Findings from the research: understanding male participation and progression in higher education

1. Findings from the research: understanding male participation and progression in higher education Ruth Woodfield Department of Sociology University of Sussex: r.woodfield@sussex.ac.uk

2. Overview • Why focus on men? • Review of research in this area, focusing on 3 of my own studies • Key take-home messages and questions arising from research • Implications for the debate within HE

3. Why men? • Gender wage and seniority gap exists for graduates so why focus on men? • This is true and no signs of current HE advantage changing this • Women’s advantage in HE participation and achievement matches men’s in recent history • It is a fast-paced social change – requires understanding • Not just men as focus, but men and women as two sides of coin

4. Accounting for previous male domination of HE • Challenges: • Then quantitative predominance linked to qualitative cultural dominance - change possible • And muted challenges or defences: • Men and women have relatively fixed differences: • cognitive • Personality • Behavioural • Leads to different ‘choices’ – change has limitations

5. Undertaking research on men in HE: the issues • Disadvantage discourses are often vague, all-encompassing (accurate?), stable • Historically much research Oxbridge-based – skewed results • Uptake rate to research requests and tasks different to women • Self-report issue • Much research on gender but focus is women’s participation and progress; male is underside of coin

6. Gender & Firsts study • Men get more Firsts • Key modes of explanation: • Gender-linked cognitive and personality trait differences • gender-differentiated dispositions • Men risk-takers, have flair; women conscientious • Subject area differences: • Men are in the First-Rich disciplines

7. Gender and Firsts… • Analysed all graduates over 8 years • RESULTS: • Men’s dominance of Firsts was weakening yearly • Largely due to dominance in First-rich disciplines • Women in these disciplines tended to be awarded more Firsts than men • Key messages: • Effect of gender-differentiated traits was marginal • We were looking at ‘an intrinsically social phenomenon’ (Richardson 2004: 324) • Key question: What can we do about on-course organisation? Should we persuade more women into Science?

8. Gender & Attendance study • Tracked 650 students over 3 years exploring effects of measured traits, abilities, background and behaviour and attendance on degree performance • 39 completed online attendance reports • RESULTS: • Pre-entry qualifications and some personality traits influenced, absences were a strong and independent predictor of degree result and men missed more teaching sessions = men achieved less • Men were NOT conscientious participants!

9. Gender & Attendance… • Key messages: There are important differences between men and women in relation to behaviour once in HE, not just before entry • Key question: Is there less capacity/willingness in men to conform to institutional requirements? If so, what should we call it? What is developing it? How could it be addressed?

10. Gender and Coursework study • Pirie’s position – Mancession discourse - men disadvantaged because of ‘feminised’ HE • 638 students’ performance on coursework and unseen exams analysed • 390 students gave online interviews about preferences

11. Gender and Coursework • RESULTS: • Women outperformed men on both modes of assessment and both outperformed on CW • Both preferred CW and felt it fairer measure of achievement • Strong sense that Weil’s ‘learner identity’ (1986) may be gendered – Men working less hard, expressing more confidence but achieving less. • Key messages: prevailing commonsense understanding may be wrong – don’t act on them • Key question: Is the ‘gender regime’ of HE now female? If so, in what way? What does this mean? Given the results, why suspicion about CW?

12. Can and should we target men? • Given what we know about women learners, won’t they be further advantaged by anything that seeks to target men? Does this matter? • What would a targeted policy to recruit and retain men look like? • Attend to our part of the ‘leaky pipeline’

13. What to do next? • Collect data carefully – ensure accurate basis for action • Ask students • Focus on which men: ‘The white male is our problem’ (HMSO 2009) • Pilot strategies in different contexts – one size will not fit all • Look at what has worked before and elsewhere • Gender clustering, mentoring etc. • Think local?