Search results

Presents the results of an interview survey carried out in an out‐of‐town store, compares these with the impact of the store as predicted by the Lakschmanan‐Harsen real potential model. Suggests that the model is an effective way of assessing the impact of out‐of‐town stores.

The architects of institutional policy are rarely those tasked with operationalising it. This can create gaps between what is set out in policy and what happens on the ground. This is an under-researched area and one this chapter will shed a light on. This chapter examines the role that widening participation (WP) practitioners play in operationalising policy. Focusing upon the implementational level of the policy enactment staircase, it examines the roles of individuals working at the coalface in enacting WP policy. Drawing upon research conducted by the author in 2016–2017 with higher education providers (HEPs) in England (Rainford, 2019), it supplements this with data from a sector-wide survey conducted by the editors of this book in 2021. In drawing together these two data sets, it offers a rich picture of who works in WP within HEPs in England. It examines the multitude of roles undertaken by these practitioners and how this varies across the sector both in HEPs and collaborative Uni Connect partnerships. This chapter also highlights how practitioners can shift the focus of how policy is operationalised. In doing so, it examines some of the challenges faced by practitioners and the extent to which they are given the tools to carry out this essential work. While this chapter argues that practitioners have a level of agency in the work they do, this can be constrained by both national and institutional policies. It argues that these constraints are often shaped by competing imperatives of both social justice and economic drivers.

Widening participation (WP) has increasingly become part of the normal ‘business’ of English higher education (HE) providers during the last 25 years. WP entered the policy mainstream for the entire HE sector following the Dearing Review (NCIHE, 1997) and the election of a new Labour government wedded to notions of social justice but also concerned with ‘lifelong learning’ in the name of human capital growth. This book employs a dual usage of the term ‘business’ in relation to WP policy, practice and culture in the context of the marketised English HE system. The first, figurative, usage explores the ways in which WP has been drawn into institutional positionality as HE providers are encouraged to differentiate themselves in the market. The second, literal, usage explores the ways in which the business of WP has become ‘business as normal’ for the sector and institutions, increasingly intertwined with other activities and which play out variously, often in response to regulatory demands of the state. This introductory chapter first contextualises these developments with a brief overview of the evolution of the HE sector in England before proposing a multilevel model – the HE policy enactment staircase – as a way of thinking about how policy is made, enacted and implemented within the sector. This chapter then draws upon this model to acts as a structure for this book. It does this by moving from a macro-level exploration of ideological levels of policymaking, through National/Sectoral level right down to the issues at an institutional and operational levels. In doing so, this chapter creates a framework from which to understand how the various elements and levels of the business of WP play out within the English HE sector.

The English sector is characterised by an expanding and increasingly differentiated set of higher education providers (HEPs) and an ever-more diverse student body. As a consequence, HEPs are as differentiated in their widening participation (WP) approaches as they are in every other aspect of the business of HE, and this has led to tensions between why and how they should go about the business of WP. Are HEPs driven by the desire to enhance social justice or merely responding to regulatory pressure? This chapter discusses how changing market regulatory regimes have interreacted with, and often conflicted with, institutional missions as they try to respond to the dual policy imperatives discussed in earlier chapters: the economic, human capital expansionary dynamic and the desire to enhance social justice through access to the HE system.

The final chapter of this volume brings together the key debates from this book and situates them within an ever-developing policy landscape. It argues that the themes this volume raises around the two competing uses of ‘business’, both figurative and literal, continue to drive developments in widening participation (WP). It draws together threads around the figurative usage of business to consider the ways in which the ideology of marketisation has impacted the sector to date and continues to shape policies in this area. Considering the more literal ways in which WP has become the ‘business’ of the sector, this chapter draws together threads from across the second part of this book, which examined how higher education providers (HEPs), further education colleges, new providers and third sector WP organisations all enact WP as part of their ‘business as usual’. This chapter concludes with a summary of changes to the market structure introduced since the Higher Education Research Act (HERA, 2017), such as the levelling up White Paper (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 2022), the Department for Education (DfE, 2022a) higher education policy statement and Office for Students (OfS) regulatory consultations (OfS, 2022b), and questions whether these represent minor tweaks to a recently embedded policy environment or indeed render much of the 2017 settlement redundant. Whether these are considered as continuity or change, in the final analysis, they suggest that there remain tensions among those responsible for the executive/ideological policy direction, with corresponding knock-on effects elsewhere on the enactment staircase. What remains clear, however, is that the contradictions inherent in the dual imperative – the human capital needs of the country juxtaposed against a desire for a more socially just society – remain unresolved while a ‘level playing field’ market order is layered over such a steep institutional hierarchy.

Alongside universities, there are an increasing number of ‘third sector’ organisations actively involved in shaping widening participation (WP). In partnering with universities, employers and collaborative programmes like Uni Connect, they are responsible for delivering on institutional and national policy objectives around WP, as well as accountable to their own organisational missions. Despite being part of established practice in WP, with their activities praised by policymakers, their roles and practices are rarely considered in assessments of WP activity. In comparison with universities, they can experience different expectations, challenges and opportunities and can also have separate agendas driven by their missions and organisational sustainability. This chapter explores how these organisations have emerged, the roles that they have created for themselves and how they have attempted to sustain or develop these. It traces how these organisations have emerged as key players in national and institutional policy and draws on interviews with third sector leaders and practitioners to understand how WP is understood and done outside higher education providers (HEPs).

This chapter explores the contribution of The Open University (OU) Library to influencing curriculum decisions about embedding digital and information literacies in an online environment. Recommendations can be applied to higher education (HE) institutions as they develop permanent e-learning strategies to prepare for a long-term solution to online learning experiences. Learning providers are creating strategies for online content creation, student engagement, and skills development. It is an opportunity to demonstrate their value by making an effective transition to online learning, streamlining services to create student-centered experiences.

It investigates existing e-pedagogical approaches developed pre- and during the COVID-19 pandemic to embedding digital literacies in practice, drawing on the OU’s experience of developing effective frameworks for online teaching programs. The aim is to review institutional preparedness for effective transition, so that staff members and students can adapt to post-COVID realities. This draws upon student-centered, holistic design of programs to embed accessible and inclusive processes in distance learning, utilizing technological solutions to create optimal teaching and learning environments.

It will also make recommendations about how embedding digital literacies within the curriculum will equip graduates for post-education experiences within working and social contexts, by building activities into module that develop digital capabilities. For effective learning experiences to take place, institutions require development of born-digital support material to develop staff confidence and ability to produce effective, accessible online learning objects. As more organizations move to online, hybrid, and flipped learning interventions, high-level university strategy can future-proof learning design by developing the support that staff need to provide the best experiences for their learners.

The pressure on higher education providers (HEPs) and national programme partnerships to evaluate the impact of widening participation (WP) interventions has intensified as a result of wider changes in higher education (HE) policy and regulation, including the imposition of market forces. This chapter describes how policy stakeholder assumptions about how evaluation works and the outcomes it delivers have evolved over the last two decades. It shows how regulatory emphasis has shifted from a focus on monitoring and tracking, through to a call for return-on-investment analysis, before falling back on a pragmatic theory-informed approach. This chapter goes on to locate WP evaluation in the middle of a paradigm war, caught between proponents of a medicalised trial-based conception of evaluation methodology, and a practitioner-led position, which points to the complex contextual character of WP activities. It continues by exploring some of the many practical challenges faced by WP evaluators and argues that these have contributed to the sector’s perceived failure to deliver robust evidence of the impact of fair access activity. This chapter concludes with a look at the expanding market for WP evaluation products and services, which emerged in response to new flows of WP investment created by the 2012 increase in tuition fees.