Higher Education

, Volume 67, Issue 5, pp 569–583 | Cite as

Being ‘at’ university: the social topologies of distance students

Article

Abstract

This paper considers how online, distance students enact the space of ‘the university’, in the context of the rise of distance education within a traditional, ‘elite’ institution. Aiming to provide insight into how students translate into distance the space of a university which has traditionally had its basis in conventional on-campus education, it locates itself within the ‘new mobilities’ paradigm (Urry in Mobilities. Polity Press, Cambridge, 2007), drawing on four different kinds of social space delineated by Mol and Law (Soc Stud Sci 24(4):641–741, 1994) and Law and Mol (Environ Plan D 19:609–621, 2001) in order to analyse narrative and visual data generated with distance students at the University of Edinburgh. The paper shows that the material campus continues to be symbolically and materially significant for a group of students who may never physically attend that campus. Distance students, we find, need their own version of the ‘spatial certainties’ of bounded, campus space. Yet, in exploring the ‘new proximities’ of online distance education, we also argue that to define institutional and academic authenticity solely in terms of this bounded, ‘regional’ space is inadequate in the face of the other topologies which also come into play throughout distance students’ accounts of what it means to be ‘at’ university.

Keywords

Distance education Mobilities Space Online education University 

References

  1. Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the distance: Online education in the United States 2011. Babson Survey Research Group Report. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2012.
  2. Bayne, S. (2004). Smoothness and striation in digital learning spaces. E-learning, 1(2), 302–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora: Contesting identities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Brindley, L. (2011). Collaborate to compete: Seizing the opportunity of online learning for UK higher education. Bristol: Online Learning Task Force/HEFCE. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2011/11_01/. Accessed 16 July 2012.
  5. Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16–32. http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/minds-fire-open-education-long-tail-and-learning-20. Accessed 16 July 2012.
  6. Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open educational resources : Enabling universal education. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, N. (2012). Understanding transnational education, its growth and implications. News article. World Education News and Reviews. August 2012, 25(7). http://www.wes.org/ewenr/12aug/practical.htm. Accessed 11 July 2013.
  8. Counihan, B. (2013). The Aussie Coursera? A new homegrown MOOC platform arrives. News article. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-aussie-coursera-a-new-homegrown-mooc-platform-arrives-12949. Accessed 11 July 2013.
  9. Edwards, R., Tracy, F., & Jordan, K. (2011). Mobilities, moorings and boundary marking in developing semantic technologies in educational practices. Research in Learning Technology, 19(3), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, R., & Usher, R. (2007). Globalisation and pedagogy: Space, place and identity (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Enriquez, J. (2011). Tug-o-where: Situating mobilities of learning (t)here. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(1), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enriquez, J. (2012). Being (t)here: Mobilising ‘mediaspaces’ of learning. Learning, Media and Technology (iFirst article). doi:10.1080/17439884.2012.685744#.Ud6JfPnCaSo.
  13. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanover Research. (2011). Trends in global distance learning. Research report. Hanover Research. http://www.hanoverresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Trends-in-Global-Distance-Learning-Membership.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2013.
  16. Hine, C. (2004). Research relationships and online relationships: Introduction. In Christine Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet (pp. 17–20). Oxford and New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  17. Holdsworth, C. (2009). ‘Going away to uni’: Mobility, modernity, and independence of English higher education students. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1849–1864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hooley, T., Marriott, J., & Wellens, J. (2012). What is online research?: Using the internet for social science research. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  19. ICDE. (2009). ICDE environmental scan: Global trends in higher education, adult education and distance learning. Research report. International Council for Distance Education. http://www.icde.org/filestore/Resources/Reports/FINALICDEENVIRNOMENTALSCAN05.02.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2013.
  20. James, N., & Busher, H. (2012). Internet interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 177–188). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Law, J. (2002). Objects and spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5–6), 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2001). Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities. Environment and Planning D, 19, 609–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2005). Object lessons. Organization, 12(3), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leander, K. M., Phillips, N. C., & Taylor, K. H. (2010). The changing social spaces of learning: Mapping new mobilities. Review of Research in Education, 34, 329–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsden, R. (1996). Time, space and distance education. Distance Education, 17(2), 222–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mol, A., & Law, J. (1994). Regions, networks and fluids: Anaemia and social topology. Social Studies of Science, 24(4), 641–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OpenUpEd. (2013). About OpenUpEd. Web page. http://www.openuped.eu/openuped-temp/59-about-openuped. Accessed 11 July 2013.
  28. Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A, 38, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sterne, J. (2006). Critical cyberculture studies. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, C. (2009). Towards a geography of education. Oxford Review of Education, 5(5), 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. White, D., Warren, N., Faughnan, S., & Manton, M. (2010). Study of UK online learning: Report to HEFCE by the Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford. Research Report. University of Oxford. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/UKOnlineLearningStudy-FinalReport-Mar10-FINAL-FORPUB.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sian Bayne
    • 1
  • Michael Sean Gallagher
    • 2
  • James Lamb
    • 3
  1. 1.School of EducationThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Hankuk University of Foreign StudiesSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Lothian Equal Access PartnershipThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations