical or physical impairments; multiple impairments; and social or communication impairment. I have had conversations with colleagues who express ableist views, perhaps subconsciously or not. I’m an active bystander but it’s not always a safe space to call this out when I observe it. Especially as a disabled student and educator myself. However, my interpretation of these opinions is that there is a hangover of presuming all students with ‘invisible’ disabilities have SpLDs or MH conditions, and these aren’t seen to be as ‘valid’ as physical impairments. This needs to be tackled on its own, but I think it would also be organisationally beneficial if this data was communicated more broadly and – *with dark irony* – be more accessible to those with specific access needs. We have students with sensory impairments, physical impairments, communication and social impairments, but if they are ‘invisible’, they are often treated as such by the organisation.
I dive into KPIs, and filter by my programmes. I immediately spy that First Generation outperformed students who weren’t First Generation last reporting cycle. *Fist bump* – something is working. And then I see SEC 4-7 outperformed SEC 1-3! I’m brought down to earth by the lower -7% attainment trend in students with SpLDs and -3% with other disabilities. The trend is worsening over the years for these students. Again, at this stage, I’m struck by how I’m having half the story hidden from me. Where is the pipeline? Do we know if they could access support? If not, why?
Very unfulfilling. I look forward to having dialogues with peers to explore how their engagement with the platform left them feeling.