Commuting, transitions and belonging: the experiences of students living at home in their first year at university

In our study (Kane et al. 2014), of student sense of belonging across three London universities it was estimated that 10–15 % of first-year students failed to develop a sense of belonging when engaging with university life and that these students were most at risk of dropout. The quantitative survey (n = 1346) left a key question unanswered—what was happening in the lives of students as they transitioned from home to university? In particular, our study was interested in those who remained living in the family home whilst at university as they formed a large proportion of our sample. Stay-at-home students are a valuable part of the undergraduate population. Just as stay-at-home holidays, or “staycations” are important to the tourism industry, so stay-at-home students are vital to higher education, and the term utilised here is “stayeducation”. In the UK, around 25 % of students remain in their family home; a trend replicated widely across international contexts (Wojtas 2014); and set to rise in the UK to 50 % by 2020 (Taylor 2011). This paper argues that considering sense of belonging specifically in relation to “stayeducation” students has particular implications for policy and practice.

We start with a review of sense of belonging literature through the lens of students who remain at home during their studies; discuss the research design and biographical method; provide insights into individual student experiences, before drawing upon Wengraf’s (2001) cross-case analysis method of comparing and contrasting three, rather than two, cases, offering extra richness and depth to the findings. We suggest that developing a student sense of belonging has complex and nuanced facets when student narratives are considered. We conclude with some closing thoughts as to how individual academics and institutions can reframe their thinking in relation to the “stayeducation” student.

Studies of student sense of belonging (ssob) are closely aligned with the work of Tinto (1975) and concepts of academic and social engagement. Thomas (2012) noted that between 33 % and 42 % of UK HE students consider withdrawing during their first year, and studies of ssob are linked with strategies relating to persistence, dropout rates and successful retention. Studies of ssob draw on both psychological and sociological factors to explore the concept at the individual level and from the social perspective (Thomas 2012).

Sense of belonging has been specifically considered in relation to class, gender and ethnicity (Read et al. 2003; Haussmann et al. 2009). Factors of culture, self-perception and career focus were identified in many studies (Hassanien and Barber 2007; Kember et al. 2010), along with the significance of “culturally relevant curricula” (Clycq et al. 2014, 813), and support to “level the playing field” in relation to student transition for all groups (Nelson et al. 2012, 83). Important perennial aspects of teaching and group belonging feature highly (Levett-Jones et al. 2008; Pym and Kapp 2013) along with “closer interpersonal relationships” related to smaller classes (Harfitt and Tsui 2015, 853); and staff–student engagement (Shoderu et al. 2012) educational delivery and transition strategies (Braxton et al. 2000; Collings 2014). Kuh et al. (2008) provide insights into the relationship between ssob and student engagement. Relationships feature strongly in the literature about student belonging. Hoffman et al. (2002) identified three main categories of factors related to a sense of belonging (1) empathetic tutors and understanding, (2) perceived peer support and (3) perceived classroom comfort.

We are particularly interested in exploring sense of belonging within the context of students living at home with parents or in private accommodation with other family members. A recent report suggested this group is often overlooked in relation to specific institutional policies and practices (NUS 2015). The international literature often refers to these students as commuter students with its connotations of distance and travel experienced by many, but not all, “stayeducation” students. Some literature suggests that such students focus on the importance of academic achievement over social integration (Grayson 2003).

Khambhaita and Bhopal (2015) report that changes to funding leading to increased student debt, mirrored around the world, has accompanied a rise in the numbers of UK students remaining in the family home. Additionally, Asian female students are more likely to remain in the family home than White females due to cultural differences in attitudes to living alone. Surveys report that many “stayeducation” students feel their social life suffers and their choice of university is limited (Sanders 2001). Case (2008, 327) also suggests that “many non-traditional students also experience a degree of alienation from their own background culture”. In addition, we note potential aspects of the “London Effect”. Since the late 1990s disadvantaged (low income) pupils attending inner London schools have reached greater levels of achievement than previously known (Ladd and Fiske 2016, 1). Improvements have been recognised at both primary and secondary levels of education. A number of potential variables have been considered in regard to these situational changes. Whilst the “London Effect” in this context relates to schools rather than universities, the link between primary, secondary and tertiary level education cannot be discounted. Two of the participants reported in this research were educated at primary and secondary level in London. Whilst we recognise the possibility of potential links, specific exploration of these is not within the remit of the research presented here. Morgan-Tamosunas (2012) has also suggested that for universities in the capital, “There is a London factor…many attending…live at home in the Greater London area, which means long travel times and a culture of students coming to classes and then leaving, which makes it “very difficult” to develop a sense of community in the university” (THE, April 26, 2012). This issue has been raised with respect to “stayeducation” students in other international urban contexts (Biddix 2015; Clark 2006).

De Beer et al. (2009) highlighted considerations around the nature of the home environment and how conducive that environment might be (or might not be) to supporting study. They suggested that living at home and lengthy commuting time contributed to a lack of sense of belonging. They noted that well-functioning student residences extend the academic environment and facilitate the interaction of students across courses, subject disciplines and across levels of study. This is supported by Cotton and Wilson (2006, 488) who note that “the college experience…does not end when class is dismissed”, however, it does end for those who have to make a quick exit to begin their journey home. Counter-intuitively Haussmann et al. (2009) found that having more parental support was associated with a more rapid decline in ssob. They suggest that students who are more connected to their parents could have greater ties to their home lives than to their new university life. They also note that all of the variables that pertained to ssob at the start of the year were quite social in nature and that the relationship between sense of belonging and social interactions exists at the beginning of the year rather than developing over time; hence, interventions to support the development of ssob have to be put in place quickly as making friends is key to developing a sense of belonging.

Consequently, Lefever (2012) notes the importance of providing opportunity for social engagement in campus environments, whilst Stuart et al. (2011a) found that those students living at home participated less in social groups and activities at university but continued to participate in extracurricular activities in the home environment. Yorke and Longden (2008) have also examined the impacts of commuting on engagement and belonging pointing to a negative impact on social integration for commuter students.

Aspects of living and social spaces also feature in this literature. Dixon and Durrheim (2004) specifically highlight the physical environment and its relationship to our sense of self. Chow and Healy (2008, 367) have written about the transitions made by students leaving home to study at university and the importance of this process as one of “conscious discontinuity” which refers to the way in which “a separation from a previous environment and a movement towards a new environment is said to mark a new stage in one’s life or an emerging identity”. They argue that a sense of place and attachment emerges from the involvement of people and place and relationships between people. Students in Chow and Healy’s (2008) research focussed very much on the development of new social relationships students made through university living accommodation and physical living spaces as key to their sense of belonging in this new university space. Wilcox et al. (2006) also point to the importance of social relationships developed through university residential accommodation in relation to student retention. In Chow and Healy’s work, home provided an anchor, but relationships with family and friends at home changed and became less important to the sense of belonging at university. Brooman and Darwent (2014) point to the importance of old friends for students remaining at home who experienced a lower sense of belonging than those living in university accommodation.

Thus, the literature suggests that our “stayeducation” students experience the process of going to university differently to those living in university accommodation in their first year of study and that there may be tensions as independence and new identities may be harder to forge for those remaining in the home environment.

In the UK Higher Education sector, most institutions are either prestigious research-intensive universities (pre-1992) or newer (post-1992) vocationally focused universities. Our cross-case analysis comprises Business and Economics students from two post-1992 institutions (students Kuura and Paola) and a single pre-1992 institution (Isi). This offers an interesting perspective on the context within which the participants are studying. Case studies of a phenomenological nature offer us a window into the lived life. In this study, we are interested in how students narrate their experiences of belonging, the meaning they ascribe to their narrations and the insights these offer. Similarly, Stuart et al. (2011b) used a life history approach to investigate how social and cultural educational experiences affected student engagement with their university. Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method (BNIM) was our selected approach, as this method has been successfully used to draw out the stories or narratives from interviewees’ lives (Wengraf 2001, 2004). BNIM is noted as providing educational research with a “powerful methodology for capturing lived situations and experiences through narrative interviewing” (Smith 2012, 3).

The three cases are presented below:

The BNIM method illuminates the complex and hidden world of the individual which has profound implications for their experience of transition. This shifts our perceptions as to the influences impacting on student belonging and offers an additional lens through which to consider early engagement strategies with our wider student body. Here, the home/university interface becomes foregrounded and is seen to be nuanced and complex. Our cross-case analysis highlights in hitherto unseen ways the influence of our students’ wider context on their sense of belonging. Unlike those students studied by Chow and Healey (2008), for “stayeducation” students, university living accommodation is not a source of community contact and friendships, which provide the important social support needed to engender a sense of belonging. What is of particular interest are the similarities and differences identified through the narratives, the tensions that emerge and how the students talk about resolving those tensions. From the individual narratives, it has been possible to show how the emergent themes play out in different ways for these “stayeducation” students. So, for example, we can see that Isi and Paola have failed to establish the social relationships that are key to developing belonging and which can be essential for persistence (Haussmann et al. 2009), whereas Kuura successfully integrates her new friendship groups into her family life.

Interestingly, the importance of old friends (Brooman and Darwent 2014) is contested. Contrary to what might be expected, for Isi and Kuura, friendships made in their local community (in the gym for Isi and at school for Kuura) were problematic. Paola makes little mention of her family and friends in the UK but instead feels distanced from her family and friendship support networks at home in Brazil. Kuura successfully integrates her new friends into her family home extending her support network despite her “stayeducation” status. Isi wishes to extend his social network at university but is keen to separate his friends from his community and family. Paola seeks like-minded friends in her new environment who can help her to resolve the conflict she feels about being in the wrong type of university and alleviate her sense of social suspension. Rather than maintaining and prioritising old friends, all three were seeking new social relationships at university.

Hurtado et al. (2007) state the importance of cross-racial interactions for developing a higher sense of belonging on campus. Isi and Paola both perceive their environment as segregated and see this as a barrier to making new friends. Through the lens of intersectionality (Crenshaw 1989), one can see also the influence of class, age and gender on their social relationships. Kuura experiences no such segregation as she finds herself in an environment with like-minded people for the first time in her education. The constraints of commuting across London (Morgan-Tamosunas 2012; Yorke and Longden 2008) did not feature in these stories of belonging but there was a focus in the students narratives on the importance of relationships forged (or not) in the curriculum rather than through extracurricular activities.

Rich information made available through these in-depth interviews has highlighted factors such as friends, family and community as points of reference which pervade the student experience. Everything they experience is coloured by the life they lived before, which they continue to return to at the end of each day. As such, the student journey does not begin when crossing the university threshold and many important ideas, conversations and decisions (to which educators and educational managers are not privy) have already been made.

Our study confirms the importance of factors, such as social class, gender and cultural capital on selection of university. The observation is that of a capitalist education system which supports class inequalities. Students who enter into such systems, with little or no inherited cultural capital, may find education an alienating experience. We can also see how family, friends and community impact on ssob for our students, playing out in different aspects of the home/university relationships. One particular emergent factor for “stayeducation” students is the importance of developing friendships in new contexts, which can be difficult in the absence of shared living spaces (Chow and Healey 2008). This suggests a reframing of contemporary thinking about sense of belonging and transition to encompass a set of relationships, often ignored, which to our “stayeducation” students are significant: relationships with home, family and community. The term “stayeducation” perhaps better captures some of the nuances of these relationships than the term “commuter students” with its connotations of physical distance and travel. For our students, the important distance between home and university was sociocultural and emotional rather than geographic.

Our small-scale study has highlighted the need for further investigations of these reframed commuter student relationships considered through the lens of family, friends and associations of cultural capital. A number of limitations apply to the study. Interviewees were self-selecting, and the interviews only relate to three London institutions. However, it was possible to complete full analyses for each interviewee and to undertake cross-case analysis as guided by the Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method. It would be useful to extend the work to different settings. This paper challenges the assumption that “stayeducation” students have a secure sense of belonging in their home environment with friendships and affiliations that pull them back into the community (NUS 2015). This may be the case for some but our narratives show a different picture. Our research thus far suggests that, for “stayeducation” students in particular, the student journey extends beyond the institutional context and begins long before any HE influences come into play.