Keywords

Introduction

The focus of this chapter is on the first-in-family (FiF) cohort, how this group is defined globally and also, what research across the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, Canada and the United States (US) has reported in relation to this cohort. This chapter and Chap. 3 draw on the work of key theorists in the field in order to explore the ways in which this cohort is theorised and understood in the literature. The focus is how this group is constructed as being ‘at-risk’, requiring additional support and assistance. Beginning with an overview of research findings in this regard, the discussion moves to a description of how this group is theorised and defined in different geographical and cultural contexts. For example, Spiegler and Bednarek (2013), who have completed one of the most comprehensive reviews of literature and research on FiF students to date, report the various ways that countries define this group, and also how research is conflated by assumptions concerning social status and ethnicity. The chapter draws on international literature to highlight these differentials and to indicate the many deficit framings that implicitly define this student cohort.

Globally, discourse around students who are first in their families to attend university tends to problematise them primarily as a group in need of assistance. Deficit notions draw attention away from the actuality that these students are trailblazers, who in real terms are paving the way for better career opportunities for themselves as well as impacting on others around them as they enter and succeed in higher education (HE). A significant issue which perpetuates deficit constructions is that definitions of this cohort continue to lack clarity (O’Shea et al., 2016; Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013; Toutkoushian et al., 2018). Creating the right set of conditions for these students—as an institutional responsibility—thus becomes a more challenging undertaking. Arguably, it is easier to focus and act upon problematic issues at an individual student level, rather than traditions and practices deeply embedded in academic culture. The literature demonstrates that even though feelings of lack are not warranted, these feelings nevertheless are often implicitly imposed by university structures and systems. In the next section, we provide an overview of definitions commonly found in the literature, followed by synthesis of some of the main themes.

Defining Students Who Are First-in-Family

In the US, the term ‘first generation student’ (FGS) is generally used to describe those students entering HE whose parents have not received a college or university degree. However, there are differences in how this term is deployed even at a national level, with Toutkoushian and colleagues identifying eight different definitions in operation across the national university sector (Toutkoushian et al., 2018). However, what most definitions in the US and other countries assume is that no post compulsory schooling has occurred. Attempts at relational definitions can also become difficult with blended family arrangements. This issue of definitional inconsistency across countries is highlighted by Spiegler and Bednarek (2013) with variations presented as ‘slightly different segment[s] of the student population’ (p. 319). This discrepancy is again highlighted by LeBouef and Dworkin (2021) in an empirical review of FGS in the US, identifying definitional differences relating to whether a parent has attended a university (but not attained a degree), parents who have never attended university, or even whether the term should be extended beyond the parent to include siblings or kinship networks more broadly. Thus, research drawing on various definitions disrupts precise understandings of what characterises this particular cohort of students. In much of the international literature, conflation of FGS with social class or ethnic groups may partly reflect the lack of clear definition.

In the Australian context, ‘first-in-family’ has also been variously defined, but most definitions refer to parental education levels. To differentiate from the general term first generation student, first-in-family is defined for this study as: no-one in the immediate family of origin, including siblings or parents, having previously attended a higher education institution or having completed a university degree (O’Shea et al., 2015, p. 5). Framing FiF within their familial grouping better enables research in this area to understand the impact of ‘intergenerational benefits of information’ for those who have not yet encountered the university experience (Luzeckyj et al., 2011, p. 92). For clarity we use the term first-in-family (FiF), unless quoting directly from international literature where the term first generation students (FGS) is used.

Issues Arising from Lack of Clarity in Definitions

Spiegler and Bednarek (2013) found a strong focus in the international literature on pre-university characteristics, such as FGS being more likely to come from lower socio-economic circumstances, be older than their second or third generation peers, and ‘more likely to belong to an ethnic minority group in the country they live in’ (p. 321). As already alluded to, variations in FGS definitions may partly account for the focus on demography as a means of quantifying subgroup within this cohort, and the resulting literature focuses on indicators of social class and ethnicity.

Demographics may be useful for drawing comparative data on academic progression and achievements between the more- and less-privileged social classes or ethnic groups; however, this lens foregrounds deficiency as the starting point. Certainly this has enabled the literature to clearly identify social background as a predictor of achievement in, and access to, HE. However, such comparisons do not always make clear a point of departure; that historically, students from lower SES groups have lacked the same opportunities for HE that students in a higher social status may assume as their ‘rite of passage’ (Lehmann, 2009, p. 144). Recent scholarship has explicitly ‘called for more focus on the heterogeneity of this group, noting the tendency to collapse first-generation with certain demographic markers such as low-income and racial minoritized identities’ (Capannola & Johnson, 2022, p. 51). This chapter draws on a diversity of literature to not only explore how broad societal factors can impede university access for students from materially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, but also, the many factors which enabled or supported entry to these institutions.

First-in-Family Students and Access to Higher Education

Aside from access to university study traditionally being in the domain of the wealthier classes, Lehmann (2009) describes universities as having long-established traditions which have privileged particular social classes, specifically those in the mobile middle classes. Historically, this has rendered access and opportunity to HE as unequally meted out. Perhaps the greatest impact of mismatched opportunities that typically differentiate the social classes is in access to generational histories and knowledge of university. Students who are first in their families will not have ready access to ‘insider’ knowledge (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Watson, 2013) about the culture and expectations of university. Without the assumed level of fluency, ‘walking the walk’ and ‘talking the talk’ of university can present additional challenges, not least of which is that this knowledge is rarely transparent (O’Shea, 2021). There can be little doubt that FiF students will need to work hard(er) at understanding how to function in a culture outside of their normal familial experience (LeBouef & Dworkin, 2021; Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013). In addition, achieving aspirations may present challenges as FiF step outside family norms, armed with limited resources and understandings of the HE sector. Despite these constraints, FiF learners are entering university in substantial numbers, mainly as a result of collective efforts to increase access to HE.

A Matter of Access: Widening Participation Initiatives

Concerted recent efforts in the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to widen university options have been and continue to be largely driven by a global need to boost economic and global competitiveness (see Bradley et al., 2008; OECD, 2016). Widening access policy has attracted increasing numbers of non-traditional students, who may be described as changing their familial histories by becoming upwardly mobile. Research in Australia and internationally confirms the anticipated phenomenon of social mobility, in which FiF are often motivated by having a better quality of life, greater career choice or higher income than experienced in their own upbringing or within the family biography (Delahunty & O’Shea, 2021; O’Shea et al., 2015, 2016; Watson, 2013; Lehmann, 2009).

Tinto and Engestrom (2008) point out that merely providing access to university is not enough unless there is also the provision of appropriate support. Furthermore, they contend that success at university study is unlikely for the many students ‘who are poor or academically underprepared’ (p. 50) unless there is institutional investment and recognition of responsibility to provide appropriate, integrated support, rather than add-ons. Indeed, the construction of the right set of conditions which enables the success of all students is an institutional responsibility.

Of consideration also is that the very notion of widening access could itself promulgate perceptions of ‘lack’ through initiatives such as student stipends or special entry programmes targeting certain student cohorts. While such initiatives increase access to university, they may not necessarily equate to successful outcomes for FiF. A tendency for knee-jerk reactions by institutions to address issues such as attrition rates is often in the form of add-on remedial or needs-based support, rather than integrated evidence-based programmes which are sustainable across increasingly diverse cohorts. Spiegler and Bednarek also make the point that it is ‘structural problems inherent in the organization of education [which] are camouflaged as cultural deficits of individuals’ (2013, p. 331). This sentiment is echoed by Forsyth et al. (2022) who argue that even when FiF students gain entry to university, there are limits to their ‘epistemological access’ (p. 308) to the ‘hidden’ curriculum, which operates at the level of accepted discourses, behaviours and expectations.

The next section seeks to explore how deficit discourses are constructed around the FiF student cohort, by focusing on several interconnected themes. These encompass: preparedness for university and academic culture (often constructed around social class); and consequently feeling like an outsider, which is partly attributable to lack of access to intergenerational knowledge about university that their middle-class peers may have access to. Finally, family aspirations and understandings of the university sector are explored to indicate some of the underlying motivations this cohort identified as prompting their university attendance. Before moving to these themes, we consider broader social and cultural factors that impact on FiF.

A Matter of Access: First in Family Learners

Recent OECD figures confirm year-on increases in global tertiary education participation, where the share of 25–34-year-olds with a tertiary degree increased from 27% in 2000 to 48% in 2021 (OECD, 2022). However, while these increases are indicative of the effectiveness of national policy agendas, they belie the broader implications for students who enter tertiary study as the first in their families. These implications transcend demographic focus on pre-entry access characteristics such as mature-aged, ethnic and minority groups, low socio-economic status or class, or those residing in rural or remote areas. Instead, in order to understand the university environment, it is necessary to unpack some of the hidden forms of stratification that exist in this landscape. To begin to explore such phenomenon we have drawn on the social theories of Pierre Bourdieu (1984, 1986, 1993).

Essentially, Bourdieu (1993) highlights how HE institutions expect learners to tacitly understand the codes and norms of the institution without explicit identification. The concepts of field, habitus and capital provide a useful framework for understanding the hidden demarcations within this environment. Fields have been identified as social spaces structured by shared rules and relationships. An individual’s movement and successes within these fields are largely governed by the capital that is possessed; Bourdieu recognises capital in a holistic sense encompassing economic, social and cultural referents. Cultural capital is identified as being manifested on symbolic, educational and linguistic levels (Bourdieu, 1986). Individuals have different capital packages and capitals have different values depending on the field in which the individual is operating, with differences in cultural capital marking ‘the differences between the classes’ (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 69). Whilst Bourdieu’s work has attracted some criticism, which is considered in Chap. 2, these Bourdieuian concepts provide an alternative perspective on HE participation and engagement, particularly Bourdieu’s concepts of field and habitus.

Fields are dynamic in nature and summed up by Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) as being ‘a game devoid of inventor and much more fluid and complex than any game one might ever design’ (p. 102). Bourdieu argues that individuals will variously develop what he refers to as ‘a feel for the game’, which relates to their understanding and knowledge about the field. Participation in the ‘game’ is also influenced by an individual’s habitus, which is an embodied state defined via ways of ‘standing, speaking, walking and thereby feeling and thinking’ (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 70). If we consider university as a field (or a sub-field of education) then for FiF learners, the lack of a knowledgeable other within the family means that they enter the field already disadvantaged; they lack access to those who have already experienced this space and who could offer insight into its workings and norms. In contrast, when an individual’s habitus encounters a field with which it is familiar, it is similar to a ‘“fish in water”: it does not feel the weight of the water and it takes the world about itself for granted’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 127). Such effortlessness is often attributed to learners’ levels of preparedness for university studies, the onus placed on the individual to match the expectations of the institution, without considerations of the wider social and cultural situatedness of the individual. One notable example of such lack of understanding of the situatedness of individuals is that of the under-representation of Indigenous peoples within Australian HE, as discussed in the next section.

Educational Inequities in an Australian Context

Issues of educational inequities in many colonial and postcolonial nations are reflected in the marginalisation of particular social groups, such as Indigenous peoples and other minority groups. For example, in the US, more than twice the number of FiF are from ethnic minority or migration background (Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013, p. 322). American history records show that Alexander Lucius Twilight was the first known African American to graduate from a US college, receiving a bachelor’s degree from Middlebury College in Vermont in 1823. (JBHE, 2023). While Caleb Cheeshahteaumuck, of the Wampanoag tribe, was the first Native American to graduate from Harvard College in 1665 (Harvard University Gazette, online).

In contrast with this US experience, Barbara Weir was the first Indigenous person enrolled in university in Australia, having commenced an Arts degree in the mid-1950s (Weir, 2014). The earliest graduations of Indigenous students did not occur until 1966: one of the first was Charles Perkins who graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (University of Sydney, 2023). Financial incentives from the Australian Government to improve Indigenous participation in tertiary education were not introduced until 1969, namely the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme (Abstudy). Even so, this made little impact—by the early 1970s only 18 Aboriginal students were known to be enrolled in tertiary studies (Bin-Sallik, 2003, p. 22). However, this is symptomatic of under-representation which occurred much earlier in education. Bin-Sallik (2003) placed blame squarely on the Australian schooling system, which failed to equip Indigenous students with the HE prerequisites needed for tertiary entry. This resulted in ‘poor attempts to educate [Indigenous] children past primary school’ and up until the 1960s, they could be refused ‘entry into state schools with a majority of White children’ (Bin-Sallik, 2003, p. 23).

In 2012, the Behrendt Review (Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People) made over 30 recommendations to bring Indigenous student participation in line with the Indigenous population in Australia of 2.2% (Behrendt et al., 2012). However, significant improvements are yet to be achieved: in 2013 for example, less than 1% of the HE student population was Indigenous (Pechenkina, 2015). By 2018, some progress had been made: there were 18,062 Indigenous HE students, or 1.8% of the HE student population (https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/2-06-educational-participation, accessed 15 February 2023). While targets to ‘halve the gap’ on Indigenous disadvantage have made some progress in recent years (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009, 2016, 2020), remnants of the culture of exclusion still infiltrate and influence educational environments, with Indigenous students continuing to be significantly under-represented (The Ethics Centre, 2016).

One example of such cultural exclusion relates to the insidious nature of stereotyping. Respect for Indigenous peoples’ identities can be hijacked by the existence of stereotyping—an insidious form of racism. Stereotyping behaviours are not restricted to the university environment but are a microcosm of broader societal attitudes which many Indigenous students experience on a daily basis, long before beginning university study (Biddle & Priest, 2015; Yosso, 2005). Rochecouste et al. (2014) have expressed concern that while Indigenous students may be familiar with dealing with ‘overt racist behaviours’, there was less certainty about how to deal with ‘cultural insensitivity at the institutional level’ (p. 161), a concern echoed also by Bin-Sallik (2003). However, equally concerning is the reluctance of some academic staff ‘to raise their awareness of Aboriginal knowledge and experience’ which contributes to ‘an ongoing lack of cultural safety provided by ill-informed, culturally incompetent staff’ (Rochecouste et al., 2014, p. 161).

The situation for students living in rural or remote regions, or for low SES students in HE in regard to attrition rates, is also of concern. For example, The Grattan Institute confirms that the attrition rate of low SES students is 10% higher than students with high SES status (25% compared to 35% for high SES). However, this same report equally cautions that ‘having a low-socioeconomic status does not of itself substantially add to risk, low-socioeconomic students are often over-represented among students with significant risk factors, such as weaker academic preparation or part-time study’ (Cherastidtham et al., 2018, p. 39). The complexity of individual learners and their particular circumstances means that focusing on specific equity categories can result in one-dimensional or oversimplified explanations of student experiences. This study has then chosen to focus on FiF students in response to Oikonomidoy’s (2013) observation that:

Much of the existing literature in this field of study is framed around the existing sociological forces of social categorization, that is race, ethnicity, social class, gender, … and sometimes on their intersections. … Such overreliance on existing macro-level categories has been critiqued as being prone to a deficit approach. (Oikonomidoy, 2013, p. 110)

By framing this study around FiF students, the intent is to move away from this type of deficit framing and instead explore the intricacies and realities of the lived experience of the FiF cohort. Chesters and Watson (2013) argue that structural inequalities in society delay the ability of the less privileged to ‘undertake a degree and graduate’ until later in life (p. 11), with flow-on effects to health, welfare, quality of life and earning capacity over a lifetime. Yet too often it is the notion of learners’ preparedness for the academic environment that is examined without recognition of the structural stratification that individuals operate within. The next section explores the notion of ‘preparedness’ as this relates to the intersectionality of FiF learners.

Preparedness

Preparedness for embarking on university study is often linked to research on social class and motivations for study rather than on the opportunities available (Lehmann, 2009; McMillan, 2014; Watson, 2013), or on the impact that negotiating unfamiliar fields and ‘rules of the game’ may have on the individual (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). In relation to academic preparedness, as newcomers to university culture, FiF students are often reported as being less prepared than their second or third generation peers (Forsyth et al., 2022; Groves & O’Shea, 2019). However, rather than framing this within social theories such as Bourdieu’s outlined earlier, academic (under)preparedness is largely influenced by parental history of university attendance and is often explained in terms of social class which is one of the most frequent categories mentioned in the literature on FiF students. Some of this literature is now presented, in terms of how it constructs notions of preparedness for success at university study. We note that a number of these references foreground social class and while not assuming that all FiF students can be classified in this way, we do note a level of applicability of these experiences across student populations.

Social Class

Historically, access to HE was no more the domain of the working class, than ‘being tired, getting dirty, and getting hurt’ was the description of the middle-class lifestyle and employment (Lehmann, 2009, p. 141). Privileging particular social classes has resulted in greater opportunity for those in higher socio-economic strata to ‘build familiarity with … assumptions, values and expectations over a lifetime’ which enables them to feel comfortable at university (Devlin, 2013, p. 940). Such familiarity is rarely the experience of the working class, who are far less likely to assume university study as part of their life’s trajectory (Henderson et al., 2019; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Morrison, 2010).

In the US, increasing numbers of students who are first generation are more likely to be from lower-income circumstances, and from an ‘ethnic or racial minority’ (LeBouef & Dworkin, 2021, p. 293). Typically, students in lower socio-groupings have fewer educational or other opportunities for movement beyond their familial ‘station in life’ (Lehmann, 2009, p. 147). Miller and Schulz (2014) argue that socioeconomic class is a ‘formidable barrier to widening participation’ (p. 84). Thus, when access to further education is provided—enabling different educational and career trajectories—the disparities constructed by long-held institutional traditions and cultures of class and privilege become more visible. These disparities problematise how outsiders might penetrate unfamiliar, class-constructed culture, and how access to, or lack of access to, such knowledge may impact on overall achievements and retention for FiF newcomers to university.

Preparedness is problematised if HE has not been considered a viable option in family or community thinking (Forsyth & Furlong, 2003). In McMillan’s study (2014), she found significant differences in how students from middle and working classes were primed for university study. The author argued that middle-class families used their implicit knowledge of what universities assumed and rewarded to ‘explicitly develop’ their children as independent learners (2014, p. 1130). Such development directly and indirectly steers these family members towards a university trajectory, providing insights into how university study might be experienced. In contrast, McMillan found that working-class students had no such preparation, neither from their homes nor schools. Lack of opportunities for preparation equated to a reduction in the development of ‘required dispositions and skills’ that are rewarded by universities (McMillan, 2014, p. 1130). In addition, Talebi et al. (2013) found that when FiF enter university, the non-existence of ‘familial socialisation’ (p. 48) into university resulted in students being more likely to experience difficulty in understandings about university protocols. This situation was further compounded by unrealistic expectations from family and friends, most of whom had no opportunity to acquire experiential know-how of the challenges presented in this environment. These findings were echoed in a later study conducted by Ivemark and Ambrose (2021) who point to the role of early socialisation in the acquisition of the academic and social capitals underpinning university transitions.

Transitioning

Transitioning into and through university has also been explored in relation to social class, and is closely linked to preparedness. McMillan (2014) found obvious differences in emotional responses to university between middle- and working-class students which affected how university transitions were experienced by these two groups (p. 1134). Students who do not sit comfortably within traditional university culture due to its orientation towards the ‘white middle class’ population (Watson, 2013, p. 413) are likely to find the experience of transitioning challenging. Additionally, FiF students often take on pressures to succeed (Patfield, 2022), particularly if university study is considered a privilege rather than a right, which may not be the experience of students from higher social classes. Unfamiliarity with the territory in which they are transitioning may also be exacerbated when their second or third generation peers have an implicit understanding about how things operate, which further limits this cohort’s sense of belonging in the university environment (O’Shea, 2021). Social class may provide some ways of understanding difficulties in the experiences of transitioning for FiF but when this is framed within the middle-class orientation of many university cultures, this issue relies more on perceptions of position and privilege (Watson, 2013). As an indicator of transitioning, social status as well as being the FiF, can invoke the propensity for stereotyping those who are likely to be successful, and conversely, those who are likely to find the transition difficult (Eschenbach et al., 2014).

Vocational Focus

Students from working-class backgrounds are reported as having more tendencies towards adopting a vocational perspective on university study, often considering education as a ‘means to an end to get a job’ (Thering, 2010, p. 7) or as a way to give back to their communities (Lehmann, 2009; McMillan, 2014; Patfield, 2022). However, as working-class skills are not easily transferrable or translatable to the academic environment, the social hierarchy is maintained. This is despite increasing numbers of students from these social groupings hoping to educate their ‘way out of their working-class background’ towards vocational and financial security (Thering, 2010, p. 4).

Vocational perspectives are often identified as reaffirmations of social background. With career as the focus, university learning can be positioned in terms of value for money and learning applied skills, rather than being a natural extension of their lives (Patfield et al., 2021). As Thering (2010) also explains, working-class status is perpetuated and reinforced in the working-class schooling system, which tends to reproduce parental social status (p. 3). Differences between social classes in values placed on knowledge and thus, choices in major courses of study, can be explained by a greater need to translate practically into employment. In other words, for the working class, the tendency to focus on theoretical majors is much less, with a greater predisposition to undertake applied studies. In short, those students from more privileged backgrounds seem to be more comfortable taking degrees which are vague and less clearly linked to employability such as ‘sociology, history, or biology’ (Lehmann, 2009, p. 144). In this regard, Thering (2010) presents a paradox, in that while students gain ‘a middle-class understanding’ of the value of education, there exists a propensity to ‘revert back to the working-class need’ for their education to result in a tangible vocation or career (p. 7). Interestingly, Beattie and Thiele (2016) found that FGS in particular, were ‘significantly more likely than continuing students to discuss careers with their professors’ (p. 351), providing an indication of the substantial investment being made in achieving vocational goals.

Closely linked to vocational focus is social mobility as a driving force. When prioritised, career motivations distinguish working-class from their middle-class peers who are not only less driven by social mobility but possess an ‘easy assumption of success’ (McMillan, 2014, p. 1131). Not surprisingly, parental discourse around regret for lifestyle disadvantages of working-class employment is influential. Such discourses may also provide a benchmark and motivation for many FiF students to change their family history by taking advantage of opportunities for a more rewarding career trajectory (Groves et al., 2022; O’Shea et al., 2016), even if this means taking a risk in ‘turn[ing] their back on their parents and their lifestyle’ (Lehmann, 2009, p. 147).

With the differences that preparedness, transitioning difficulties and vocational focus highlight, it is also not surprising that FiF often express feelings of being in a new world, at least until they are successfully enculturated into university ways of doing and knowing.

Sense of Belonging: FiF as Foreigners in a New World

Lack of transparency in the rules of the game for participation can exacerbate feelings of not belonging for students who are first in their families to attend university (Groves & O’Shea, 2019; O’Shea, 2021). Analogies such as feeling lost, or entering into a new or foreign world, are apt (Groves & O’Shea, 2019). In Oikonomidoy’s study (2013) of first generation college students, some working-class participants felt socially marginalised in the middle-class environment. Marginalisation relating to class and ethnicity was expressed as feeling perceived as not ‘good enough’, as being ‘ten steps back’ from their more confident peers, and as fear of speaking up in class lest they be exposed as ‘probably [not knowing] what I’m talking about’ (p. 117). Feelings of inferiority were not abated by suspecting that their confident peers were probably not ‘smarter, but they just have … more knowledge’ (Oikonomidoy, 2013, p. 118). Insights from Oikonomidoy’s study leave us with little doubt that feeling like an ‘outsider’ can be perpetuated through socially constructed attitudes and practices, which succinctly demarcate social status, as her participants have articulated well. In keeping with the foreigner analogy, physical appearance and linguistic capital can also serve to ‘expose’ one’s outsider-ness.

Outsider-ness Exposed

Challenges of blending into the university environment without drawing attention to one’s working-class background encompass aspects of dress or physical appearance as well as linguistic capital, both of which are attached to notions of social class. Again participants in Oikonomidoy’s study (2013) capture the visibility rendered by lack through ‘socioeconomic disparities’ (p. 118). These students perceived that middle-class students tended to show a lack of respect for those in lower social classes who ‘don’t look like the other people’ (p. 119), giving the sense of being looking down upon. Related to this is the visibility rendered by having to think twice about spending money, as these students typically could not be openly frivolous and ‘really have to think about money’ (p. 119; also Forsyth & Furlong, 2003). Some explanations given were that linguistic prowess and clothing labels betrayed or confirmed social status, which in Oikonomidoy’s study, was also related to perceptions of ethnic stereotyping (2013).

As with learning a new language, linguistic capital can pinpoint foreignness, but also highlight what some may see as lack. Foreignness becomes noticeable when students are enculturated into valued communication skills, which are variable and individual processes of acquisition. Miller and Schulz (2014) point out that developing a range of literacies is necessary to ‘know how to think, act and communicate in university settings’ (p. 79). Issues in the rate of acquiring these skills may be hampered by FiF students having fewer interactions with academic staff, while continuing generation students are reported as being more at ease in speaking to professors and teaching staff about course material (Beattie & Thiele, 2016). When exposure to the requisite linguistic capital has been circumscribed by an individual’s social circumstances, this may also ‘confound the development of academic capital’ (Watson, 2013, p. 421). In fact, Beattie and Thiele found that the ‘only significant predictor’ of the likelihood of discussion about course materials with staff was in relation to ‘pre-college family social capital’ (2016, p. 351).

Linguistic fluency in ‘academic speak’, not surprisingly, is challenging for those students who have had limited exposure to the particular academic conventions in their schooling or work (McMillan, 2014; Oikonomidoy, 2013). The uneven distribution of linguistic capital can not only impact on how FiF present their knowledge and understanding in a form deemed acceptable in academe (Watson, 2013, p. 421), but can also hinder essential interactions with academic staff for developing such fluency (Beattie & Thiele, 2016). While some university staff may view linguistic prowess as an indicator of capabilities, it is more an issue of developing such fluency over time (Oikonomidoy, 2013). In addition, Groves and O’Shea (2019) report how students reflect on misinterpretation related to instructions, marking criteria and advice, which are symptomatic of less exposure to academic linguistic capital and the bewilderment associated with working out the rules of engagement.

Culturally endorsed ways of communicating in academia are not the same as in other fields of experience, and the rules of engagement are not often transparent. Using a trial by error approach developing the required linguistic capital can be particularly challenging for the FiF student to negotiate. The gap in perceptions of the haves and have nots can contribute substantially to feelings of not belonging.

Differences highlighted by social class are problematic, as they belie the complexity and implications of constructing university preparedness and success from the standpoint of assumed norms. This assumption is often implied through comparisons between higher social classes and lower. We now turn to discuss the implications that having a reservoir of cultural and social resources to draw upon in terms of access to intergenerational knowledge about university.

Intergenerational Influences

Apart from a lack of access to intergenerational or insider knowledge, university is often perceived as unreachable for many people. When they are accepted into a university programme they may not have the ‘easy assumption of success’ that their middle-class peers possess (McMillan, 2014, p. 1131). This can also lead to FiF students taking on familial pressures to succeed (whether real or perceived), particularly if university study is not an assumed trajectory. Unfamiliarity with the territory, exacerbated by lack of access to the implicit knowledge held by their second or third generation peers, may also hinder help-seeking behaviours (Beattie & Thiele, 2016; Talebi et al., 2013), particularly in the transition to study (Watson, 2013). FiF are often regarded as not having access to the reservoir of knowledge subsumed through lived and generational university experience (Groves & O’Shea, 2019).

FiF familial and community imaginings of university can also present as a barrier to succeeding in further education, which can range from ‘ivory tower’ to ‘entrepreneurial’ imaginings (May et al., 2016). However, often university is simply considered as being ‘so difficult’ and the preserve only of the really smart people (McMillan, 2014, p. 1132).

Family Aspirations: ‘Do Better than Us’

Perceptions of the influence of families on FiF learners are intertwined with socially constructed attitudes towards socio-economic and occupational status as predictors of success at university (Patfield, 2022). Dispositions and skills that are learned in particular familial contexts tend to be reproduced through the schooling environment with a world view seen through ‘the working-class lens’ which greatly influences the processes of ‘understand[ing] their surroundings’ (Thering, 2010, p. 3; also McMillan, 2014). While ‘parental encouragement and involvement is one of the best predictors of postsecondary aspirations, especially when factored in conjunction with the family’s financial situation’ (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006, p. 536; also Barsegyan & Maas, 2022), there may be many underlying reasons why families are reported as unsupportive. First, if they have not acquired the dispositions themselves, it is difficult to understand how to provide advice on successful negotiation of the university environment. Second, there are often economic concerns or ‘debt aversion’ (Raciti, 2018) to high university fees, and a disjuncture between still having to work and university study as a means for future better paid employment. In addition, families may be expected to take on additional childcare and household responsibilities as well as other financial and practical assistance.

The narrative of students from disadvantaged circumstances includes parental stories of regret for the ‘missed chances and lack of opportunities’ leading to ‘working-class employment’—or the hard way to earn money (Lehmann, 2009, p. 141). It is hardly surprising then, that these ‘missed chances and lack of opportunities’ (Lehmann, 2009, p. 141) often translate into parental aspirations for their children to do better. However, an issue raised by Talebi et al. (2013) is that FiF may receive less support from their families because the university student identity is ‘less entrenched within their social networks’ (p. 48), and therefore not considered a priority. On the other hand, families may have unrealistic expectations about the challenges of university study, leading to lack of understanding that may impact on the FiF experience in many ways (Talebi et al., 2013). In addition, it can become difficult to break the broader social perceptions ‘back home’ where the community perceives the student in a particular way, such as a low-status worker, and may question the purpose of going to university (O’Shea, 2020; Watson, 2013).

While aspirations for better career and lifestyle opportunities are important, families with no prior university experience are reported as being constrained by this, in terms of the preparation they are able to provide for their university student (Patfield et al., 2021). An interesting contrast between students from different social classes was noted by Patfield et al. (2021), with those from FiF backgrounds often being constructed as ‘too different’ to succeed: this ‘dominant narrative’ was one of deficiency foreclosing educational futures even before compulsory schooling had concluded (p. 599).

We know that parental support is crucial—for first and continuing generation students. LeBouef and Dworkin (2021) note the key role played by the family in this endeavour and argue that: ‘Researchers should consider the family as the place to start, focusing on family as a source of resilience and strength’ (p. 311). Talebi et al. (2013) also found that even if family members were unable to relate to the experience of their FiF student, that education itself may be seen ‘as economically and socially valuable’ (2013, p. 56). However, an important aspect of developing a deeper understanding of how academia operates is being able to talk about it. In our research, many FiF students indicated they were selective with whom they discussed their studies and also selective about what they shared with family members (O’Shea et al., 2015). Similarly, in Watson’s (2013) study, one participant articulated the difficulty of relating to family members when using ‘uni mode’ talk, and being aware of not being understandable to them (p. 423). This participant lamented how it was ‘damn hard’ when there was no-one to bounce ideas off when preparing a task or thinking through an idea (p. 423).

As mentioned in Chap. 1, families may also display aversion to risk or debt, an anxiety that may constrain the support provided. Even if parental or family aspirations are for a better life for the next generation, the reality is that if successful, these FiF learners may need to move outside existing family biographies. On the other hand, those who do not gain the qualifications needed for social mobility and continue in working-class situations may be seen to have squandered their parental investment and ‘betray[ed] the sacrifice’ made by their parents (Lehmann, 2009, p. 147).

Perceived lack of family support may be attributed to lack of parental involvement and lower levels of value placed on HE, juxtaposed with family members’ risk aversion to debt and failure, which in turn may be partly attributable to their own lack of knowledge about the university environment and institutional support available (Ivemark & Ambrose, 2021). While family may have aspirations for education, the reality of day-to-day living, where money and privilege do not come easily, can blur benefits of short-term sacrifice for long-term gain. Regardless, family support is crucial and has been shown to directly impact on attrition rates for FiF regardless of socio-economic circumstances (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006, p. 536).

Conclusion

Much of the literature focuses on individual factors affecting FiF and other non-traditional students, and hence implies responsibility at an individual level for successful navigation of university study. However, along with Watson (2013), we argue that it is an institutional responsibility to reflect on their own practices and assumptions about what is required of students, and in turn to provide effective ways to support development of fluency and the enculturation of requisite academic skills. Those generations that lack implicit knowledge of cultural norms and expectations within the social constructs of the university enter as outsiders. As outsiders, the existing culture renders any lack that this cohort may have as more visible—both to themselves and to others (McMillan, 2014). The process of acquiring cultural knowledge can place enormous stress on the FiF learner and their families as they navigate new ground.

In this chapter, we have explored the deficit framing of FiF students as presented in much of the existing international literature which becomes problematic when underpinned by macro-level social categories (LeBouef & Dworkin, 2021; Oikonomidoy, 2013; Spiegler & Bednarek, 2013). Our analysis has shown how this student cohort is predominantly framed as ‘lacking’—a lack articulated through reference to cultural, social, familial, academic and economic capitals. We argue that this focus on lack only serves to disenfranchise this cohort, further contributing to a pervasive sense of disenfranchisement within the HE environment. What is more, such notions of lack obscure the very real strengths that such students possess as they pursue a university education as first in their families to do so.

Chapter 3, therefore, seeks to ‘disrupt’ this deficit framing by drawing on the narratives of FiF students in our research projects. These ‘stories of transition’ provide alternative ways to conceptualise those learners who are the first in their family to come to university. Adopting a strengths perspective, the chapter draws upon the work of Yosso (2005) and Sen (1992) to propose alternative theorisations, turning to our richly descriptive data to provide depth to this analysis. In doing this we seek to clear a space for the learners to articulate how they themselves perceived the enactment of a successful student self within university settings.