Higher Education Policy, 2010, 23, (123 – 147)
r 2010 International Association of Universities 0952-8733/10
www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/
Winner 2009 IAU Palgrave Essay Competition
From Access to Success: An Integrated Approach
to Quality Higher Education Informed by Social
Inclusion Theory and Practice
Jennifer M. Gidleya, Gary P. Hampsona, Leone Wheelera
and Elleni Bereded-Samuelb
a
Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Victoria,
Australia.
b
Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne, Victoria 8001, Australia.
Equitable access, success and quality in higher education are examined from a
variety of ideological perspectives. Quality is positioned as a complex generic
concept while access and success are identified as key concepts in the social
inclusion domain, supplemented by the concept of participation. The topic is
approached through an integrative analysis of the theory and practice literature on
social inclusion in higher education. After contextualising current higher education
within economic globalisation, the notion of quality is uncoupled from the necessity
of a neoliberal framing allowing broader interpretations arising from more
inclusive ideologies. Access, participation and success are shown to represent
degrees of social inclusion underpinned by a nested spectrum of ideologies —
neoliberalism, social justice and human potential, respectively — with human
potential ideology offering the most embracing perspective. Australian higher
education is foregrounded, yet contextualised within European historical precedents and contemporary global issues.
Higher Education Policy (2010) 23, 123 – 147. doi:10.1057/hep.2009.24
Keywords: access; empowerment; engagement; integration; participation; success
Introduction
This paper responds to the question: ‘Are equitable access, success and quality
three essential ingredients or three mutually exclusive concepts for higher
education development?’1 At first glance it appears that the three concepts —
equitable access, success and quality — are being regarded as conceptual peers
This contribution is the prize-winning essay of the competition launched in September 2009 by
IAU and Palgrave. The theme of the competition was Equitable Access, Success and Quality – three
essential ingredients or three mutually exclusive concepts for higher education development? IAU,
together with Palgrave, would like to thank all those who participated, as well as the jury, and to
once again offer our congratulations to the authors of the winning article.
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
124
that can be either in harmony with each other or in conflict with each other.
A deeper analysis suggests that interpretations of the terms ‘equitable access’
‘success’ and ‘quality’ and the relationships among them are complex and
multi-perspectival and can be framed differently in various contexts depending
on the underlying ideology of the discourse.
From one perspective, quality in higher education is equated with success in
globally competitive league tables and other performance indicators. From this
perspective the idea of increasing equitable access to higher education may
be seen as competition for scarce funding and thus incompatible. In this view
there is competition between social inclusion as access and quality as success in
performance indicators.
From another perspective — the one we take in this paper — the terms
equitable access and success are intimately linked with the notion of social
inclusion in higher education. While access is commonly thought of as being
synonymous with social inclusion, we suggest that it is only the first step. We
propose that with the addition of a third concept, participation, the terms
access, participation and success can be seen to reflect ‘degrees of social
inclusion’. In this view, access, participation and success are ordered according
to a spectrum of ideologies — neoliberalism, social justice and human
potential, respectively — by way of a nested structure with human potential
ideology offering the most embracing perspective.
The topic is approached by undertaking an integrative analysis of the
literature on social inclusion in higher education, with respect to both theory
and practice. In our integrative theoretical approach, instead of quality
being in competition with social inclusion, we bring them into cooperation
with each other. In this approach quality in higher education can also be
viewed along the same spectrum of ideologies. The focus is primarily on
Australian higher education with some reference to European higher education
literature.
First, the paper provides a contextual background on the implications of
globalisation for higher education, including the perceived conflict between
notions of ‘access’ and ‘quality’.
Second, it constructs a broad theoretical framework regarding social
inclusion. This involves the identification of areas and degrees of inclusion.
Degrees of social inclusion are shown to reflect a spectrum of ideologies,
which in turn influence notions of quality in higher education. Finally, an
overview of social inclusion interventions is offered, which parallels the
different theoretical approaches to inclusion. In this integrative model
potentially rival ideologies make iterative contributions to a more balanced
social inclusion policy. This approach integrates interventions that increase
access, participation and success, pointing to a more comprehensive view of
quality in higher education.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
125
In a special issue on ‘Social Inclusion’ in the Policy Futures in Education
(2003) journal the editor made the point that,
A key barrier to understanding arises from the fragmentation of policy in
relation to different arenas of inclusion/exclusion y . Joined-up working
has been a much-used cliché which has not been accompanied by
connected thinking about the different groups who are at risk of
exclusion. (Allan, 2003, Editorial, paragraph 1) [italics in original]
This paper uses integrative — or joined-up — thinking to offer some future
policy directions. This is in line with Ernst Boyer’s — often overlooked —
scholarship of integration.2 It supports the kind of ‘‘‘multi-pronged’’ strategies
for tackling social inclusion, which consider multiple dimensions of social
exclusion’ (Allan, 2003) and multiple theories and ideologies. Further, by
identifying the key ideologies playing out in the debate, it becomes evident why
concepts such as equitable access, success and quality may be seen as ‘mutually
exclusive concepts’. On the other hand, the nested model presented here
demonstrates how such concepts are also ‘essential ingredients in higher
education’. In the latter view, a developmental progression of policy values
may be observed from mere ‘access’ through ‘participation and engagement’ to
‘success through empowerment’, providing differentiated but coherent
foundations for quality higher education development.
Globalisation of Higher Education
As the politico-economic processes of globalisation increasingly impact on
socio-cultural spheres, the higher education sector in the 21st century is faced
with new and more complex challenges across the globe. The tensions between
global, national and regional/local interests found in other discourses are
spilling over into the higher education literature.
By the 1990s a subtle shift had taken place in Europe by which the previous
‘national and cultural role’ of higher education was being eclipsed by ‘the
economic rationale’ (Huisman and Van der Wende, 2004). Jeroen Huisman
and Van der Wende note that in spite of initial resistance and critique from the
higher education sector, the economic rationale was intensified by both
globalisation and the rise of information and communication technologies.
They argued that ‘this trend spurred international competition’ within higher
education (Huisman and Van der Wende, 2004, 350). This issue of global
competitiveness — so central to the functioning of neoliberal economic
markets — has penetrated the higher education sector. Indeed,
This international competitive stance not only relates to the export of
higher education, but also to issues of quality. For instance, the Austrian
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
126
government has established an accreditation mechanism that may be
interpreted as a shift towards international competition (instead of
cooperation). (Huisman and Van der Wende, 2004, 354)
Yet the complexity of our times allows new scope for ‘cross-border initiative
and invention in both knowledge and university strategy’ (Marginson,
2007). Such transversing of borders is exemplified by The European
Commission Bologna Process,3 part of the ‘European agenda towards
converging systems of higher education’. In this regard Huisman and Van
der Wende claim that, ‘in less than 10 years, harmonisation (although
preferably called ‘‘convergence’’) of higher education structures changed from
an undesirable objective to a highly advisable aim’ (Huisman and Van der
Wende, 2004, 349–350).
Globalisation has also stimulated mobility (of students, academics and
ideas) with the unexpected effect of enabling new insights into the diversity of
higher education systems (Lunt, 2008). Both established and newer higher
education institutions in the North and the South compete for market share in
the knowledge economy to prevent ‘brain drain’ (Huisman and Van der
Wende, 2004), to foster ‘brain gain’, and even to encourage ‘brain circulation’
(Kenway and Fahey, 2009) and global talent flows (Welch and Zhen, 2008).
Marginson notes that student mobililty is asymmetrical whereby ‘some nations
are primarily exporters, others are primarily importers’ (Marginson, 2004,
202). New discourses have emerged on international education, comparative
education and global education. The rise of international, transnational and
supranational organisations has furthered the drive to restructure. Educational
researchers with an eye to the future provide diverse views on the drivers
of change in university transformation (Inayatullah and Gidley, 2000) and
the complex lessons to be learned in education for the future (Morin, 2001).
The International Commission on Education for the 21st Century has
developed four pillars of education — learning to be, learning to know,
learning to do and learning to live together. These are aimed at shifting the
educational focus from ‘the local community to a world society’, from ‘social
cohesion to democratic participation’ and from ‘economic growth to human
development’ (Delors, 1996).
The Tension between Elite Institutions and Mass Higher Education
There is little contention that in the last few decades we have witnessed a shift
in higher education policy, at least in the Anglo-European context, from
universities as elite institutions for the few to higher education as a birthright
of the many. This shift is well exemplified in the UK higher education policies
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
127
of the 1990s. Ingrid Lunt summarised the challenges that the UK higher
education system faced at the beginning of the Blair government, noting that
similar challenges were arising at the time in the HE systems of all developed
countries. Lunt claimed that ‘the shift from an elite to a mass HE system’ led to
decreases in public funding to universities creating increased financial
challenges. She also argued that the higher education sector felt a need to
respond competitively because of beliefs in ‘the link between the economy and
the knowledge and skills of the labour force’. The result, she claimed, was
the so-called ‘high skills economy’ and the ‘commodification of knowledge’
(Lunt, 2008, 742).
As a counter trend, there is evidence in the last few years to suggest the
pendulum may be swinging back towards a kind of elitism — though perhaps
less explicitly based on class than in former times. Some researchers applaud
the concept of the Emerging Global Model (EGM) of the high profile
21st century research university, claiming that such ‘top stratum of research
universities worldwide’ are key to ‘economic and social development’
(Mohrman et al., 2008). Mohrman et al. identify eight characteristics of the
EGM: global mission, research intensity, new roles for professors, diversified
funding, worldwide recruitment, increasing complexity, new relationships with
government and industry, and global collaboration with similar institutions
(Mohrman et al., 2008). However, other researchers raise new questions about
the impact of such a concentration of resources on higher education more
broadly in Europe and Asia (Deem et al., 2008). OECD analyst Jaana Puukka
and her co-author Francisco Marmolejo remind us that the ‘new wider mission
of higher education institutions, often characterised as a ‘‘third task’’ or social
obligation, can be best mobilised in the context of regions’ (Puukka and
Marmolejo, 2008). This third task is aligned to Boyer’s scholarship of
application (Boyer, 1990).
Marginson claims that the current ‘transnational markets in higher
education are structured as a segmented hierarchy’ reflecting dominance/
subordination in three aspects: between ‘developed’ and ‘developing nations’;
between English and non-English language universities; and between ‘the
hegemonic power of the United States in world higher education’ and higher
education in the rest of the world (Marginson, 2004, 218). He goes as far as to
claim that ‘the old equality of opportunity project is now in terminal crisis, and
will continue to be undermined by heightened status competition, markets,
cross-border leakages of people and resources, and global commercialisation’
(Marginson, 2004, 234).
In the light of these developments must we conclude that the notion of
quality in higher education has been hijacked by elite institutions who compete
for funding with mass education? Or is there a way that quality in higher
education may be viewed more systemically, more integrally?
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
128
Changing Views of Quality in Higher Education
What needs to be discussed here is what is meant by (or what is the identity of)
quality in higher education. While the emerging discourse on the EGM
suggests that quality in higher education is dependent on research and funding
concentration and can be measured by league tables and other performance
indicators, it needs to be recognised that this view is underpinned by a
particular ideology. The idea of EGMs has emerged from a global knowledge
economy based on the freemarket neoliberal ideology where individual
institutions compete with each other. That this ideology, neoliberalism, is the
dominant one — and thus invisible in much of the discourse — will be further
discussed below.
The UK provides a good case study of the tension between the elite notion of
quality in higher education and the social justice ethic towards greater access
to higher education. Lunt refers to this as ‘the trade-off between excellence
and equity’ (Lunt, 2008). She notes ‘the total increase in participation rates
masks a considerable variation by social class’ (Lunt, 2008) reflecting the
paradoxes and tensions even when a government such as that of New Labour
attempts to balance the global competitiveness with social inclusiveness and
equity. Although Blair’s policy rhetoric gave equal weighting to an espoused
commitment to ‘social inclusion and equity’, this did not have the significant
impact on universities effected by his ‘enhanced global competitiveness’ policy
(Lunt, 2008). While the prior conservative agenda led to dramatic increases in
access to higher education — an increase of one-third in overall student
numbers — by 1997, ‘this expansion had not succeeded in reducing class
inequalities’ (Lunt, 2008, 742).
Similar observations have been made in Australia: ‘the effect of interventions
based on this liberal position has been to maintain the status quo of power and
privilege with exception proving the rule’ (Nunan et al., 2005, 252). Marginson
claims:
Neo-liberal marketisation raises sharper questions about social inequality
in higher education, in two dimensions: equality/inequality of access to
opportunity, and equality/inequality of the opportunities themselves.
All else being equal, economic markets are associated with greater social
inequalities of access in systems mediated by the private capacity to pay,
so that access is more steeply stratified on social lines; and with a steeper
hierarchy of institutions, so that what is accessed is also increasingly
stratified. (Marginson, 2004, 234)
This paper questions the default neoliberal idea of quality as a measure
of a particular university or a particular nation’s competitive edge. It presents
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
129
two broader notions of quality in higher education, which need to be
systemically strengthened in the whole domain of higher education globally.
From the ideology of justice globalism, which will be further discussed below,
global networks of higher education institutions would collaborate rather
than compete with each other.4 And from the perspective of human potential
ideologies, quality in higher education would mean more than global
competitiveness or higher levels of access, but would be related to human
potential and transformation. The following sections will expand these
alternative notions of quality.
From Access to Success: Integrative Theorising of Social Inclusion
Brief history
Social inclusion is a contested term in both the academic and policy literature
with a diversity of definitions available. Rather than bringing closure to a
‘definition’ at this early stage, the paper briefly reviews the history of the term,
and then considers how it is viewed from three different ideological
perspectives.
The term ‘social inclusion’ — currently promoted by the Australian
Government — is a relatively new one in Australian higher education policy
literature. Social inclusion appears poised to replace terms such as access and
equity, which reflected earlier policy iterations in relation to increasing the
proportion of disadvantaged groups in higher education. The new social
inclusion policy in Australia suggests links to similar policies developed by the
Blair government. A key question is: ‘To what extent does the new term, social
inclusion, reflect a shift in policy; or is it merely old policies repackaged?’
The idea of social inclusion can be traced back at least to the 19th century
work of German sociologist, Max Weber. The modern use of the counterpart
term ‘social exclusion’ emerged in France with an emphasis on the importance
to society of social cohesion. The 1970s French notion of les exclus referred to
those who were excluded from the social insurance system (Hayes et al., 2008).
The concept spread in Europe throughout the 1980s and 1990s, culminating in
Tony Blair’s Social Exclusion Unit, created in 1997. The adoption of similar
policy in Australia has been more recent, beginning in South Australia in 2002
and then nationally via the Rudd government’s Social Inclusion Board
inaugurated in May 2008 (Hayes et al., 2008).
Areas of inclusion
Within the policy literature of the current Australian government, the
predominant emphasis regarding social inclusion in relation to higher
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
130
education is on the following groups: disadvantaged geographic areas,
indigenous Australians, and those living with homelessness, joblessness,
disability, health and/or mental health issues (Gillard, 2008). Taking a
more global view, the International Association of Universities policy on
equitable access, success and quality in higher education includes the following
in the under-represented groups ‘socio-economic status, race, ethnicity,
religion, age, [dis]ability or location’ (International Association of Universities,
2008). The special issue of Policy Futures in Education included articles
on poverty, gender, ethnicity/race, disability, faith/religion and criminality
(Allan, 2003).
In light of the global literature, a critique of the Australian social inclusion
policy is that it pays insufficient attention to several groups. First, these include
those groups pertaining to cultural and linguistic diversity, refugee status and
religious diversity (Kelly, 2003). Second, it is becoming widely recognised in
Australia with its expansive geography and low density population that more
attention needs to be paid in relation to the inclusion of students living in rural
and isolated areas (Hunt, 2007; Ferrari, 2008). Third, there is a growing
awareness in Australia of an ageing population, yet there is insufficient
attention in the policy and other literature about the needs of older Australians
to access life-long learning (McIntyre, 2005). Fourth, there is a serious gap in
the social inclusion literature with respect to those people who have been
incarcerated. Although many of them also fall into the other identified
categories, such as low socio-economic status (SES), Indigenous, culturally and
linguistically diverse (CALD) and facing mental health challenges, they have
special needs that should be identified and researched (Duff, 2003). Finally,
although discrimination and exclusion based on gender is addressed in most
policies, they are rarely addressed in relation to sexual orientation. An
exception is the UK National Child and Mental Health Service Support
Service5 policy on social inclusion, which specifically identified lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) as a category of concern. It noted that there
are a number of factors that ‘make young LGBT people vulnerable’. Although
a few studies do address this issue (Skelton, 1999; Rasmussen, 2003), perhaps
this group needs to be more explicitly identified in the social inclusion
literature.
Another challenge of this discussion concerns that within which these policies
are seeking to include people. If policies and interventions remain at the level
of top down imposition of assumed common values, then it is likely that many
of the groups discussed above, even if given access to higher education, may
choose not to participate wholeheartedly. Multi-stakeholder dialogues and
strategic visioning processes are needed to uncover that which these groups
want to participate in. This relates to the underpinning ideologies as discussed
below.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
131
Degrees of inclusion
Social inclusion can be understood as pertaining to a nested schema regarding
degrees of inclusion. The narrowest interpretation pertains to the neoliberal
notion of social inclusion as access; a broader interpretation regards the social
justice idea of social inclusion as participation or engagement; while the widest
interpretation involves the human potential lens of social inclusion as success
through empowerment (see Figure 1). These will now be discussed in more detail.
A Layered View of Ideologies underlying Social Inclusion Theory
To demonstrate how these different ideologies frame the issue of social
inclusion and higher education, we will discuss each approach giving examples
Human Potential
[Success]
Theories
Educational futures
Critical pedagogies of hope
Postcolonial theories
Key Phrases
“empowerment”
“social transformation”
“raising aspirations”
Key Phrases
“engagement”
“participation”
Key Phrases
“cultural diversity”
“lifelong-learning”
“potential”
Social Justice
[Participation]
Theories
Reduced forms of:
Critical pedagogy
Partnership theories
Feminist theories
Neoliberalism
[Access]
Key Phrases
“social responsibility”
“capability”
Theories
Free-market economics
Human & social capital theories
Key Phrases
“work first”
“economic growth”
“skills shortage”
“social capital”
Figure 1. Spectrum of ideologies underlying social inclusion theory and policy.
Source: Dr. Jennifer M. Gidley r 2009.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
132
from some of the discourses that arise. We will briefly discuss how social
capital theory if not used critically can be an example of neoliberalism;
how partnership theory can be used as an example of social justice values;
and how future-oriented pedagogies of hope can exemplify human potential
values.
Access: Neoliberal ideology
The narrowest interpretation of social inclusion is linked to the ideology
of neoliberalism. From the perspective of neoliberal6 ideologies, increasing
social inclusion is about investing in human capital and improving the skills
shortages for the primary purpose of economic growth as part of a nationalist
agenda to build the nation’s economy in order to better perform in a
competitive global market. In this theory the disadvantaged will eventually be
included in global wealth distribution through what is called the ‘trickle down
effect’. Political scientist, Manfred Steger, who notes that the term ‘neoliberalism’ began to be used in the 1980s, details its central tenets as follows:
The central tenets of neoliberalism include the primacy of economic
growth, the importance of free trade to stimulate growth, the unrestricted
free market, individual choice, the reduction of government regulation,
and the advocacy of an evolutionary model of social development
anchored in the Western experience and applicable to the entire world.
(Steger, 2005, 8–9)
Some researchers argue ‘the current market-oriented environment of higher
education is hostile to the development of inclusive education in universities’
(Nunan et al., 2000, 63). To the extent that neoliberal policy considers social
inclusion to be important at all, it is related to increasing access to higher
education for the primary purpose of increasing the national skills base and
improving the economy. Access is about numbers and percentages and does
not necessarily reflect student participation or success, nor does it reveal
anything about the quality of the education that is accessed. In the neoliberal
approach, definitions of social inclusion use economic metaphors such as ‘skills
banks’, ‘investing in children’ and ‘social capital’.
The notion of social capital is linked with the notion of human capital
grounded in neoclassical economics. Researchers from Melbourne University
claim that ‘the primary attraction of the social capital approach is that it allows
(or appears to allow) the non-mercantile resources in a community to be
treated within a quasi-market framework’ (Bexley et al., 2007, 10–11). The
researchers also noted that the original notion of social capital formulated
by Bourdieu ‘uses social capital explicitly in order to explain the reproduction
of social class divisions and inequalities of power’, whereas the popularised
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
133
notion of social capital of Putnam and others ‘cloud the differences in the
potential productivity of social networks’ (Bexley et al., 2007, 11). Bexley et al.
claim that the problem with the latter stance is that those who are disadvantaged
by the system can again be held responsible for their lack of social capital. This is
an inherently neoliberal idea. In a UK case — based on Putnam’s rather than
Bourdieu’s reading of social capital — Bexley et al. report:
The failure to appreciate the obstacles faced by the most socially and
economically disadvantaged was matched by a failure to appreciate the
comparatively high levels of power held by experienced bureaucrats and
business representatives in partnership with community representatives.
(Bexley et al., 2007, 12)
Another feature of the neoliberal approach to social inclusion is that it
works from models of deficiency, somewhat akin to the axiom of mainstream
economics pertaining to scarcity of resources. It can also be reductive in the
sense of promoting a dominator hierarchy homogenising that which is included.
The reduction of social explanation to economic factors is an example of
conceptual reductive integration, while lifeworld reductive integration would
be exemplified both by cultural assimilation and stakeholder dominator
hierarchies. The latter, for instance, might involve corporate interests or
government attempting to marginalise the interests and agendas of community
voices such as those of indigenous, homeless, disabled, gay, youth or elderly
groups (or their advocates).
In summary, this agenda advocates for a free-market, privatised approach
to higher education with a research concentration (and thus funding
concentration) in a small number of elite institutions whereby small numbers
of individuals may excel at the expense of others. The predominance of
the neoliberal agenda in the global higher education sector has led to the
coining of the term ‘knowledge capitalism’ (Burton-Jones, 2003). Against such
corporatisation of higher education, critical theorist Henri Giroux takes a
strong stance:
The expansion of neo-liberal capitalism globally suggests an especially
dangerous turn at the current historical moment, one that threatens both
the substance of democracy as fundamental to the most basic freedom
and civil liberties, and the very meaning of higher education. (Giroux,
2003, Abstract)
Participation/engagement: Social justice ideology
A more inclusive interpretation of social inclusion is identified through social
justice ideology. From the perspective of social justice ideologies, increasing
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
134
social inclusion is about human rights, egalitarianism of opportunity, human
dignity and fairness for all. It may or may not be linked to economic interests,
but its primary aim is to enable all human beings to participate fully in society
with respect for their human dignity. This interpretation of social inclusion
foregrounds notions of participation and engagement. The critical pedagogy
theories are examples of educational theories grounded in the principles of
social justice (Freire, 1970; Kincheloe et al., 1999a, b; Giroux, 2003), though
these critical education theorists also support emancipation, empowerment and
human potential as further discussed below.
An important distinction between ‘access’ and ‘participation’ is made by
researchers in a study of social inclusion in higher education in the UK. They
argue that ‘access to HE’ is merely the starting point, claiming that: ‘certain
groups within society are still significantly under-represented and disadvantaged at the level of participation’ (Tonks and Farr, 2003, Abstract). The
important link between justice theories and participation can be summarised
as follows: ‘There is another more critical set of notions that see inclusivity
in educational contexts as concerned with successful participation which
generates greater options for all people in education and beyond’ (Nunan et al.,
2005, 252).
Universities can play a key role in participatory social inclusion via
university–community partnerships. While undoubtedly some of the rationale
behind the drive for universities to partner with industry is for the purpose
of increasing research funding, the trend for universities to partner with
communities is less likely to be driven by economic goals. Many of those
involved in pioneering university–community partnerships particularly in low
SES and rural/regional areas appear to be primarily motivated by social justice
concerns and issues of regional and/or community development. Anne
Langworthy argues that the need for university–community engagement
goes well beyond the economic and is ‘essential for the sustainability of
communities’ (Langworthy, 2008, 57). A broader contextualisation of the rise
of the partnership model today can be found in the research of American
cultural historian Riane Eisler and her partnership approach to education
(Eisler, 2001).
A review of the literature on effective university–community partnering
discusses a number of theories that inform the research on university–
community partnership. These include ‘linkage complexity’, ‘learning theory’,
‘goal setting’, ‘network embeddedness’, ‘participatory action research’,
‘evolutionary theory’ and ‘interpersonal relationships’ (Kenworthy-U’Ren
and U’Ren, 2008, 89). The authors discuss definitions, management
issues and key themes in university–community partnerships concluding
that there is a major shift occurring from the old ‘ivory-tower’ concept
of a university. This points to what Barbara Holland calls ‘the engaged
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
135
campus’, which is grounded in notions of university–community engagement
(Holland and Gelman, 1998).
Taking up the notion of engagement in education, Beverley Thompson
explores definitions and related theoretical concepts. She notes that the
literature on engagement includes such notions as ‘academic service learning’,
‘authentic learning’, ‘experiential education’ and ‘constructivist teaching’
(Thompson, 2008, 42–43), all involving the notion of some kind of community
partnership which facilitates ‘real-life experience’. Thompson investigates
many types of engagement and develops a typology of engagement, which she
refers to as ‘the three C’s of engagement learning — collaboration, complexity
and contract’ (Thompson, 2008, 46). These constructs are discussed in some
detail in her paper. She points to the need for engaged partnerships to move
from being ‘reactive’ to being ‘responsive or intentional’ (Thompson, 2008, 48).
The most common critique of a more socially inclusive egalitarian approach
to higher education is that it spreads the resource efforts too thin leaving
a parochial and dumbed down system that is not globally competitive. Critical
apprehension of differences between rhetoric and reality may also be elicited.
For example, a discourse that refers to social justice, social responsibility or fair
go may nonetheless mask economistic intent regarding merely skills shortages
and/or economic growth.
In contrast to reductionist forms of integration promoted by neoliberalism,
social justice interpretations of social inclusion comprise complex integrations
involving participatory dialogue arising from the full ecology of interests
regardless of power. Such participatory complexity is further enhanced within
human potential ideologies.
Success through empowerment: Human potential ideology
Potentially the most inclusive and integrative interpretation of social inclusion
is identified as human potential ideology. From this perspective, social
inclusion asserts and goes beyond both economic equity/access, and social
justice notions of equal rights for all, to maximise the potential of each human
being thus supporting broader cultural transformation. Employing models
of possibility instead of models of deficiency, human potential approaches take
a further step beyond access and participation to encourage the interpretation
of social inclusion as empowerment. As stated in the conclusion to International
Association of Universities (IAU) recent policy statement, ‘Access and
participation in higher education are essential for the empowerment of all,
especially those often excluded’ (International Association of Universities,
2008).
It is worth noting that the Australian government social inclusion policy
does make an important linguistic shift from the negative framing of ‘poverty’,
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
136
‘disadvantage’, ‘deprivation’ and ‘exclusion’ to the more positive framing of
‘inclusion’. It is to be hoped that this marks the beginning of a directional shift
in attitude from ‘deficit’ models to ‘human potential’ models.
Such a perspective foregrounds the notion that all human beings, including
those who have been marginalised for whatever reasons, are multi-dimensional
beings, who have needs and interests that go well beyond their role in the
political economy of a nation. This perspective can be encapsulated in the
reframing of social inclusion as ‘ethical inclusion’ in a recent Australian
publication: ‘Broadly, the term [social inclusion] means the empowerment of
individuals to participate as fully as possible in society’ (Olsson, 2008, 6). Jayne
Clapton highlights that social inclusion is not just about access and equity but
about ‘the moral imperative of working with the complexity of humanity’ and
having awareness that ‘education is transformative’ (cited in Olsson, 2008, 9).
Discourses inspiring such perspectives include adult developmental psychology theories that propose higher stages of human reasoning (Sinnott, 1998;
Cook-Greuter, 2000; Commons and Richards, 2002), critical and transformative pedagogies of hope that reverse the focus on disadvantage and deficit and
look towards positive development, lifelong and life-wide learning and
empowerment (Freire, 1995; Montuori, 1997; Kincheloe et al. 1999a; Visser,
2000; Hart, 2001; Giroux, 2003; Bassett, 2005), postcolonial development
theories that resist the westernisation and homogenisation of diverse cultures
(Jain et al. 2001; Jain and Jain, 2003) and discourses regarding multicultural
histories, and positive futures visioning (Gidley, 2001, 2005).
Luke Egan, Jude Butcher and Ken Ralph from the Australian Catholic
University claim that levels of engagement are enhanced when ‘community
members are empowered to reconnect with society’ (Egan et al., 2008, 34).
Clearly this notion of empowerment goes beyond mere access to higher
education or even participation. Such an approach hints at levels or degrees of
social inclusion.
This progression beyond access and participation has been extended further
in the Access and Success7 project at Victoria University, Australia
(Cherednichenko and Williams, 2007). A similar project8 was announced in
the USA aimed at ‘closing by at least half the gaps in both college-going and
degree completion that separate low-income and minority students from
others’. Synchronously, the 13th General Conference of the International
Association of Universities in Utrecht, the Netherlands in July 2008, adopted a
new policy statement called, Equitable Access, Success and Quality in Higher
Education. This policy makes a very clear statement about the relationships
among ‘access’, ‘participation’ and ‘success’ stating: ‘The goal of access policies
should be successful participation in higher education, as access without a
reasonable chance of success is an empty phrase’ (International Association of
Universities, 2008).
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
137
Egan et al. draw on social psychologist Charles Richard Snyder’s hope
theory, pointing to the value of Snyder’s three dimensions of hope — goals,
pathways and agency. They claim that there is a mutually reinforcing cycle
when these three dimensions of hope are activated, for example,
When a person’s pathways thinking is enhanced, and they become more
able to generate effective pathways to their goals, it is likely that they will
then become more motivated to follow these routes. Conversely, when a
person becomes more motivated to pursue their goals, it is likely that they
will thus be more energised to think of workable routes to their goals.
(Egan et al., 2008, 35)
A primary benefit that Egan et al. see for linking hope theory with
community engagement is that the latter enhances both pathways thinking and
agency. Some recent educational futures research has also explored the
relationship between youth suicidality and the culture of hopelessness being
promoted by western media, and also looks to positive futures visioning as
a way of reconstructing hope among young people (Gidley, 2001, 2005). Such
empowerment methods are just one of several approaches within the
educational futures field (Gidley et al., 2004).
A crucial difference between these theories and much of neoliberal theory is
that there is no one ideal — for example European, or Anglo-American —
model of human development. Rather the notion of cultural and individual
diversity is embraced whereby individuals are socially included, not so that
they ‘fit in’ or ‘are assimilated into’ some pre-existing Westerncentric society or
factory model of education, but rather that they bring with them the richness of
their individual difference — be it gender, culture, age or ability. Indian
researcher Ashis Nandy has written extensively on the significance of the
categories of knowledge that we live by and the need to make transparent the
power that lives in these dominant categories of knowledge (Nandy, 2000).
Professor Denise Bradley ponders how a more substantial Indigenous
involvement in higher education might look:
Indigenous involvement in higher education is not only about student
participation and the employment of Indigenous staff. It is also about
what is valued as knowledge in the academy. Indigenous students and
staff have unique knowledge and understandings which must be brought
into the curriculum for all students and must inform research and
scholarship. (Bradley et al., 2008, 32)
The inclusion — indeed, celebration — of culturally diverse voices in
educational curricula and processes is surely a way forward to increase
not just equitable access, but engaged participation and empowered
success.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
138
A Layered View of Social Inclusion Practice
A number of social inclusion interventions are identified and situated
according to their apparent underpinning ideology: interventions that focus
on the economic benefits of social inclusion are generally underpinned by
neoliberal economic theory and rely on economic investment; interventions
that focus on social justice tend to be grounded in sociology and/or critical
social theory and involve social interventions (perhaps in addition to economic
investment); interventions that focus on human potential tend to be grounded
in positive psychology and pedagogy theories of human development,
empowerment and transformation in which the emphasis is less on economic
investment and more on psychological and spiritual values of generosity,
community and gifting (see Figure 2).
Empowered Success
[Human Potential Ideology]
Empowerment
Celebrate diversity
Cultural transformation
Futures interventions
Voice “being heard”
Dialogue
Engaged Participation
[Social Justice Ideology]
Hope interventions
Cultural festivals
Pathways
Community Engagement
Partnerships
Engaged campus
School outreach
Mentoring
Learning networks
Social Enterprise
Sport
Arts
Equitable Access
[Neoliberal Ideology]
Equity scholarships
Income support
Improved infrastructure
Technology
Public transport
Translators
Physical access
Health services
Figure 2. Access, participation and success in social inclusion interventions.
Source: Dr. Jennifer M. Gidley r 2009.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
139
Interventions to increase access
Much government policy, being grounded as it is in neoliberal politicoeconomic theory, tends to focus on both the economic benefits of improved
access and participation and also on the economic costs (albeit framed as
investments) of social inclusion interventions. When a new intervention is
announced, there is always an announcement about how many millions of
dollars the intervention will cost the government. This economic framing is so
much part of the dominant policy discourse that it goes largely unnoticed.
As indicated in Figure 2, there are numerous interventions that could be
introduced to increase the access to higher education of various underrepresented groups. There is no question that significant increases in higher
education funding targeted at these interventions would increase access to
higher education. These can be regarded as important first stepping-stones to
the more inclusive understandings of social justice and human potential
interventions:
more equity scholarships for low SES groups;
better income support for low SES students;
improved regional infrastructures, including better public transport and
technology access for rural and isolated and particularly indigenous
students;
physical and architectural modifications for students with disabilities;
additional teaching assistance and translation assistance for students with
learning disabilities or from CALD backgrounds; and
better counselling and health services for students with psychological and/or
physical health challenges.
While not wanting to give the impression that such interventions are not
important, this paper views such interventions as merely the beginning of the
social inclusion agenda. As suggested above, access to higher education for
under-represented groups is fundamental, but it does not necessarily lead to
active participation, engagement, empowerment or success. Nor does it
guarantee that quality learning is taking place.
Interventions to increase participation/engagement
In recent years there seems to have been a gradual increase in the number and
range of social justice-oriented social inclusion interventions in Australian
universities. It is beyond the scope of this paper to make more than brief
reference to a few representative examples from the types of interventions
listed in Figure 2.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
140
Partnerships: The notion of partnerships has become almost ubiquitous in
social inclusion literature. In October 2008, an entire conference was devoted
to Partnerships for Social Inclusion, organised by the University of Melbourne
Centre for Public Policy. Many of the examples below were presented as papers
at this conference. Victoria University Community Engagement Programs,
directed by Elleni Bereded-Samuel, plan, develop and implement strategies to
increase the scope of the university’s community engagement, especially with
CALD communities.
Social enterprise: The notion of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship is
a relatively new one in the Australian higher education setting. However, social
enterprise has been developing over the last decade, particularly in parts of
Europe as a significant method for tackling social exclusion (Borzaga and
Defourny, 2001).
Mentoring: The value of mentoring for building a sense of community among
young people in regional areas has been reported in a study in which a
Network Partnership Model was used in the Mentoring and Community
Building Initiative (coordinated by the Office for Youth) (Broadbent et al.,
2008). A student peer mentoring programme has also been reported to assist
new university students from under-represented schools (James, 2008, 66).
Learning networks: The role of learning networks is to broker learning and
research opportunities in partnerships between universities, schools and other
organisations within local communities. RMIT University LearnLinks,
directed by Leone Wheeler, was used as a case study to gain insight into the
common elements of an operational framework required for a sustainable
learning network.
Arts interventions: It has been shown that involvement in the arts can enhance
access and increase social and cultural inclusion for people with disabilities
(Rix, 2003). In the UK, research is being undertaken by the National
Foundation for Educational Research using the arts as a medium of
engagement with ‘excluded and at-risk pupils’ to further explore some of the
‘ways that the arts can make a contribution to the social inclusion agenda’
(Kinder and Harland, 2004, 56).
Sport interventions: The role of sport in increasing the social inclusion of newly
arrived and refugee young people has been explored by researchers in
Melbourne. Such indications are supported by research on the potential role of
sport, exercise and physical education in facilitating empowerment, community
development and sustainable development (Lawson, 2005).
School outreach: School outreach programmes can facilitate seamless educational pathways from early childhood, through university and beyond.
Examples include: Griffith University Pathways to Prevention (Olsson, 2008);
RMIT University Schools Network Access Program (Fels, 2008, 6); partnership
with the Smith Family’s Learning for Life Program; academic assistance in
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
141
schools; and academic enrichment and university orientation (Universities
Australia, 2008, 60–61). Special entry programmes include: teacher recommendation systems; portfolio entry; bridging courses; and TAFE/VET pathways.
Interventions to increase success and empowerment
While it may be difficult to accurately discern the difference between the
previous and subsequent programmes in terms of underlying values, and
indeed there is much overlap between the ideologies, theories and approaches,
it is a matter of emphasis. The following programmes appear to have a stronger
focus on success, empowerment and maximising human potential.
Pathways: In a sense, many of the interventions discussed in the previous
section and this section relate to finding alternative pathways to higher
education. However, in the interventions below these pathways are perhaps not
so obvious as they may be indirect pathways by way of enabling the person or
persons to have their ‘voices heard’, to engage in ‘dialogue’ about their cultural
or religious differences, to have ‘hope’, to feel ‘empowered’, or to feel that their
cultural values, perhaps as expressed in their cultural festivals, are being
honoured.
Voice ‘being heard’: The importance of having ‘their voices heard’ is an
Australian government criterion for social inclusion (Gillard, 2008). Recent
research on postformal pedagogies points to the potential role of voice (and
language) awareness in education as a medium for consciousness development
(Gidley, 2009). A Victorian government initiative involves community
networks, assisted by Indigenous Community Engagement Brokers, to give
voice to Indigenous Australians through greater participation, engagement and
representation (Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, 2007).
Dialogue: If we take the notion of voice a little further it enables the process of
dialogue to emerge. This can involve intercultural and/or inter-religious
dialogue (Kelly, 2003). Indeed, at the meta level within social inclusion theory,
one can work towards a stronger practice of ‘dialogue across different strands
of inclusion/exclusion and to consider ways of addressing the fragmentation
within national policy’ (Allan, 2003, 622). The significant role of intercultural
dialogue in furthering social inclusion has been emphasised by the co-founder
of the Global Dialogue Institute in Philadelphia (Gangadean, 2006).
Futures interventions: The significance of taking a long-term view in planning
and social interventions has been stressed for decades by futures researchers.
Furthermore, the psychological and pedagogical value of interventions that
assist young people to envisage positive futures has been highlighted in various
Australian studies (Gidley, 2001; Gidley and Inayatullah, 2002; Stewart, 2002;
Eckersley et al., 2006; Eckersley et al., 2007).
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
142
Hope interventions: The interventions that relate to young people’s views and
visions of their futures are closely connected with interventions that are aimed
at facilitating hope and also those aimed at increasing empowerment (Gidley,
2004, 2005). Paulo Freire’s pedagogical theories and practices of working with
oppressed people in Latin America can be aptly utilised to facilitate social
inclusion through creating pedagogies of hope rather than hopelessness (Freire,
1970, 1995). A Brisbane intervention, Sisters Inside, gives hope to incarcerated
women by providing pathways to higher education as a means of rehabilitation
(Olsson, 2008, 6).
Cultural festivals: One of the best ways to facilitate the deeper feelings of social
inclusion that align to engagement and empowerment (in contrast to having
access but still feeling disempowered) is for people to be able to express their
own cultural values in ways that they are fully valued and honoured. Cultural
festivities are a way of affirming a sense of belonging to a culture. Paul James
at RMIT University has initiated a cultural festivals project for indigenous
Australians, Globalizing Indigeneity: Indigenous Cultural Festivals and Wellbeing in Australia and the Asia-Pacific.
Towards an Integrated Approach to Quality Higher Education
An integrative theory of quality in higher education is proposed involving a
spectrum of ideologies. The notion of quality in higher education is uncoupled
from its default neoliberal connections with global competitiveness, and
reconsidered in the light of more collaborative and normative ideologies such
as those grounded in social justice and human potential. Technicist
interpretations of social inclusion and quality are problematised as being too
narrow. Instead, broader interpretations of social inclusion and quality in
higher education enable each to embrace the three notions of access,
participation and success as representing ‘degrees of social inclusion’.
Numerous examples of practical social inclusion interventions across the
spectrum are also offered.
Through our innovative braiding together of the concept of quality in
higher education with a spectrum of ideologies and degrees of social
inclusion, we unpack and reconfigure some of the underlying systemic
processes. This enables the integration of apparently disparate theories,
policies and practices. Higher education access, participation, success,
social inclusion and quality are brought into a new integrative theoretical
structure. In our view, quality in higher education is synonymous with
a broad interpretation of social inclusion in higher education in that both
are concerned with equitable access, participatory engagement and
empowered success.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
143
Notes
1 The development of the theoretical framework informing this paper was undertaken by Gidley
as part of a literature review on social inclusion in higher education initiated and funded by
Dr. Leone Wheeler in the RMIT Learning Community Partnerships Group and Professor John
Fien, Global Cities Research Institute. The topic of the 2009 IAU/Palgrave essay prize inspired
Gidley to undertake further research to extend the literature review to meet the more global
context of the paper theme. Hampson’s editorial assistance helped to refine some aspects of the
theory and Wheeler and Bereded-Samuel contributed practical insights from their extensive
professional experience in university–community engagement.
2 Ernst Boyer proposed four types of scholarship: the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of
integration, the scholarship of application and the scholarship of teaching (Boyer, 1990).
3 ‘The Bologna Process aims to create a European Higher Education Area by 2010, in which
students can choose from a wide and transparent range of high quality courses and benefit
from smooth recognition procedures’. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/
bologna_en.html.
4 The latter ideology is reflected in the title of the recent IAU conference: ‘Associations,
Networks, Alliances etc.: Making Sense of the Emerging Global Higher Education Landscape’
2009 Conference of the International Association of Universities, IAU: For A Worldwide
Higher Education Community, Mexico.
5 The National CAMHS Support Service (NCSS) is sponsored by the Department of Health
(DH) and Department for Education and Skills (DfES) with the aim of offering additional
capacity to support the implementation of a comprehensive Child and Adolescent Mental
Health Service (CAMHS). The NCSS is part of the Care Services Improvement Partnership
Children, Young People and Families national programme, which is delivered in the regions of
England. http://www.csip.org.uk/~cypf/camhs/national-camhs-support-service-ncss.html.
6 Neoliberalism can be differentiated from classic liberalism in its interest in the state enforcement
of liberalism — an illiberal manoeuvre.
7 Access and Success is a 5-year project to improve the access and successful participation of
young people in post compulsory education and training through collaborative research and
strategic action in partnership with schools in the western region of Melbourne.
8 The Access to Success project in the USA was initiated in October 2007 by the National
Association of System Heads (NASH) — an association of chief executives of the 52 college and
university systems of public higher education in the United States and supported in part by
grants from Lumina Foundation for Education and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Press+Room/AccessToSuccessLaunch.htm.
References
Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. (2007) ‘A voice for indigenous Victorians: local indigenous networks
and regional indigenous councils’, Retrieved 3 November 2009, from http://www.aboriginal
affairs.vic.gov.au/web7/rwpgslib.nsf/GraphicFiles/A+Voice+for+Indigenous+Victorians:+
Local+Indigenous+Networks+and+Regional+Indigenous+Councils/$file/LINS+AND+
RICS+BROCHURE.pdf.
Allan, J. (2003) ‘Editorial: Social inclusion’, Policy Futures in Education 1(4): 622–625.
Bassett, C. (2005) ‘Wisdom in three acts: using transformative learning to teach for wisdom’,
[Electronic version, Paper presented at the Sixth International Transformative Learning
Conference; 6–8 October 2005; East Lansing, Michigan. Retrieved 22 February 2008,
http://www.wisdominst.org/EmergentWisdomBassett_spr05.pdf.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
144
Bexley, E., Marginson, S. and Wheelahan, L. (2007) ‘Social capital in theory and practice: the
contribution of Victorian tertiary education in the ‘New Economy’ disciplines of business
studies and IT’, http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/pdfs/SocialCapitalNov2007.pdf, accessed 18
December 2008.
Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (eds.) (2001) The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London: Routledge.
Boyer, E.L. (1990) Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H. and Scales, B. (2008) Review of Australian Higher Education,
Canberra, ACT, Australia: Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations,
Australian Government.
Broadbent, R., Papadopoulos, T. and Whitehead, F. (2008) ‘The network partnership model: a
cross-sectoral approach to youth mentoring and community building’, Partnerships for Social
Inclusion Conference. Retrieved 12 December 2008, from http://www.public-policy.unimelb
.edu.au/conference08/Broadbent.pdf.
Burton-Jones, A. (2003) ‘Knowledge capitalism: the new learning economy’, Policy Futures in
Education 1: 143–159.
Cherednichenko, B. and Williams, J. (2007) ‘Growing educational capacity through a collaborative
education initiative’, Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education
Conference; 25–29 November 2007, Freemantle, Perth, Australia.
Commons, M.L. and Richards, F.A. (2002) ‘Organizing components into combination: How stage
transition works’, Journal of Adult Development 9(3): 159–177.
Cook-Greuter, S.R. (2000) ‘Mature ego development: a gateway to ego transcendence’, Journal of
Adult Development 7(4): 227–240.
Deem, R., Mok, K.H. and Lucas, L. (2008) ‘Transforming higher education in whose image?
Exploring the concept of the ‘world-class’ university in Europe and Asia’, Higher Education
Policy 21(1): 83–97.
Delors, J. (1996) Learning: The Treasure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International
Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, Paris, France: UNESCO.
Duff, A.R. (2003) ‘Inclusion, exclusion and the criminal law’, Policy Futures in Education 1(4):
699–715.
Eckersley, R., Cahill, H., Wierenga, A. and Wyn, J. (eds.) (2007) Generations in Dialogue about the
Future: The Hopes and Fears of Young Australians, Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian
Youth Research Centre and Australia 21.
Eckersley, R., Wierenga, A. and Wyn, J. (2006) Flashpoints and Signposts: Pathways to Success and
Wellbeing for Australia’s Young People, Australian Youth Research Centre, University of
Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne.
Egan, L.A., Butcher, J. and Ralph, K. (2008) ‘Hope as a basis for understanding the benefits and
possibilities of community engagement’, Paper presented at the Engaging for a Sustainable
Future: Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance National Conference; 9–11
July 2008, Sunshine Coast, Australia.
Eisler, R. (2001) ‘Partnership education in the 21st century’, Journal of Futures Studies 5(3):
143–156.
Fels, M. (2008) Executive Summary Cohort Analysis SNAP: Schools Network Access Program,
Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University.
Ferrari, G. (2008) Yacvic’s Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Geographical
Differences in the Rate in which Victorian Students Participate in Higher Education, Melbourne,
Australia: Youth Affairs Council of Victoria.
Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Herder and Herder.
Freire, P. (1995) Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
145
Gangadean, A. (2006) ‘A planetary crisis of consciousness: from ego-based cultures to a sustainable
global world’, Kosmos: An Integral Approach to Global Awakening V(2): 37–39.
Gidley, J. (2001) ‘An intervention targeting hopelessness in adolescents by promoting positive
future images’, Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling 11(1): 51–64.
Gidley, J. (2004) ‘Imagination and integration: Empowering teachers and children’, Paper
presented at the Council of Government Schools Organisations (COGSO), 4th Annual Conference;
1–2 May 2004, Darwin, NT, Australia.
Gidley, J. (2005) ‘Giving hope back to our young people: creating a new spiritual mythology for
western culture’, Journal of Futures Studies 9(3): 17–30.
Gidley, J. (2009) ‘Educating for Evolving Consciousness: Voicing the Emergency for Love, Life and
Wisdom’, in M. de Souza, L.J. Francis, J. O’Higgins-Norman and D. Scott (eds.) The
International Handbook of Education for Spirituality, Care and Wellbeing, New York: Springer.
Gidley, J., Bateman, D. and Smith, C. (2004) Futures in Education: Principles, Practice and
Potential, Melbourne, Australia: Australian Foresight Institute.
Gidley, J. and Inayatullah, S. (eds.) (2002) Youth Futures: Comparative Research and
Transformative Visions, Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gillard, T.H.J. (2008) ‘Introductory Remarks’, Paper presented at the ‘Education, Employment
and Social Inclusion Symposium’, 21 August 2008, Melbourne, Australia.
Giroux, H.A. (2003) ‘Selling out higher education’, Policy Futures in Education 1: 179–200.
Hart, T. (2001) From Information to Transformation: Education for the Evolution of Consciousness,
New York: Peter Lang.
Hayes, Gray and Edwards. (2008) http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/Documents/PMC%20
AIFS%20report.pdf, accessed 17 December 2008.
Holland, B. and Gelman, S. (1998) ‘The state of the ‘engaged campus’: what have we learned about
building and sustaining university and community partnerships’, American Association of Higher
Education Bulletin 51(2): 3–6.
Huisman, J. and Van der Wende, M. (2004) ‘The EU and Bologna: are supra- and international initiatives threatening domestic agendas?’ European Journal of Education 39(3):
349–357.
Hunt, P. (2007) ‘Rural students suffer’, The Weekly Times, 11 April.
Inayatullah, S. and Gidley, J. (eds.) (2000) The University in Transformation: Global Perspectives on
the Futures of the University, Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
International Association of Universities. (2008) Equitable Access, Success and Quality in Higher
Education: A Policy Statement by the International Association of Universities, Paris, France:
International Association of Universities.
Jain, M. and Jain, S. (eds.) (2003) McEducation for All? Udaipur, India: Shikshantar.
Jain, M., Miller, V. and Jain, S. (eds.) (2001) Unfolding Learning Societies: Deepening the Dialogues
(Vol. April 2001). Udaipur, India: The People’s Institute for Rethinking education and
Development.
James, R. (2008) Participation and Equity: A Review of the Participation in Higher Education of
People from low Socioeconomic Backgrounds and Indigenous People, Melbourne, Australia:
Melbourne Graduate School of Education and Universities Australia.
Kelly, E. (2003) ‘Integration, assimilation and social inclusion: questions of faith’, Policy Futures in
Education 1(4): 686–698.
Kenway, J. and Fahey, J. (eds.) (2009) Globalizing the Research Imagination, Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
Kenworthy-U’Ren, A. and U’Ren, B. (2008) ‘Understanding the ‘Partner’ In Partnerships:
A Review of the Literature on Effective University-Community Partnering’, Paper presented at
the Engaging for a Sustainable Future: Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance
National Conference, 9–11 July 2008; Sunshine Coast, Australia.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
146
Kincheloe, J., Steinberg, S. and Hinchey, P.H. (eds.) (1999a) The Post-Formal Reader: Cognition
and Education, New York: Falmer Press.
Kincheloe, J., Steinberg, S. and Villaverde, L.E. (1999b) Rethinking Intelligence: Confronting
Psychological Assumptions about Teaching and Learning, New York: Routledge.
Kinder, K. and Harland, J. (2004) ‘The arts and social inclusion: what’s the evidence?’ Support for
Learning 19(2): 52–56.
Langworthy, A. (2008) ‘Skills and knowledge for the future: why universities must engage with
their communities’, The Australasian Journal of Community Engagement 2(2): 57–72.
Lawson, H.A. (2005) ‘Empowering people, facilitating community development, and contributing
to sustainable development: the social work of sport, exercise, and physical education
programs’, Sport, Education and Society 10(1): 135–160.
Lunt, I. (2008) ‘Beyond tuition fees? The legacy of Blair’s government to higher education’, Oxford
Review of Education 34(6): 741–752.
McIntyre, J. (2005) Adult Learning and Australia’s Ageing Population, Canberra, Australia: Adult
Learning Australia Inc.
Marginson, S. (2004) ‘Competition and markets in higher education: a ‘‘glonacal’’ analysis’, Policy
Futures in Education 2(2): 175–244.
Marginson, S. (ed.) (2007) Prospects of Higher Education: Globalization, Market Competition,
Public Goods and the Future of the University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Mohrman, K., Ma, W. and Baker, D. (2008) ‘The research university in transition: the emerging
global model’, Higher Education Policy 21(1): 5–27.
Montuori, A. (1997) ‘Reflections on transformative learning: social creativity, academic discourse
and the improvisation of inquiry’, ReVision 20(1): 34–37.
Morin, E. (2001) Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future, Paris, France: UNESCO.
Nandy, A. (2000) ‘Recovery of Indigenous Knowledge and Dissenting Futures of Universities’, in
S. Inayatullah and J. Gidley (eds.) The University in Transformation: Global Perspectives on the
Futures of the University, Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey, pp. 115–123.
Nunan, T., George, R. and McCausland, H. (2000) ‘Inclusive education in universities: why it is
important and how it might be achieved’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 4(1):
63–88.
Nunan, T., George, R. and McCausland, H. (2005) ‘Inclusive Education in Universities:
Why it is Important and how it Might Be Achieved’, in K.J. Topping and S. Maloney
(eds.) The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Inclusive Education, Oxford, UK: Routledge,
pp. 250–260.
Olsson, K. (2008) ‘Social inclusion: what would a truly inclusive society look like?’ Red, (2): 4–9.
Puukka, J. and Marmolejo, F. (2008) ‘Higher education institutions and regional mission: lessons
learnt from the OECD review project’, Higher Education Policy 21(2): 217–245.
Rasmussen, M.L. (2003) ‘Queer trepidations and the art of inclusion’, Melbourne Studies in
Education 44(1): 87–107.
Rix, P. (2003) ‘ ‘‘Anything is possible’’: the arts and social inclusion’, Policy Futures in Education
1(4): 716–730.
Sinnott, J.D. (1998) The Development of Logic in Adulthood: Postformal Thought and Its
Applications, New York: Springer.
Skelton, A. (1999) ‘An inclusive higher education? Gay and bisexual male teachers and the cultural
politics of sexuality’, International Journal of Inclusive Education 3(3): 239–255.
Steger, M.B. (2005) Globalism: Market Ideology Meets Terrorism (2nd edition), Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Stewart, C. (2002) ‘Re-Imagining your Neighbourhood: A Model of Futures Education’, in
J. Gidley and S. Inayatullah (eds.) Youth Futures: Comparative Research and Transformative
Visions, Westport, CT: Praeger, pp. 187–196.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23
Jennifer M. Gidley et al
From Access to Success
147
Thompson, B. (2008) ‘Use of the E-word: What Exactly is ‘Engagement’?’, Paper presented at the
Engaging for a Sustainable Future: Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance
National Conference; 9–11 July 2008, Sunshine Coast, Australia.
Tonks, D. and Farr, M. (2003) ‘Widening access and participation in UK higher education’, The
International Journal of Educational Management 17(1): 26–36.
Universities Australia. (2008) Advancing Equity and Participation in Australian Higher Education:
Action to Address Participation and Equity Levels in Higher Education of People from low
Socioeconomic Backgrounds and Indigenous People, Canberra, ACT, Australia: Universities
Australia.
Visser, J. (2000) ‘Rethinking Learning: Implications for Policy, Research and Practice’, in M. Jain
(ed.) Unfolding Learning Societies: Challenges and Opportunities, Udaipur, India: Shikshantar.
Welch, A.R. and Zhen, Z. (2008) ‘Higher education and global talent flows: brain drain, overseas
Chinese intellectuals, and diasporic knowledge networks’, Higher Education Policy 21(4):
519–537.
Higher Education Policy 2010 23