From life crisis to lifelong learning: Rethinking working-class 'drop out'

Introduction
universities might be seen as more hospitable to working-class students, shielding
them from withdrawal. Moreover temptations into the labour market, sometimes used
as an explanation for leaving, do not so readily apply. Yet early withdrawal still exists:
why?
Methodology
The research was conducted by a core team of six researchers originating from the
Institute for Access Studies, Staffordshire University. A steering group of expert
partners from each university enabled us to gain access to the institutions and their
data.
The methodology we adopted addressed areas where existing research on early
withdrawal was felt to be inadequate and we attempted to develop a more
appropriate approach:
There is a scarcity of data about the causes of non-completion by target
group students.
(UUK, 2002, p. 151)
One of the reasons is that those attempting to research early withdrawal have
encountered methodological problems. Those who have used postal and telephone
survey methods to explore student ‘drop out’ (for example, Johnes and Taylor, 1991;
Davies and Elias, 2003) achieved a very low response rate. This led to difficulty in
interpreting the findings and doubt about how representative they were.
We believed that ‘drop out’ was a complex and emotive issue, which needed
exploring in depth. We wanted to unravel the meanings and impacts of ‘drop out’ for
individuals, institutions and communities themselves, and in order to do so we
needed our participants to help shape the terms and the process of the research.
Consequently, a different qualitative and participative approach was necessary. Our
research sought to maximise participation and attempted to involve ex-students
using a range of qualitative methods.
The project began with research ‘jury days’ at each national location, organised via
the steering group. Universities are increasingly expected to play a role in their
community:
7