Developing Identity

There are clear challenges to the concept that Mature students, or any other group artificially labelled together by a common demographic factor, are, in fact a homogeneous group. To investigate them as a separate group assumes that there are more, similar, shared experiences for them than there are differences between them. How do the individuals in such a group come to define themselves? And how do these same individuals redefine or reform their identity when plunged into a new environment with different rules of behaviour, a different belief system?

The complexities of modern life compel us to live within a number of different, sometimes conflicting, identities representing what Burr (1995) termed “threads” woven together to create the fabric of our overall identity. The multi-faceted

configuration of the individual is emphasised when we think of the role each person plays when simply standing still; parent, offspring, sibling, friend, student, employee. Further roles are adopted on entering the HE environment. The cultural influences defining identity roles can create a situation where role conflicts occur as individuals contribute and respond to competing demands; social, familial and economic groups present varying expectations and demands. Studies within Psychology have identified the triggers, management and consequences of these (Earley, 1997; Floyd and Lane, 2000; Katz and Kahn, 1978; Locke and Latham, 1990; Sen, 2006).

Identity, allowing focus on the person within, understanding who and what they are, is a highly contested area theoretically (Moorcroft, 1997). Subjectivity describes the sense of self, the unconscious, sometimes irrational, emotional, perspective. It is with this aspect of identity that we react to the world around us, and the environments in which we immerse ourselves, relevant to students making sense of their university setting. Since adolescence is the critical time for identity development (Radford and Govier, 1991), a university, with the vast majority of its population in the late stages of this becomes an environment which encapsulates a hive of activity as people find out who they are and who they want to be. Life- altering, structural changes to the adolescent’s life cause anxiety, ambiguity of roles and intellectual challenges which he/she will not have faced before. The relevance to those leaving behind a comfortable, established role in society to enter university for the first time is obvious.

Coleman (1980) divides core texts on identity, emphasising the influence of both psychoanalytic (Freud, 1901; Blos, 1962) and sociological influences (Erikson, 1965) on the process. Conflicts in views of socially acceptable behaviour, “identity versus role confusion” (Erikson, 1965), are, however, not limited to adolescence and such conflicts can emerge when the adult is moved from his/her familiar surroundings and faces new challenges at any age. The Mature student has to redefine his/her self and the environment in which he/she is now immersed. In

some cases this might be the first point at which the person has consciously thought of the notion of “self”: the way that they are, how they behave, what they believe in, how they present themselves, and how others see them. Marcia (1966, 1980) has added to Erikson’s work by describing some states that adults can enter into when reforming an identity. Of particular interest is his “identity diffusion” in which the student will be unclear of his/her identity, aims or role in his/her current environment. Ultimately Marcia describes the “identity achievement” as an aim that others studying university students (Waterman, 1974; Schwartz et al, 2000), found unlikely to be reached until final year. The decision to enter a university is a deliberate decision of “life-changing” proportions by definition and thus will influence an “identity-changing” process. Recent qualitative evidence of the emotional “rollercoaster ride” details the “intrinsically emotional”process for non- traditional students of becoming a university student (Christie et al, 2007). Social circles are broken, new relationships established, past financial stability and past relationships risked, new worlds with new discourses entered into. When both the old and the new lifestyles are combined to any degree, the anxiety and ambiguity of roles are confounded.

Baxter and Britton (2001) supported a view from Brine and Waller (2004) of the risk in the identity change process; the complexity of self-reflection, discarding of old and adoption of new, hybrid identities, linking also with Reay’s (1998) reference to working class students having their existing identity attacked by the HEI change of values. The notion of identity crisis is particularly highlighted in the studies of women and family responsibilities compromising the time that Mature students, of both genders, have available to socialise. Those who do not make the comfortable adjustment are relegated to an “Out-Group” (Humphrey, 2006; Cooke et al, 2004; Kember & Leung, 2004).

In the formation of the new identity or at the least, the reformation of the old, a necessity exists for integration of the two separate lives of home and university. Referring to Self Categorization Theory (Turner, 1981; 2000; Turner et al, 1994)

the Mature student has to make a leap in order to reflect upon their “self” in the role of student, a role more generally standardised as belonging to the adolescent school- leaver. In order to be effective, they will have to envision themselves, and be comfortable with themselves, in the role of an older person in a young world, but also, in an alternating existence, a young student in an older family life role.

Identity is at the core of the experience, although, critically, some facets of identity are amenable to change, others not. This leads us to a key theoretical debate within the study of identity taking the essentialist or non-essentialist stance. A helpful perspective uses the lenses of “Structure” and “Agency” (Woodward and Ross, 2000), the degree of the inevitability of being influenced by external factors or of being in the “driving seat”. Using this perspective within a context of identity, structure follows the essentialist perspective and makes assumptions of limited ability for an individual to control their identity. Exponents of this philosophy will see identity as formed by external factors and as fixed; based on biological or historical characteristics deemed unchangeable. Divisions, which cut across this analysis, have been identified (Bem and Allen, 1974; Bem, 1983), including disability, race, gender, and sexuality, thus challenging the essentialist position as being too simplistic. The influences of gender have dominated much literature but other, separate, defining functions of identify (for example, race, ethnicity), combining with the gender, have been neglected with some notable exceptions (Fearfull and Kamenou, 2006). The apparent conflict between the two can be reconciled but only if structure is seen as both a tool and the resulting outcome of agency, (for example, in the Theory of Structuration [Giddens, 1984]).

Once again, the government wider access agenda becomes an aspect of this debate. A dip into the political literature shows that social characteristics may sit in the middle ground but attention needs to be drawn to social divisions which can illustrate what are viewed as fixed influences. This links with the Marxist analysis of the base/superstructure relationship (Marx, 1954) and with it claims that the economic, class structure of society is a primary force in fixing identity,

emphasising that there is little that an individual can do to control their situation and circumstances (short of engineering a socio-economic revolution.)

The contrasting view, Agency, refers to individual means of controlling the formation of identity and it is here that the HE sector can offer much. The development of individual agency is, in fact, the single most important contribution that the Ancient institution can offer in my opinion (but this will be returned to in Part V). The non-essentialist school sees identity as fluid and having different elements which can be reconstructed in different social, educational and cultural environments (Bem and Allen, 1974; Markus and Nurius, 1986). More autonomy and control lies in the hands of the individual, emphasising that the self can be developed by seeking out and following up on ideas of choice. (This understanding of identity is critical within the Social Constructionist approach which will be described further in Chapter 8.)

The new social movements emerging in the West in the 1960s during a peak time of student unrest and anti-war activism aligned themselves with the non-essentialist perspective on identity, (Woodward, 1997: 24). However, the whole essentialist/non-essentialist debate on identity is far from straightforward (Sen, 2006; Davis, 2004) with elements such as personal choice (Hall, 1990) and plurality of identity within individuals (Bhabba, 1994) being recognised. Even if acknowledged, the separate treatment of those aspects of identity seen as essentialist will be morally debated. The necessity to “even the playing field” by allowing extra focus (e.g. prompting the Women’s’ Movement, given the biological peculiarities of women giving birth) has led to accusations of unfair positive discrimination. The claim carries significant implications for this study and reverts to a theme emerging from the literature asking if non-traditional students would benefit more from mainstreamed HE or if they should receive particular and specialised focus such as in an Access environment.

In a reflection of the “Nature/Nurture” debate, and in parallel with the essentialist/non essentialist dimensions of individual identity, two strands of theories once more emerge in the interpretation of environment. These strands identify the world as being either a fundamentally fixed entity, the features of which need to be identified, or as encompassing a fluid, organic set of processes where multiple realities exist and are constructed and re-constructed by social actors. The view adopted is crucial to the success of maintaining stability or orchestrating change within an organisation.

The non-essentialist view offers the potential for a definition of a Mature student identity which considers different components of role, and of political and cultural discourses (Canaan, 2004), combining these with different individual histories. This perspective recognises the complexities of the identity concept and therefore presents a problem for organisational managers trying to classify a group of individual students as an integrated, definable homogeneous group. Nevertheless, as has been argued (Woodward, 1965), from this perspective, identities can be forged through the marking of difference, and for the purposes of this study, the non- essentialist perspective allows for the differences to be highlighted and the formation of an identity to be examined through that route. Such an approach can undoubtedly challenge the position of prevailing systems.

This raises the interesting question as to whether students sharing a similar demographic profile share a similar experience of university. Blaxter and Tight (1993), a study published at the peak of the process of UK’s “massification” (Trow, 1987) of Higher Education gives some indication. This study examined the demographic pattern of part-time students, along with some of the motivations, performance, background history and experience. Somewhat surprisingly, although expected to be very different in terms of age, educational experience, and employment, these students emerged as a clearly homogeneous group, raising interest in the Labelling Theory claim of the grouping of people because of their sharing similar social features (Lemert, 1951) something I was avoiding in age

terms in my study. However, the possibility that the common experience of study offers a unifying culture post-arrival at the institution is one which is worthy of consideration, but one of age is a different matter. There also has to be recognition that the label of “Mature” may be utilitarian in enabling access to resources for Mature students to facilitate their experience at university. There exists an inherent warning to be wary when categorising people in neat packages with expectations of dominating influences of demographics, a point emphasised in a recent study by Waller (2006). Waller examined the usefulness of defining “Mature” students as a homogeneous group, subsequently sub-dividing them by ethnicity, class, gender and age, finding the group to be too complex and heterogeneous to offer representation from research undertaken in this format. This viewpoint is contrary to those mentioned earlier in this chapter where identity formation is linked with a recognised difference (Woodward, 1965).

Labelling and identification of students as part of an “Out-Group” can lead to them seeking solace in each other. Mature students could be expected to be marginalised because their status, age, financial limitations or family commitments prohibits them from joining the “master”/mainstreamed group because of age. Labelling theorists examine those recognised as “deviants” who create a subsequent deviant behaviour pattern in order to create validity for themselves and thus attract other “deviants” (Lemert, 1951; Becker, 1963). The examination of the students in this study within the context of deviance from the mainstreamed students leads to consideration of a need for an identifiable valid grouping separate to the master group and with assigned appropriate behaviour and norms. Labelling can, therefore, create deviance but can also bring cohesion to a group.

The classification of Mature students as an “Out-Group” will influence the integration process for them. However a subtle form of discrimination more commonly experienced by Mature students at the younger end of the spectrum would be to treat them exactly the same as younger, mainstreamed students, thus not making allowances or giving credit for extra life experience. Beliefs,

responsibilities and social circumstances may vary between all students but the differences between a thirty year old student and an immediate school leaver are likely to be substantial and yet little has been done to explore them, with still less evidence of influencing university student policy.