How can we address implicit bias around social class in Higher Education (HE) institutions in Scotland?

这个博士项目将涉及一个家庭高等教育机构中显性和隐性偏见的性质，以及它对来自工人阶级和贫困背景的学生的生活经历的影响。将利用学术资本，并采用‘公平意识’模型和Strathclyde 3领域的工具，帮助参与者认识和组织不同类型的偏见对他们学习的影响。获得的见解将对政策制定者、高等教育和中学教职员工以及来自低社会经济背景的学生有用。公平是高等教育的一个问题。为了有意义和有能力，录取目标需要同时了解工薪阶层和贫困学生在以下方面需要的建议和支持：学科选择；课外活动；大学选择；课程选择；工作场所参与度。我们还需要关于如何通过使正式和非正式的高等教育结构和程序更具包容性来支持学生上课程的明确想法。这产生了三个子问题：1：在高等教育机构中，隐性偏见是如何表现出来的？2：它如何影响来自苏格兰工人阶级和贫困家庭的个人的经历？3：高等教育机构可以做些什么来认识和解决隐性偏见，为工薪阶层和贫困个人创造更具包容性和更公平的体验？1.理论视角和系统的文献综述：已发表的关于高等教育机构内公平的工作2.探索一个家庭高等教育机构关于学生申请、录取、拒绝、保留的数据；使用中央服务；获得资格后的目的地；参加课外活动。通过学生和其他学术和支持系统参与者的经验和观点来了解显性和隐性的偏见。访谈、问卷、案例研究：阐明当前的做法b.基于地点的交互式学生地图和地图覆盖、访谈、照片日记以探索学生网络、支持和体验这一主题具有制度敏感性，因此本研究将专注于一个支持性家庭机构不断扩大的访问数据和学生体验，基础是：牢固的现有关系；信任；安全访问机密数据；在数据系统和机构购买方面的支持/培训，以了解数据系统的使用、有用性、局限性和潜力，学生和系统参与者的经验。博士将采用混合方法方法，分3个阶段进行：阶段1：理论框架和文献回顾：出版的工作和关于高等教育公平的政策，利用批评理论和批评话语分析的定性方法。阶段2：一所高等教育机构的数据探索、招生和流程探索在申请、录取、拒绝、保留方面以及课程/系/系内部的变异性；中心服务使用；参与课外活动。第三阶段：学生和大学系统行为者的经验和观点：-通过关键线人访谈(3-6：教员/战略层面的高级责任)阐明当前的做法、价值观、网络、意识和优先事项，这将为匿名、故意选择的定量工作人员问卷和定性案例研究提供信息(2：个别院系和2：系；利用Qualtrics/NVivo/SPSS了解学生网络、支持和体验基于地点的交互式学生地图/地图覆盖、面试、照片日记(20名学生参与者：来自高关税和低关税课程各10名)，以确定显性和隐性偏见、其对成就和参与度的影响以及如何解决这一问题。

This PhD project will scope the nature of explicit and implicit bias in one home HE institution and its impact on lived experiences of students from working-class and poorer backgrounds. Academic Capital will be drawn upon and the 'Equity Mindedness' model and Strathclyde 3 Domain's Tool adopted to help participants recognise and organise the impact of different kinds of bias on their learning. Insights gained will be useful to policy makers, HE and secondary school staff and students from low socio-economic backgrounds.Equity is a problem for HE. To be meaningful and enabling, admissions targets need to be set alongside an understanding of the kinds of advice and support that working class and poorer students need in: subject selection; extra-curricular activities; university selection; course selection; workplace engagement. We also need clear ideas about how to support students on courses by making the formal and informal HE structures and procedures more inclusive.This engenders three sub-questions:1: Are there variations in how implicit bias is manifest across an HE institution?2: How does it impact the experiences of individuals from working-class and poorer backgrounds in Scotland?3: What can HE institutions do to recognise and address implicit bias to create more inclusive and equitable experiences for working-class and poorer individuals?1.Theoretical perspectives and systematic literature review: published work on equity within HE2.Explore one home HE institution's data on student applications; admissions; rejections; retention; use of central services; post-qualification destinations; participation in extracurricular activities. Explore variation across courses; faculties; departments3.Understand explicit and implicit bias through students' and other academic and support system players' experiences and perspectivesa.Interviews, Questionnaire, Case Studies: to illuminate current practicesb.Place-based interactive student maps and map-overlays, interviews, photo journals to explore student networks, support and experiencesThis topic is institutionally sensitive so the study will focus on the widening access data and student experiences of one supportive home institution, building on: strong existing relationships; trust; secure access to confidential data; support/training in the data system and institutional buy-in to understand the use, usefulness, limitations and potential of data systems, student and system actor experiences.PhD will adopt a Mixed Methods approach conducted in 3 phases:Phase1: Theoretical framing and literature review: published work and policy on equity in HE utilising the critical theory, qualitative approach of Critical Discourse Analysis.Phase2: Data exploration, admissions & processes of one HE institution exploring variability across and within courses/ departments/ faculties in applications, admissions, rejections, retention; central service use; participation in extracurricular activities. This will scope sources of bias and enable the purposeful selection of Phase3 participants.Phase3: Students' and university system actors' experiences and perspectives:-Illuminate current practices, values, networks, awareness and priorities using Key Informant Interviews (3-6: senior responsibility at faculty/ strategic level) which will inform an anonymous purposefully selected quantitative staff Questionnaire and qualitative Case Studies (2: individual faculties and 2: departments; recruitment, admissions, processes and experiences) to understand areas of difficulty or tension, utilising Qualtrics/NVivo/SPSS.-Understand student networks, supports and experiences with place-based interactive student maps/map-overlays, interviews, photo journals (20 student participants: 10 each from high and low tariff courses) to identify explicit and implicit bias, its impact on attainment and engagement and how it might be addressed.