Bursaries are an integral component of WP strategies within UK Higher Education. Therefore, it is imperative that they succeed in accomplishing their goal; even more so at a time where UK students are increasingly struggling financially. While the (light) evidence suggests bursaries can help students from lower-income families ‘get on’ at university in the same way as their more affluent peers, there is a lack of research on how ‘place’ affects bursary effectiveness; this study aims to fill that gap. We compare student survey data and education and employment outcomes using two very different Russell Group universities as case studies to better understand how bursary delivery context affects the bursary’s effectiveness. While bursaries provided a substitute for earned income or family resources in both universities, our analysis also showed that bursary holders differed significantly from non-holders in only one of the two case study universities in other areas, such as perceptions of financial position and post-university outcomes. The findings show that bursaries work, albeit to different extents in different places, confirming a spatial element to bursary provision. The characteristics of the cohort overall may alter the way in which bursaries are perceived. Finally, we consider how the results are impacted by changing student finances since our surveys.
The Science with a Foundation Year (SFY) programme at the University of Nottingham (UoN) provides students, who don't have the correct direct entry requirements, with the opportunity to gain the equivalent skills and knowledge required for progression on to a variety of science degrees. This study investigates the academic outcomes of students enrolled in the SFY programme at the University of Nottingham, focusing on the influence of entry qualifications, ethnicity (identified as global majority or not), gender, and widening participation (WP) status. Drawing on institutional data from 2017‐2024, the analysis reveals that students with more applied, vocational qualifications (BTEC) ‐ particularly males from global majority (GM) and WP backgrounds ‐ exhibit lower pass and progression rates compared to their peers studying the more academic Level 3 qualifications (A-Levels). However, BTEC female students, especially those meeting WP criteria, demonstrate more favourable outcomes. The journal article critically examines these disparities through the lens of equity and access, questioning the adequacy of traditional sector success metrics, such as student achievement of 'good degrees' (i.e. 2.1 and above), and proposes value-added measures as a more inclusive alternative. Findings suggest that while BTEC students face initial challenges, those who do progress through the SFY achieve degree outcomes comparable to A-Level students, highlighting the transformative potential of foundation programmes.
This study investigates a reading support programme, offering key insights into the challenges of evaluating attainment-raising programmes within widening participation contexts in England. The research identifies three primary challenges: resource and infrastructure limitations, stakeholder engagement complexities, and data reliability, which present challenges to implementation and evaluation of such interventions. The findings highlight the limitations of rigid, standardised evaluation frameworks, arguing that these approaches often fail to capture the full impact of interventions targeting disadvantaged student populations. Instead, this study advocates for a phronetic approach that emphasises practitioner-based, context-sensitive knowledge. By integrating experiential insights from practitioners, the research presents an adaptive evaluation strategy that better reflects the realities of educational environments.
Access practitioners are central to widening participation and inclusion in Irish higher education, yet their work remains under-examined. This article presents findings from a national mixed-methods study comprising a survey ( n =121) and three World Cafés with practitioners ( n =54) across fourteen Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Access practitioners are primarily motivated by social justice commitments and lived experience, and describe a relational, agile practice that spans outreach, student support, advocacy and institutional change. Key challenges include short-term and inflexible funding, administrative burden, ‘role creep and limited formal recognition. Research participants report increasing complexity of student need and emotional labour with risks of burnout. Research participants articulate a future that embeds a whole-of-institution approach to access, sustained funding and supervision structures, and formal professional development and recognition including a professional body and accredited training. Clearer role definition, sector-level professionalisation debates and institutional governance mechanisms that move access from departmental responsibility to shared institutional practice are warranted.
