Conclusions: the framework coming together

In this chapter I have laid out the conceptual framework guiding my research. I employ intersectionality to help situate participants in unique positions between privilege and disadvantage, highlighting the differential power relations

(Wijeyesinghe and Jones, 2014). In helping understand the structures in which research participants are situated and the mechanisms operating within these structures I called on the work of Bourdieu and Critical Race Theory.

Seemingly, the two deal with different issues, as Bourdieu’s work has

concentrated on social class, whereas CRT emphasises ‘race’. However, the two frameworks overlap in certain aspects. In particular, I have highlighted Bourdieu’s (1976) work on the reproduction of (dis)advantage in schools through meritocracy, and CRT’s critique of colour-blindness which upholds White privilege by disregarding the power relations and structural, historically derived inequalities inbuilt into the system of the recognition of merit (Gillborn, 2008).

As I argued, this reproduction of (dis)advantage happens, using the languages of both CRT and Bourdieu, because the dominant group (White middle/upper class) has the privilege of implicitly dictating the rules of the field (in this case intersecting racial and class fields) without acknowledging their agency

(whiteness and middle-class capitals) and instead masking it in the discourse of ‘norm’ (meritocracy). In education then, both CRT and Bourdieu acknowledge that the educational structures, practices and discourses have been constructed in a way that continues to oppress and marginalise non-dominant groups, while simultaneously, and somewhat self-contradictory, providing a potential for emancipation and empowerment of selected few from these groups (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990; Lynn et al., 2013; Yosso, 2005). This, I argued, can be seen as the agency of students of colour against the raced, classed and

gendered structures of Whiteness within higher education, where the agency is operationalised by employing multiple economic, cultural and social capitals as conceptualised in the CCW framework.

Therefore, I have argued that employing intersectionality, CRT and

their own) the mechanisms of the reproduction of (dis)advantage at both institutional (universities playing to secure high-status position within the hierarchy of the HE field) and individual level (BME students playing their capitals to navigate the field of HE). I further argued that combined in the framework of Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) they can begin to indicate some of the sources and mechanisms of agency of BME students in a flexible and multi-faceted way. My other contributions to knowledge in this chapter include emphasising social class interactions with the CCW framework (i.e. within linguistic capital), the introduction of perspective capital to the framework and further conceptualisations of how the multiple capitals intersect and impact each other. Thus, the framework is the lens through which the data in this research is interpreted and along with the next chapter, which explains in detail how the data was collected and analysed, these two chapters provide an

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1. Introduction

The previous chapter laid out the theoretical assumptions informing this thesis, arguing that the combination of CRT and Bourdieusian thinking tools,

particularly as conceptualised by Yosso’s CCW provided a robust intersectional framework for analysing racist structures within higher education and the

agency of BME students to navigate through the field of PG education. It is now time to turn to the analysis of data collected in this research. In this chapter I explain the approaches, methods and tools used to conduct the inquiry. Together with the theoretical framework chapter this section provides an

understanding of how the data was collected and analysed. In this chapter I will argue for the appropriateness of the use of the CRT-informed methodology in this research project, which (1) emphasises the intercentricity of ‘race’ in the research process, i.e. intersectional analysis which always includes ‘race’, (2) foregrounds the experiential knowledge of students of colour while (3) playing particular attention to reflexivity and its connotations with knowledge production, (4) as well as the critical character of the research being dedicated to social justice. I will further argue that this approach addresses the shortcomings of CRT scholarship as identified by Baber (2016), i.e. disconnect between theory and analysis, lack of interdisciplinarity, and lack of diverse sources of data.

The study explores the experiences of British Black and Asian students in postgraduate (PG) education, in particular in STEM courses, and the institutional factors that impact their journey to and through PG education, including the role of Widening Participation. As they are underrepresented in postgraduate education, particularly in postgraduate research (PGR) degrees, the students making it to that stage can be viewed as successful and

exceptional (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1990). As the study is framed through the lenses of intersectionality, Critical Race Theory and Bourdieusian concepts of field, capitals and habitus this success is seen as achieved against the

backdrop of everyday ubiquitous racism, where minority ethnic students

navigate the world of dominant groups. Thus, the methods used to explore this topic have to be appropriate to explore complex processes and personal

situations as well as the intersecting macro-structures of racism, sexism and classism, which is possible by employing a variety of methods (Baber, 2016; Smith, 1995). The chapter starts by outlining the overall approach to the

research process as informed by critical ‘race’ methodology. I follow with a brief history of the project, which provides the context for the choice of research sites and eligibility criteria for interviewees and the split of the research into what I call phase one and two of data collection. I provide a critique of phase one’s methodological assumptions and practicalities of the field work and argue that these have been addressed in phase two. I then provide descriptions of

participants and university sites under investigation, along with the rational for these choices linked to under-representation of students from certain BME backgrounds in the postgraduate field. I also outline the specific methodological instruments in more detail (interviews, surveys and document analysis) before moving onto the description of the analysis process. To conclude the chapter, I deal with the issues of reflexivity and positionality, where I argue that ‘race’ research is complex and complicated by a variety of factors, not least by my identity as a White researcher.