The Diversity Paradox: Does student diversity enhance or challenge excellence?
Abstract
This paper seeks to explore an apparent paradox within higher education. The increasing
pressure towards widening participation in higher education, resulting in a more diverse student
body, can be seen as either an opportunity or a threat. On the one hand it provides new
opportunities for students to learn from and challenge one another, and potentially enriches
both the classroom experience and more widely the breadth of the knowledge base within the
higher educational institution. On the other hand it requires changes in the way in which higher
education is conceived of, developed and organised, and provides challenges to current
practices of learning and teaching. These changes and challenges can lead to fears about
lowering standards, and raises questions about whether diversifying the student body detracts
from ‘excellence’. This paradox is explored in two different ways, firstly by considering
evidence from the US and the UK answers are sought to the question, ‘under what
circumstances can it be demonstrated that diversity contributes to excellence in higher
education’, and secondly to consider broader perspective on the relationship between
‘diversity’ and ‘excellence’ in a higher education context.
Introduction
Both the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) agree at national policy level that
broadening the demographic of those accessing and succeeding in higher education (HE) is
desirable. In both countries the movements that have underpinned this policy have rested on
social justice grounds and have sought social change (see Whaley 2000). In the US, the civil
rights movement has provided a strong impetus for seeking to achieve justice (Rudenstein
2001; Atherton and Adibi 2008) whereas in the UK, concerns with class-related inequalities
have informed educational access movements for over 100 years (Hayton and Paczuska
2002; Titmus 1985).
More recent emphasis on the impact of the resultant diversity on institutions has gone hand in
hand with a desire, in the UK, to embed access and widening participation (WP) within the
mainstream of HE (Shaw et al 2007) or, in the US, to defend contentious policies such as
positive discrimination against their critics (Orfield 2001). These studies, though oriented
towards demonstrating a positive impact on the core work of the HE institution, have raised
the question as to whether student diversity benefits or detracts from the educational
experience of all students. This subject may be analysed through the lens of individual
institutional viability (Shaw et al 2007; Smith and Schonfeld 2000), particularly in the context
of a marketised and stratified HE sector (Reid 2008), or in terms of instrumental factors such
as how well the ‘output’ of HE meets societal needs (Hurtado 2001). However arguably the
greatest debate rages over whether increasing diversity promotes or stands in opposition to
commonly held notions of educational ‘excellence’. Within this concept is packed a whole
range of factors - the ability of an institution to achieve scholarly outputs and perform well
against metrics, a ‘high quality’ educational experience for students, and notions of
meritocracy which assume that intelligence per se (and, by extrapolation, the ability to
succeed in education) has little to do with social factors.
This debate has raised an apparent paradox. On the one hand there is some evidence,
particularly in the US, that diversity can and does positively contribute to excellence in HE.
Indeed some of this evidence, which is examined in more detail below, suggests that diversity
can bring desirable benefits which themselves may define excellence in the HE context. On
the other hand, there is evidence that diversity detracts from the educational experience and,
certainly in the UK, ‘student diversity’ and ‘educational excellence’ often appear to be polar
opposites (Reay et al 2005) and ‘difference’ is in this context presented as problematic. In the
UK, ‘WP students’ are said to be expensive to recruit (JM Consulting 2004) and educate
(UUK/SCOP 2002) and therefore a potential drain on resources. Furthermore, as Leathwood
and O’Connell have pointed out, there has been a kind of moral panic among the press and
certain politicians in the UK about lowering the standard of HE by admitting the masses who
are so palpably ‘other’ than the popularly held conception of the ‘normal’ student (Leathwood
and O’Connell 2003). In the US this debate has been taken through the courts via a number
of legal challenges at State level to the policy of positive discrimination (see Rudenstein
2001).
The remainder of this paper examines in some detail this paradox by drawing on literature
from both the US and the UK. It does this via two different routes, firstly by asking: what are
the conditions of possibility under which student diversity contributes to ‘excellence’? and
secondly by posing the question: what is the broader relationship between diversity and
excellence?
Scope of the paper, and some definitions
The first question posed in the introduction is addressed through a comparison of the
literature regarding the equitability of current patterns of access to and success in HE in the
UK and US. Within these two literatures, the emphasis on selection for the purposes of this
paper has been on studies that relate to the diversity of the actual student body (as opposed
to the potential student body or non-participants) and that addresses the perceived or
measured benefits and costs of this diversity, with a particular focus on learning and teaching.
Thus material on entry and aspiration to higher education alone is not included, nor is work
that addresses only the impact on the individual student of participation. In addressing the
second question, literature from other countries is also referenced where this is able to add
further insights of a broad nature to the main argument about diversity and excellence.
Definitions of diversity vary widely within the literature, making comparisons difficult at times.
Within the US literature, diversity has often been used as synonymous with ethnic/racial
diversity (Hu and Kuh 2003; Gurin et al 2002; Orfield 2001) though more recent work has
extended the definition to encompass wider aspects including ‘social identities related to race,
ethnicity, culture, home language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, and
disability’ (Higbee et al 2007, 4). There does seem to be continuity between these two
definitions with the works cited above sharing a common core of references and, where
relevant, broadly common approaches to pedagogic reform. This suggests that the
underlying pedagogic issues are common to a wide range of what may be termed ‘nontraditional’ learners, and that broad comparisons with work addressing other aspects of
diversity should be possible. Nonetheless in the analysis below it should be borne in mind that
some of the US studies do take race/ethnicity as their main focus and that caution should be
used in any more detailed a comparison than is attempted here.
Within the UK literature by contrast ‘student diversity’ is not a dominant term but rather such
debates are conducted with reference to ‘widening participation’. This term tends to denote
the efforts to increase the diversity of the student body in various aspects - social class being
a key aspect at the time of writing, subsuming other aspects such as ethnic origin and age.
Other terms are used on a local basis, ‘access’ being more common in Scotland as well as in
the US. ‘Widening participation’ and ‘widening access’ are not necessarily synonymous, as
‘access’ suggests a location of focus at the point of entry to HE, and has traditionally been
associated with mature students through Access courses (see Reay et al 2002) whereas
‘widening participation’ is intended to be a term that covers the entire student experience,
though in practice the two are often used interchangeably. In other words, although student
diversity is firmly on the agenda in the UK, it is usually discussed in terms of the method by
which it is to be achieved, rather than directly as an end in itself. Throughout this paper,
widening participation (WP) is used as the preferred term in relation to UK literature, policy
and practice as a broad, blanket term that assumes a goal of increasing the diversity of the
student body in various social and demographic aspects, though with an emphasis on social
class.
Finally within this section it should be acknowledged that to some extent diversity is a relative
term. Indeed staff at a highly ethnically diverse UK HEI commented to the author that more
white, middle class students would represent greater diversity for the institution! Much of the
discussion below rests on the assumption that those ‘other’ than young, white, able, middle
class, full-time students (those in ‘unmarked’ categories (Maher and Tetreault 2007)) still
remain at a disadvantage within the HE system even though the numbers of such students
may have increased. This is an assumption that needs to be acknowledged explicitly.
Suggested benefits of diversity
There is some evidence that a diverse student body is linked to certain benefits to the overall
academic experience of students. Rudenstein points out that as far back as 1964, Harvard’s
Admissions Committee stated that the ‘measure of a class [of students]’ consists largely in
‘how much its members are likely to learn from each other’ (Rudenstein 2001,33). Diversity
has been positively linked with improved educational and social outcomes in two respects.
Firstly it has been claimed that changes made to manage diversity positively within the
classroom carry intrinsic benefits (Higbee et al 2005; Warren 2002; Smith et al 1997) and
secondly that interaction with diverse peers per se provides a number of benefits to students
(Hu and Kuh 2003; Gurin et al 2002; Smith et al 2001; Hurtado 2001).
Turning first to the issue of curriculum development to support diversity, it has been asserted
in the UK policy literature that this has a potentially positive and ‘enriching’ impact on learning
and teaching (Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group 2004, 6; Gorard et al 2006,
115). Furthermore evidence is presented that the benefits of curriculum changes that have
had to be made in order to accommodate a more diverse group of HE learners are beneficial
to all learners (Powney 2002; Warren 2002; JM Consulting 2004). Diversity in this context is
given a broad definition including social class, ethnicity, age and disability. In the UK the
focus is largely upon how the existing curriculum has had to be ‘adapted’ in order to make it
more easily grasped (Parker et al, 2005) or the need to make implicit assumptions about
academic conventions and practices more explicit (Bowl 2003).
Other studies relate diversity and ‘difference’ more directly to curriculum change. Barnett and
Griffin and their various contributors look at change in the UK HE curriculum in relation to
broader global changes as well as, within a postmodern society, different ways and forms of
‘knowing’, which may be associated with particular social groups (Barnett and Griffin 1997).
In the US, Hurtado draws attention to the changes in curriculum and student support systems
that have resulted from the increased enrolment of female and minority ethnic students
(Hurtado 2001), and this theme is taken up more fully by Maher and Tetreault, though in
relation to (ethnically) diverse staff rather than students (Maher and Tetreault 2007). This
suggests that both student and staff diversity in HE have the potential to contribute to the
advancement of knowledge within an HE institutional framework and more broadly within the
‘institution’ of an academic discipline. However whether this advancement is viewed as an
opportunity or a threat - or indeed whether it is perceived as ‘advancement’ at all - will very
much depend on the power relationships both within and without these institutions.
Turning secondly to the more politically controversial claim that there is a direct link between
diversity and student outcomes, it is perhaps no coincidence that such studies are at pains to
demonstrate their positivist credentials with rigorous experimental design, careful controls and
sampling methodologies and an emphasis on quantitative approaches. One benefit claimed
by a number of studies is that exposure to a range of different cultures and world-views
correlates with the enhanced development of critical thinking skills (Gurin 1999; Pascarella et
al 2001, Hurtado 2001). Another study has found significant correlations with self-reported
gains in intellectual skills, general education and personal/social development correlated with
interaction with (ethnically) diverse peers (Hu and Kuh 2003), and Gurin et al (2002)
additionally found a positive correlation with self-rated aspirations for postgraduate education
as well as supporting the results already listed. It has also been claimed that diversity can
contribute to the development of academic self-concept, and that it promotes student
retention (Chang 2001). Notable limitations of these US-based studies is that they rely on
self-reported gains, and that correlation does not, of course, necessarily imply causation.
While these results have not (yet) been replicated in the UK, other benefits of diversity have
been suggested linked to the need for HE to prepare students adequately for the world of
work on which there is now an increased focus (DIUS 2008). It has previously been
suggested that an inclusive and diverse approach to HE may support specific organisations
and professions who subsequently need to address the diversity of their own workforce
(Jones and Thomas 2005; Langlands 2005). Furthermore, student diversity in terms of age
and social class has been directly linked by HE academic staff to the development of
‘professional identities’ among students training for a vocation (Shaw et al 2007).
Quantitative and qualitative evidence from the US appears to back this up, demonstrating that
a diverse HE experience prepares students for future employment (Barron et al 2007) and
that diversity can be linked to an increased proficiency in skills such as leadership and public
speaking (Hurtado 2001). Interestingly this provides some initial suggestion that a range of
‘diversity’ factors may be important since although the UK literature tends to focus on nonracial aspects of diversity such as social class and age, results from the US with regard to
preparation for employment are similar. Alternatively, one may speculate that ‘diversity’ is a
relative term and that these studies underline the importance of preparing students for the
world of work in which they are likely to find themselves, with all the diversity issues prevalent
in the national culture which necessarily differs between the UK and US.
In summary, a growing body of evidence can be assembled to demonstrate that diversity may
have positive impacts on student learning in a number of different ways. So why is diversity
still so closely linked with lowered standards and in some respects considered the antithesis
of academic excellence? Two possible answers to this question are set out below. The first
looks at ‘conditions of possibility’, since it is clear that these positive outcomes are not simply
derived from broadening the social mix of students within the existing system. The second
considers the question of academic ‘excellence’ more widely, briefly exploring some of the
other assumptions packed into this concept and why diversity may challenge these
assumptions.
Diversity as excellence: Conditions of possibility
A diverse student body has been characterised as both an asset and a problem, yet one
reason for this paradox is relatively easy to uncover. Ghere et al begin to articulate the main
issue when they state:
Enrolling a diverse student body will only result in widespread student failures if the
various social group identities are viewed negatively and the campus climate is
hostile. (Ghere et al 2007, 25)
Higbee et al (2007) make a similar point:
…diversity alone is not enough. In order to create multicultural environments in which
all students feel welcomed, we must also explore how our attitudes shape our
policies, curricula, pedagogy and student services (Higbee et al 2007, 4)
It is made clear in much of the literature that simply bringing in more students who are
‘different’ (structural diversity) does not result in the benefits that have been listed. It is a
necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. Hurtado et al have set out four aspects of the
‘campus climate’ that have a bearing on student success - the institution’s legacy of inclusion
or exclusion, structural diversity, psychological climate and behavioural climate (Hurtado et al
1998; 1999, cited in Milem 2001). Unless all these aspects are addressed, argues Milem,
difference may either become destructive or be suppressed rather than being used to create
intellectual challenge and conflict. The theme of psychological climate is touched upon in a
number of qualitative studies in the UK (for example Bowl 2003; West 1996; Thomas 2002a)
though in the sense of the negative lived experiences of ‘different students’ rather than a
model of change for HE, and it is very rarely (if ever) alluded to directly in WP policy literature.
However, as Higbee et al point out, it is unreasonable to expect students to succeed
academically if the environment does not even meet their basic needs for security and fair
treatment (Higbee et al 2007, 19). This, perhaps more than anything, highlights why issues of
‘campus climate’ need to be taken seriously.
Hu and Kuh have a slightly different take on the same issue, and have created a typology of
‘levels’ of diversity - structural (overall demographics); classroom (representation in the
curriculum); interactional (contact with diverse peers) (Hu and Kuh 2003). ‘Classroom
diversity’ may be seen as drawing on Banks’ dimensions of multicultural education (Banks
1994, 1997) which is integral to the MAP-IT model of multicultural HE developed by the
University of Michigan (Miksch et al 2003). Qualitative studies demonstrate that classroom
diversity built into the HE experience is valued by students as enriching to their educational
experience (for example Higbee et al 2007).
So one aspect of the paradox is revealed. Student diversity in and of itself may be positive or
negative depending on how it is managed. Simply increasing the numbers of ‘diverse’ or
‘non-traditional’ students in an institution without addressing the norms, practices and tacit
assumptions embedded within that institution has the potential to cause damage both to
individual students and to the institution as a whole. Arguably the potential for damage is
greatest where an institution most reflects the values of the dominant group in society or, to
paraphrase Bourdieu, where the educational institution serves to reproduce existing patterns
of privilege in society (Bourdieu and Passeron 1977). Evidence from the UK suggests that
some ‘non-traditional’ students actively avoid institutions that they identify with privilege, and
in doing so denigrate themselves (Reay et al 2001, 2005; Forsyth and Furlong 2003).
Conversely, structural diversity combined with a positive campus climate, a conscious use of
‘difference’ as a curriculum resource and structured opportunities for students to interact with
diverse peers both in and out of the formal learning environment would seem to bring positive
learning benefits for all students. Some of these benefits, such as improved critical thinking
skills, fly in the face of accusations of ‘dumbing down’ that have accompanied attempts to
widen and increase participation in HE.
Diversity and excellence
In the introduction I asserted that the concept of academic ‘excellence’ encompassed a range
of different beliefs and assumptions, which include:
1. ability of the institution to perform against metrics of quality
2. a ‘high quality’ educational experience for students
3. notions of meritocracy
Evidence relating to point 2 has already been summarised and this adds up to a case that
suggests diversity can indeed enhance the quality of the educational experience for students
in a number of different ways. However 1 and 3 are more problematic. Measures of HE
quality vary from country to country, and even within countries, nonetheless there are
commonly held assumptions among the general public about what constitutes a quality
university - Ivy League in the US and Russell Group in the UK - and these are often
associated in the public mind with privilege. Furthermore, specific metrics of quality within
‘League Tables’ which include research excellence and entry standards (The Times, 10
August 2007) tend to provide perverse incentives in relation to the recruitment and
management of a diverse student body. Maher and Tetreault quote Richard Lyman, former
president of Stanford, who says:
There has always been the tension between doing something for the most
disadvantaged and maintaining the standards of an institution that is highly
selective…You need higher education of a variety of kinds for a variety of people, and
for Stanford to try to act as if it were a community college would be a waste of
resources…Stanford remains an elite institution with all the attitudes you would
expect from that. (Maher and Tetreault 2007, 46)
Writing about the Israeli HE system, Ayalon and Yogev report that ‘diversity operates within
stratification, as institutions that absorb disadvantaged populations are usually less
prestigious’ (Ayalon and Yogev 2006, 201). They provide a summary of the same issue,
demonstrating that this is not a phenomenon confined to the two countries considered here.
The idea of ‘meritocracy’ is similarly challenged by diversity. Prior educational attainment is
the indicator most often used as a proxy of ‘intelligence’ in discerning who ‘merits’ entry to
elite HE. However as some commentators have pointed out (Gorard et al 2006; Thomas
2002b) this ignores the role of various social factors in determining educational attainment.
These factors, such as social class, ethnicity and disability, may indeed be considered fairly
strong determinants of educational choice-making and success (O’Brien 2005; Tinklin et al
2004; Ball et al 2002a, 2002b; Reay et al 2001; Bloomer and Hodkinson 2000; Archer and
Hutchings 2000). However notions of meritocracy still prevail not only in the prior
qualifications demanded by institutions but also within the extent to which institutions are
prepared to change in order to accommodate a more diverse student body. For example, it
has been found that some academics within ‘high ranking’ HE institutions in the UK felt that
adjustments made for students with a disability went against notions of meritocracy (Riddell et
al 2004). Adjustments, whether made for reasons of disability, in relation to racialised,
classed and gendered ‘ways of knowing’ or because of prior educational experience, may be
seen as concessions if it is assumed that existing practices and assumptions define
‘excellence’. Thus it has been proposed in the UK that initiatives to address student retention
should ‘focus on helping students to change, rather than changing course design or
institutional practices’ (Taylor and Bedford 2004:390)
However this concept of excellence may itself be challenged. Nunan et al identify two
interpretations of excellence in relation to HE, writing within an Australian context. One is
based on what privileged groups will pay for, and the other has inclusion is embedded as an
educational ideal. Under the first model, it is assumed that:
…diversity lowers quality and excellence because money is ‘wasted’ on ‘coping’ with
diversity. Consequently it is argued that those institutions that manage to deal with
diversity are inevitably forced to compromise quality to do so (Nunan et al 2000, 70)
This has clear links with issues of measures of quality and of meritocracy as detailed above.
Under the second model, by contrast:
Universities that promote inclusive education…understand that…[this] makes them,
and the society they serve, more economically and culturally productive because part
of their mission is to support the public good. They are better at what they do
because they are “learning institutions” and people use them because they treat
people well and are guided by social justice considerations. (Nunan et al 2000, 86)
There is some movement in the US towards the identification of excellence with diversity
(Maher and Tetreault, 2007) and this is supported by the evidence presented above.
However we are still a long way from this view being universally held in either the US or the
UK, or indeed elsewhere. A mitigating factor is that institutions that ‘treat people well’ tend to
be most valued (as evidenced by proportion of applications) by those who occupy less
privileged positions in society. On the other hand perceptions of institutions that are difficult
to access and succeed in are identified with prestige and excellence. Or, as two South
African commentators have put it, ‘A HE institution’s high reputation is often linked to minimal
“sales”’ (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka 2006:327), going on to state that institutional efforts to
make themselves appear more attractive tend to make them less attractive in the eyes of
potential students.
This discussion, therefore, provides another insight into the ‘Diversity Paradox’. On the one
hand, diversity may lead to much that defines excellence by any common standard, such as a
welcoming environment in which all are supported to succeed, a reflection of the social justice
aims of society and a willingness to embrace diverse forms of knowledge. Excellence may
also be claimed against certain academic measures, especially in relation to improved
learning outcomes for students. On the other hand, diversity challenges much that is
assumed within the current HE system, particularly in relation to prestige and privilege. This
is undoubtedly related to the past in which HE was more formally restricted to the privileged
few - middle- and upper-class white males - and the legacy of institutional structures,
behaviours, beliefs and assumptions which attended this. In our current - some would say
postmodern - age, however, in which issues of social cohesion are pressing and nation-states
are competing on the grounds of knowledge rather than labour or natural resources, such a
view appears anachronistic. HE is a part of, and a product of, society and, as do all our
institutions, it holds up a mirror to our deepest beliefs and values. Both in the US and the UK,
we may ask ourselves what our HE system really says about us; and give some thought as to
whether or not we are content with our reflection.
(4068 words)
References
Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group. 2004. Fair admissions to higher education:
recommendations for good practice. London: DfES.
Ainley, P. 2005. For free universities. Journal of Further and Higher Education 29, no. 3: 277285
Aragon, S.R. and B.W. Kose. 2007. Conceptual Framework of Cultural Capital Development:
A New Perspective for the Success of Diverse College Students. In Diversity and the
Postsecondary Experience, ed, J.L. Higbee, D.B. Lundell and I.M. Duranczyk, 103-128.
Minnesota: Centre for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy
Archer L. and M. Hutchings. 2000. ‘Bettering Yourself’? Discourses of risk, cost and benefit in
ethnically diverse, young working-class non-participants’ constructions of higher education.
British Journal of Sociology of Education 21, no.4: 555-574
Atherton G. and S. Adibi. 2008. The politics of access: comparing national widening access
strategies in the UK and USA. Paper presented at ‘Neither a Moment nor a Mind to Waste’
Conference, 6-8 April, Toronto, Canada.
Ayalon H. and A. Yogev. 2006. Stratification and diversity in the expanded system of higher
education in Israel. Higher Education Policy 19, no.2:187-203
Ball S.J., J. Davies, M. David and D. Reay. 2002a. ‘Classification’ and ‘Judgement’: social
class and the ‘cognitive structures’ of choice of Higher Education. British Journal of Sociology
of Education 23, no.1:51-72
Ball S J, D. Reay and M. David. 2002b. ‘Ethnic choosing’: minority ethnic students, social
class and higher education choice. Race, Ethnicity and Education 5:333-57
Banks J. 1994. Multiethnic education: theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Banks J. 1997. Transformative knowledge, curriculum report, and action. In Multicultural
education, transformative knowledge, and action: Historical and contemporary perspectives,
ed. J. Banks. New York: Teachers College Press.
Barnett R. and A. Griffin A (eds). 1997. The end of knowledge in higher education. London:
Cassell.
Barron R., J. Pieper, T. Lee, P. Nantharath, J.L. Higbee and J. Schultz (2007) Diversity and
the Postsecondary Experience: Students Give Voice to Their Perspectives. In Diversity and
the Postsecondary Experience, ed, J.L. Higbee, D.B. Lundell and I.M. Duranczyk, 37-48.
Minnesota: Centre for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.
Bloomer M. and P. Hodkinson P. 2000. Learning Careers: Continuity and change in young
people’s disposition to learning. British Educational Research Journal 26, no.5: 583-597
Bourdieu P. and J-C. Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture
London: Sage.
Bowl M. 2003. Non-traditional entrants to higher education: ‘They talk about people like me’.
Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Chang M. L. 2001. The Positive Educational Effects of Racial Diversity on Campus. In
Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. G. Orfield, 175-186.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing Group
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. 2008. Higher Education at Work - High
skills: high value. DIUS Website:
http://www.dius.gov.uk/consultations/documents/Higher_Education_at_Work.pdf (accessed
22 April 2008).
Forsyth A. and A. Furlong. 2003. Access to Higher Education and Disadvantaged Young
People. British Educational Research Journal 29, no.2:205-225
Ghere D. L., A. Kampsen, I.M. Duranczyk and L.L. Christensen. 2007. Adopting and
Integrating Multiculturalism: A Closing Assessment of General College In Diversity and the
Postsecondary Experience, ed, J.L. Higbee, D.B. Lundell and I.M. Duranczyk, 25-36.
Minnesota: Centre for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy
Gorard, S., E. Smith, H. May, L. Thomas, N. Adnett and K. Slack. 2006. Review of widening
participation research: addressing the barriers to participation in higher education. Bistol:
Higher Education Funding Council for England.
Gurin, P. 1999. New Research on the Benefits of Diversity in College and Beyond: An
Empirical Analysis. Diversity Digest 3, no.3
Gurin, P., E.L. Dey, S. Hurtado and G. Gurin. 2002. Diversity and Higher Education: Theory
and Impact on Educational Outcomes. Harvard Educational Review 72, no.3:330-366
Hayton A. and A. Paczuska, 2002. Access, Participation and Higher Education. London:
Taylor & Francis
Hemsley-Brown J. and I. Oplatka. 2006. Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A
systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of
Public Sector Management 19, no.4:316-338
Higbee J. L., K. Siaka and A.L. Bruch. 2007. Student Perceptions of Their Multicultural
Learning Environment: A Closer Look. In Diversity and the Postsecondary Experience, ed,
J.L. Higbee, D.B. Lundell and I.M. Duranczyk, 3-24. Minnesota: Centre for Research on
Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.
Higbee J., C. Chung and L. Hsu. 2005. Enhancing the inclusiveness of first year courses
through Universal Instructional Design. Best Practices of Access and Retention in Higher
Education, ed. I. Duranczyk, J. Higbee and D. Lundell, 13-26. Minnesota: Centre for
Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy.
Hu, S. and G.D. Kuh. 2003. Diversity Experiences and College Student Learning & Personal
Development. Journal of College Student Development 44, no.3:320-334
Hurtado, S. 2001 Linking Diversity and Educational Purpose: How Diversity Affects the
Classroom Environment and Student Development. In Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the
Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. G. Orfield, 187-204. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Publishing Group
JM Consulting. 2004. The costs of widening participation (a report to HEFCE). HEFCE
website.
www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2004/rd03_04/ (Accessed 18 April 2008)
Jones R. and L. Thomas. 2005. The 2003 UK Government Higher Education White Paper: a
critical assessment of the implications for the access and widening participation agenda.
Journal of Education Policy 20, no.5:615-630
Langlands, A. 2005. The Gateways to the Professions Report. London: DfES.
Leathwood, Carole and Paul O'Connell. 2003 ‘It's a struggle': the construction of the 'new
student' in higher education. Journal of Education Policy 18, no.6;597-615
Maher F. and M. Tetreault. 2007. Privilege and Diversity in the Academy. New York/London:
Routledge.
Miksch, K, J. Higbee, R. Jehangir, D. Lundell, P. Bruch, K. Siaka and M. Dotson. 2003.
Multicultural Awareness Project for Institutional Transformation (MAP-IT). Minnesota: Centre
for Research on Development Education and Urban Literacy
Milem, J.F. 2001. Increasing Diversity Benefits: How Campus Climate and Teaching Methods
Affect Student Outcomes. In Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative
Action, ed. G. Orfield, 233-250. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Educational Publishing Group
Nunan, T, G. Rigmor and H. McCausland. 2000. Inclusive education in universities: why it is
important and how it might be achieved. International Journal of Inclusive Education 4, no.1:
63-88
O’Brien, C. 2005. Indicators of Opportunity in HE. Washington:The Pell Institute.
Orfield, G. (ed) 2001. Diversity Challenged: Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action.
Cambridge, MA:Harvard Educational Publishing Group.
Parker, S., P. Naylor and P. Warmington. 2005. Widening participation in higher education:
what can we learn from the ideologies and practices of committed practitioners? Journal of
Access Policy and Practice 2, no. 2:140-160
Pascarella, E. T., B. Palmer, M. Moye and C.T. Pierson. 2001. Do diversity experiences
influence the development of critical thinking? Journal of College Student Development 42,
no.3:257-273
Powney, J. (ed) 2002. Successful student diversity. Case studies of practice in learning and
teaching and widening participation. Bristol: HEFCE (Publication no. 2002/48)
Reay, D., J. Davies, M. David and S.J. Ball. 2001. Choices of Degree or Degrees of Choice?
Class, ‘Race’ and the Higher Education Choice Process. Sociology 34, no.4:855-874
Reay, D., M.E. David and S.J. Ball. 2005. Degrees of Choice: social class, race and gender in
higher education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.
Reay, D., S. Ball and M. David. 2002. ‘It’s Taking Me a Long Time but I'll Get There in the
End': mature students on access courses and higher education choice. British Educational
Research Journal 28, no.1:5-19
Reid, I. 2008. Beyond social responsibility and good will - the business case for student
diversity. Paper presented at ‘Neither a Moment nor a Mind to Waste’ Conference, 6-8 April,
Toronto, Canada.
Riddell, S., T. Tinklin and A. Wilson. 2004. Disabled students and multiple policy innovations
in higher education, final report to the Economic and Social Research Council
www.ces.ed.ac.uk/PDF%20Files/Disability_Report.pdf (Accessed 18 April 2008)
Rudenstein, N. L. 2001. Student Diversity and Higher Learning. In Diversity Challenged:
Evidence on the Impact of Affirmative Action, ed. G. Orfield, 31-48. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Educational Publishing Group.
Shaw, J., K. Brain, K. Bridger, J. Foreman and I. Reid. 2007. Embedding Widening
Participation and Promoting Student Diversity: what can be learned from a business case
approach? York: Higher Education Academy.
Smith, D.G. and N.B. Schonfeld. 2000. The benefits of diversity: what the research tells us.
About Campus 5, no.5:16-23
Taylor, J.A. and T. Bedford. 2004. Staff perceptions of factors related to non-completion in
higher education. Studies in Higher Education 29, no.3:375-94
Tinklin, T., S. Riddell and A. Wilson. 2004. Policy and provision for disabled students in higher
education in Scotland and England: the current state of play. Studies in Higher Education 29,
no.5:637 - 657
Titmus, C. (ed) 1985). Widening the Field: Continuing education in higher education.
Guildford: SRHE & NFER-NELSON.
The Times (2007) How the tables work 10 August 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/good_university_guide/article22352
23.ece Accessed 18 April 2008
Thomas, L. 2002a. Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus.
Journal of Education Policy 17, no.4:423-442
Thomas, L. 2002b. Widening participation in post-compulsory education. London: Continuum.
Universities UK/Standing Conference of Principals. 2002. Student Services:
Effective approaches to retaining students in higher education.
West, L. 1996. Beyond fragments: adults, motivation and higher education, a biographical
analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.
Whaley, P. 2000. Missionary and other positions: the community, the university and widening
participation. In Stretching the Academy: the politics and practice of widening participation in
higher education, ed. J.Thompson. Leicester: NIACE.
Warren, D. 2002. Curriculum design in a Context of Widening Participation in Higher
Education. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 1, no.1:85-99