Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education

Diverse Perspectives and Expectations in Partnership

Simon Lygo-Baker, Ian M. Kinchin, Naomi E. Winstone, Simon Lygo-Baker, Ian M. Kinchin, Naomi E. Winstone

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9783030208233
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030208240
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Theory & Practice

This book examines the importance of exploring the varied and diverse perspectives of student experiences. In both academic institutions and everyday discourse, the notion of the 'student voice' is an ever-present reminder of the importance placed upon the student experience in Higher Education: particularly in a context where the financial burden of undertaking a university education continues to grow. The editors and contributors explore how notions of the 'student voice' as a single, monolithic entity may in fact obscure divergence in the experiences of students. Placing so much emphasis on the 'student voice' may lead educators and policy makers to miss important messages communicated – or consciously uncommunicated – through student actions. This book also explores ways of working in partnership with students to develop their own experiences. It is sure to be of interest and value to scholars of the student experience and its inherent diversity.

© The Author(s) 2019

Simon Lygo-Baker, Ian M. Kinchin and Naomi E. Winstone (eds.)Engaging Student Voices in Higher Education https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20824-0_1

Begin Abstract

1. The Single Voice Fallacy

Simon Lygo-Baker¹ , Ian M. Kinchin¹ and Naomi E. Winstone¹

(1)

Department of Higher Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK

Simon Lygo-Baker (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

Ian M. Kinchin

Email: [email protected]

Naomi E. Winstone

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

When considering issues of power and control in any social system, the concept of ‘voice’ often comes to the fore. Within the higher education sector, this concept brings with it a wealth of underpinning ideas, such that consideration of a ‘voice’ represents more than ‘noises made’ or ‘utterances spoken’. The notion of voice is bound up with ideas such as identity (who am I to have a voice?), agency (how can I use my voice?), and responsibility (how should I use my voice?). Cook-Sather (2006) argues that the concept of voice ‘signals having a legitimate perspective and opinion, being present and taking part’ (p. 362). In addition, the ideas that have increasingly become aligned with the idea of voice have tended towards an implication of ‘pro-active voices’ rather than passive or re-active voices. In a hierarchical system that is not used to engaging with a diversity of proactive voices, there is likely to be competition to be heard. As a consequence, there might be a number of ‘lost voices’, where the loss may be felt by individuals who feel marginalised, but also where loss represents missed opportunities for organisational learning. To avoid drowning in a sea of voices, universities may have developed selective hearing—where certain voices are allowed to become dominant over others, and the voice of the ‘ruling stratum’ becomes the accepted voice (Hobden & Wyn Jones, 2017, p. 138). This seems to run contrary to the widely espoused goals of diversity and inclusion. This book aims to throw light onto these issues so that diverse (and possibly contradictory) voices can engage in the discourses that will shape higher education in the coming years.

In this chapter, we frame our broad conceptual framework and introduce some key themes that will be developed throughout the chapters in this book. The aims of the book are threefold:

1. 1.
   to explore how notions of the student ‘voice’ as a single, monolithic entity obscure the divergence in experiences of students;
2. 2.
   to consider how placing emphasis on what is brought to the fore under the banner of the ‘student voice’ might lead educators and policymakers to miss important messages from students themselves communicated through their actions and what they don’t say;
3. 3.
   to consider different ways of working in partnership with students to develop their own experiences as well as to influence the nature of academic work more broadly.

Student Experience, Student Engagement, and Student Voice

As the learning environment evolves within the twenty-first century, the notion of the student experience has become increasingly prevalent. Articulation of the student experience has noted the importance of establishing a dialogue with a range of stakeholders. Whatever the stimulus, it is evident that the strategy to provide greater access to higher education and to encourage universities to become more adaptable has heeded the argument that key stakeholders, such as employers, need to have greater input into the system. This is based on the (perhaps flawed) premise that members of each stakeholder group hold identical, or at least highly similar, views. In a fluid sector (Bauman, 2000), this is surely unlikely as needs are constantly in flux and employers, for example, may have little idea what their future requirements are. Despite this, a rise in the authority of stakeholder groups within the academic community has been recognised (Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno, 2008). Within these stakeholder groups sit the students themselves, whose many differing voices often become homogenised. The student voice, as a seemingly singular sound, is then more easily aligned with those of other stakeholder groups, such as employers, to suggest greater demands on the sector, such as higher quality teaching. With a rise in discourse of students as ‘customers ’ in higher education, the student voice has been framed in a similar way to the consumer voice in wider society; as paying customers, students can and should give feedback and express (dis)satisfaction with their experience of the service.

Alongside discourse around the student experience and the notion of the student voice sits the concept of student engagement, which is often seen as overlapping with student voice (Seale, Gibson, Haynes, & Potter, 2015). Engaged students are, in many cases, seen as the ones who are willing to contribute their voices to debates and developments. This view of engagement, as participation in the wider work of the university, is arguably different to discussion of student engagement with the academic pursuit of their programme of study, such as engaging in independent study, asking questions, and participating in discussion. Perhaps, therefore, it is not surprising that the concept of student engagement has been described as ‘an uncritically accepted academic orthodoxy’ (Brookfield, 1986, p. 96), and that in higher education, with reference to student voice, ‘definitions and conceptualisations are underdeveloped’ (Seale, 2010, p. 995). Canning (2017) argues that the distinction between the concepts of student engagement and student voice is fuzzy, with student voice perhaps best seen as a form of student engagement. Whilst it is possible to argue that a student who makes their voice heard is engaged in some way, in this book we consider other ways in which students ‘speak’ to us; through their actions, through their participation, and even through their silence. Indeed, viewing student engagement as solely characterised by active and observable participation is described as the ‘tyranny of participation’ by Gourlay (2015, p. 403).

The Increasing Volume of the Student ‘Voice’

Articulation of students’ authority has been represented by the concept of the ‘voice’ that the students have found or perhaps been given. The concept of student ‘voice’ has a long history in the compulsory education sector (e.g. Kane & Chimwayange, 2014; Quaglia & Corso, 2014), where voice is conceptualised as:

listening to and valuing the views that students express regarding their learning experiences; communicating student views to people who are in a position to influence change; and treating students as equal partners in the evaluation of teaching and learning, thus empowering them to take a more active role in shaping or changing their education. (Seale, 2010, p. 995)

In the wider sphere of educational research, attention to surfacing the voice of children represents the new sociology of childhood (l’Anson, 2013), and a response to critiques that children’s perspectives were often overlooked in research. For example, Fullan posed the question ‘what would happen if we treated the student as someone whose opinion mattered?’ (Fullan, 1991, p. 170). Paying attention to opinions as representing more than just points of data is central to this approach.

Returning to the higher education context, whilst the definition of the student voice varies, the concept itself has surfaced across a range of locations. Policymakers with an interest in influencing the behaviour of those working with learners, as well as universities themselves, have become increasingly interested in a dialogue with the student voice. Students themselves have been drawn to use the term, developing conferences that run under the banner of the student voice (which began in 2014), and the concept is also integrated within researchers’ conceptual frameworks and resulting publications (Bishop, 2018; Brooman, Darwent, & Pimor, 2015; Seale, 2016).

The most common manifestations of the student voice can be seen through the canvassing of students’ opinions through metrics such as the National Student Survey (NSS) in the UK and the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) in Australia, institutional teaching evaluations, students’ contributions to programme design and revalidation, Student Union fora, staff-student liaison committees, and student-led teaching awards. Arguably, the main focus in higher education is on forms of voice carrying ‘external currency’ (Canning, 2017, p. 522), such as the NSS. Seale et al. (2015) raise the possibility of ‘voice fatigue’ (p. 548) as a result of students being inundated with requests to give voice to their experience. This raises the question of the rationale underpinning attempts to surface the student voice. Do we assume that students are not satisfied and feel ignored (Seale et al., 2015)? Or is there a sense of ‘ticking a box’ to show that students have been consulted in quality assurance and enhancement processes (McLeod, 2011)? Many quality assurance bodies such as the Quality Assurance Agency in the UK (QAA) and Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies make it a requirement for programmes to include students in quality enhancement and assurance acti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. The Single Voice Fallacy
• Part I. Engaging with Diverse Student Voices
• Part II. From Voice to Voices: Engaging Student Voices Beyond Metrics
• Part III. Engaging Student Voices Across the Higher Education Experience
• Part IV. The Influence of Student Voices on Academic Work
• Back Matter