High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

DOI 10.1007/s10734-015-9938-y

Avoiding the manufacture of ‘sameness’: first-in-family

students, cultural capital and the higher education
environment

Sarah O’Shea1

Published online: 16 September 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Drawing upon Bourdieu’s theories of social and cultural capital, a number of
studies of the higher education environment have indicated that students who are first-in-
family to come to university may lack the necessary capitals to enact success. To address
this issue, university transition strategies often have the primary objective of ‘filling stu-
dents up’ with legitimate forms of cultural capital required by the institution. However, this
article argues that such an approach is fundamentally flawed, as students can be either
framed as deficit or replete in capitals depending on how their particular background and
capabilities are perceived. Drawing on interviews conducted with first-in-family students,
this article explores how one cohort considered their movement into university and how
they enacted success within this environment. Utilising Yosso’s Community Cultural
Wealth framework, this article discusses how these individuals drew upon existing and
established capital reserves in this transition to higher education.

Keywords First-in-family students
Cultural capital
Community Cultural Wealth

Transition to higher education

Introduction

The impetus for this study was derived from an interest in how first-in-family (or first
generation) students manage the transition into the higher education environment. Liter-
ature around first-in-family students has largely portrayed this cohort in deficit terms using
words such as ‘challenges’, ‘difficulties’ and ‘help’ (Brachman 2012; Gardner 1996;
Thayer 2000). Research has problematised this group as somehow lacking compared to

& Sarah O’Shea

saraho@uow.edu.au
1
Building 67, McKinnon Building, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong,
Australia

123
60 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

other higher education students (Spiegler and Bednarek 2013). Addressing gaps in
knowledge is often regarded as being the responsibility of educational institutions, who are
charged with the task of ‘filling up’ students with ‘forms of cultural knowledge deemed
valuable by dominant society’ (Yosso 2005, p. 75). Bejarano and Valverde (2012) identify
how many universities set about ‘manufacturing sameness’ in the first year of university,
essentially focusing on removing students from familial and social contexts in an attempt
to acculturate them into the university.
However, what if first-in-family students’ perspectives and experiences of university
were discussed from a strengths perspective? Rather than regarding first-in-family status as
somehow a lack, it could be assessed in terms of strengths. Yosso’s framework has largely
been applied to the experience of ethnic minorities returning to education including
migrant farmworkers (Bejarano and Valverde 2012) and Native American Women
(Waterman and Lindley 2013). Whilst appropriating models that are rooted in cultural
contexts needs to be done cautiously and sensitively, this article begins to consider how the
concept of cultural wealth might assist in more deeply understanding the experiences of
one group of underrepresented and educationally disadvantaged learners in Australia.
Beginning with a review of the literature around first-in-family university participants,
the article will then detail the research design and the conceptual underpinnings of this
study. The interview data will then be discussed with reference to the Yosso’s Community
Cultural Wealth framework. It is acknowledged that this is not an unproblematic appli-
cation, given the cultural situatedness of this framework, but arguably applying alternative
lenses to data enables knowledge to be ‘proliferated rather than foreclosed and simplified’
(Jackson and Mazzei 2013, p. vii). One of the things that this paper contributes is exploring
how a strengths based model, such as Yosso’s, can enable data to be unpacked in order to
re-envisage what is assumed to be a weakness or lack in terms of strengths. Further details
about the contextual ramifications of applying this theory to this cohort will also be
discussed in this article.

First-in-family students and university

Globally, one of the student cohorts most likely to depart higher education prior to
receiving a degree is those who are first in the family to attend university. Within the USA,
this student cohort does not achieve to the same level academically as peers: between 1992
and 2000, 43 % of first-in-family students left university without a degree (Chen 2005),
whilst Ishitani (2006) indicates that first-generation students were 8.5 times more likely to
drop out of their studies compared to students whose parents had graduated college. Within
Australia, 26 % of first-in-family students are reported as considering leaving university in
the first year of university study, a figure that increases to 34 % for later year students
(Coates and Ransom 2011). Given the high risk of potential attrition, the need to gain a
better understanding of how this cohort transitions into and engages with the university
sector is required.
Exploring the research and literature on first-in-family students is hampered by two
factors: firstly, there are a diversity of definitions associated with this category, and sec-
ondly, much of the research does not focus explicitly on first-in-family students but instead
reflects upon broader issues related to social class background, access and disadvantage.
Whilst the first-in-family cohort is included in these studies, the focus is often not on this
group or the impact of parental educational levels on attainment or educational success.

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 61

With this in the mind, this literature review will firstly identify how the term first-in-family
is being defined for the purposes of this study before providing an overview of key themes
in the related literature.
The most common definition of first-in-family or first-generation status relies on
measurements of parental education levels (Spiegler and Bednarek 2013). In the US lit-
erature, these educational levels can include attendance at college, whereas other studies
refer to family income levels, and in the UK, class affiliation (Spiegler and Bednarek
2013). Such differentials make comparative analysis of first-in-family student numbers
difficult across countries. For the purposes of this study, first-in-family status has been
defined as no one in the immediate family of origin including siblings or parents having
previously attended a university or having completed a university degree.
Pascarella et al. (2004) conducted an early literature review focused on first-in-family
students and concluded that three main themes emerge in relation to North American
literature. The first theme concerned comparative analyses between first-in-family student
and their peers, with research largely concluding that this group is disadvantaged in terms
of preparedness and knowledge about higher education, financial support and also
expectations around the degree. A second theme in the literature acknowledged that the
transition between schools and tertiary institutions tends to be more problematic for first-
in-family students, whilst the third referred to higher attrition rates and differences in
postgraduation outcomes for this cohort.
More recently, Spiegler and Bednarek (2013) conducted a review of 70 studies con-
ducted in the USA, Germany, UK and Canada. Based on this review, these authors con-
clude that first-in-family students are generally constructed as a ‘group at risk’ (p. 329)
who has difficulty fitting into the university environment and ‘mastering the college role’
(p. 330). Spiegler and Bednarek (2013) report that first-in-family students are represented
as simply ‘coping’ and collectively have a lower sense of belonging within the institution.
Bryan and Simmons (2009) in their study of Appalachian first-in-family students similarly
identify how their participants reflected on numerous obstacles encountered within uni-
versity. These included difficulties managing relationships with community and family;
dealing with the pressure of being the first in the family; managing poverty; and recon-
ciling different identities as well as concerns about returning home after study. However, it
is important not to simply position students as problematic and instead recognise the
overarching constraints that this cohort may operate within, the next section will explore
these issues in more depth.

Educational stratification and first-in-family students

This article takes as its starting point that education is socially stratified with those from
higher strata backgrounds generally accessing and succeeding more than those who are
from poorer, disadvantaged sectors of society. The OECD (2013) reports that amongst
member countries, students from a more educated family are ‘almost twice (1.9)’ as likely
to attend university (p. 3) than peers. Ball et al. (2002) argue that those families who have
generational experience of university, an educational memory, inculcate a belief that
university is a predetermined choice and therefore a non-decision. Trajectories related to
family, education and also work are each constrained and influenced by both history and
social stratification, as Elder (1998) succinctly points out ‘All life choices are contingent
on the opportunities and constraints of social structure and culture’ (p. 2).

123
62 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Educational stratification is not only imposed upon the student but also may be self-
imposed. Research has indicated that students from similar class backgrounds may cluster
around particular institution types and degree programs (Thomas and Quinn 2007). Evans
(2009) points to the processes of ‘self-limitation’ (p. 348) in relation to female learners’
choices around higher education; similarly, Reay et al. (2005) indicate that choice for their
working-class participants was governed by conceptions of ‘fit’ with the institution. In the
case of first-in-family students, such self-restriction can result in this group being more
likely to ‘study less prestigious subjects at less prestigious universities’ (Spiegler and
Bednarek 2013, p. 324).
The lack of knowledgeable ‘other’ also confines university choice and impacts upon
individuals once they arrive at university. A previous study (O’Shea 2007) on first-in-
family students reported a sense of bewilderment in the initial weeks caused by funda-
mental institutional processes, for example enrolment procedures, financial requirements
and timetabling. The participants in this study reported feeling isolated and lonely, feelings
that were exacerbated by uncertainty related to university language, expectations and
protocols of behaviour. Such gaps in understanding can contribute to individuals having a
‘lack of entitlement to be there, which may have a negative impact on […] self-confidence’
(Thomas and Quinn 2007, p. 77). The emotional facets of this move into higher education
for first-in-family students cannot be overlooked; this is an embodied move, which can
engender feelings of ‘displacement, anxiety and guilt’, alongside the more expected and
anticipated emotions such as ‘hopeful anticipation, pleasure and self-esteem’ (Christie
et al. 2008, p. 569).
According to US data, first-in-family students are also more likely to be of ethnic or
migrant backgrounds; Chen (2005) reports that almost twice as many American first-in-
family students are derived from black, Hispanic or other ethnic backgrounds. Within
Australia, poorer educational outcomes and lower levels of intergenerational mobility are
reported for students from low socio-economic backgrounds (OECD 2015). A significant
number of financially disadvantaged students can also be assumed to be the first in their
family to attend university so this attendance is further complicated by limited access to
both fiscal and social capitals that support success.
The literature in this field indicates the various obstacles encountered by diverse student
cohorts, providing some insight into why university may not be perceived as a possible, or
even a welcome, opportunity. However, what is less clear is how cohorts such as first-in-
family students manage this transition and enact success within this environment. The
study outlined in this article sought to explore how such cohort navigated the higher
education environment by drawing upon Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth framework.
The following sections will provide details of these conceptual underpinnings before
moving onto an overview of the study and presentation of findings.

Conceptual framework

Numerous studies in the field of educational inequality have drawn upon the work of
Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) and Bourdieu (1986) exploring how educational systems
can reproduce social inequality by exalting or enacting certain cultural practices associated
with the dominant classes (Dumais and Ward 2009; Tramonte and Willms 2009, amongst
others). According to Bourdieu (1986), capital can be economic or cultural, the latter
defined by family or social position. There are different forms of cultural capital, often

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 63

imbued within the taken-for-granted nature of certain knowledge forms and practices.
Bourdieu (1986) identifies how this cultural capital is characterised by three states:
objectified in tangible goods such as books and pictures, institutionalised as academic
credentials or awards, and the embodied form which is characterised by ‘long-lasting
dispositions of the mind and body’ (p. 243) which Bourdieu terms as habitus.
A student’s habitus can limit their educational success as it can impact upon the ability
to ‘decode the implicit ‘‘rules of the game’’’ that they encounter (Aschaffenburg and Maas
1997, p. 573). Such a perspective identifies that students do not necessarily lack knowledge
but rather that the knowledge or cultural capital that they hold may not be valued within the
higher education environment. This is particularly the case for those students who have no
tradition of Bourdieu’s institutionalised cultural capital, such as those who are the first in
their family to come to university. This cohort may lack the necessary cultural or
knowledge capital required to negotiate the implicit nature of an institution’s ‘hidden
curriculum’. Thus, the knowledge and expectations presumed within the class or lecture
theatre may confirm certain groups whilst negating others.
However, Bourdieu has been critiqued for elevating the nature of structure in his the-
orisation and limiting the effects of agency, suggesting that individuals are constrained by
structural forces largely beyond their control (Pitman 2013). In response to this and the
need to decentre male, white privilege in understanding cultural capitals, Yosso (2005)
challenges traditional interpretations of Bourdieu’s work in order to better understand the
intersection of student and institutional capital. Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth
framework (CCW) transforms the implicit deficit nature of Bourdieuian capital, fore-
grounding experiential knowledge in order to displace white middle-class culture as the
‘standard’ with ‘…all other forms and expressions of ‘‘culture’’ … judged in comparison to
this norm’ (p. 76). Thus, CCW is not a critique of Bourdieu’s work but rather serves to
reclaim a concept that has been ‘hijacked’ as a means to legitimise dominant cultural
practices. Yosso (2005) points out that understandings of cultural capital largely reflect
what is valued by the dominant classes rather than being forms of knowledge that are
inherently possessed by this class. There are other forms of cultural knowledge that are
equally valued by more marginalised and less powerful groups as Yosso argues: ‘Tradi-
tional Bourdieuian cultural capital theory…place[s] value on a very narrow range of assets
and characteristics’ (2005, p. 77).
The CCW framework draws upon an interdisciplinary knowledge base informed by
migrant studies, critical race theory, sociology and gender studies. The diffuseness of this
approach responds to the need to adapt diverse theoretical lenses in order to reconceptu-
alise approaches to retaining and supporting students from diverse backgrounds. Yosso
(2005) proposes six forms of cultural capital, indicated in the Fig. 1.
Yosso’s categories include aspirational capital, which is an individual’s ability to
‘maintain hope and dreams for the future’ despite ‘real and perceived’ obstacles (p. 77);
this is a form of resilience and involves ‘nurturing a culture of possibility’ (p. 78). Re-
sistance capital refers to the values and dispositions used to inform oppositional beha-
viours, a form of capital that nurtures attitudes that challenge status quo whilst linguistic
capital recognises the strengths of communication skills including storytelling, bilingual-
ism and the ‘ability to communicate via visual art, music or poetry’ (Yosso 2005, p. 79).
Navigational capital is required to move effectively through social institutions and is
premised upon both ‘individual agency’ and ‘social networks’ that negotiate educational
and employment spaces, whereas social capital refers to networks that surround people
providing both embodied and practical support. Finally, familial capital recognises those

123
64 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Resistant Linguistic
Capital Capital

Familial Navigational
Capital Capital

Community
Cultural
Wealth
Aspirational
Social Capital
Capital

Fig. 1 Community Cultural Wealth framework (Yosso 2005)

‘cultural knowledges nurtured among familial (kin)’ (p. 79); this includes ‘extended’
family and friends.
Community Cultural Wealth has been theorised in relation to Hispanic students and
Communities of Colour within the USA, the capitals that Yosso defines are not without
cultural or ethnic specificity, but arguably this framework has broad considered application
to other non-dominant and under-represented groups in society. The strength of Yosso’s
framework for this study was providing a solid means to interrogate data in terms of what
first-in-family individuals bring to the university environment and how these types of
capitals potentially enable them to enact success. Yosso’s theory allowed me to think
alongside the data, moving analysis away from a mechanistic process and instead nego-
tiating connections between and within data and theory. However, given the cultural
specifics of Yosso’s theorisations, this is not intended to be an exact or neat application but
rather provides a means for alternative ways of thinking about first-in-family student
experience.
CCW is informed by Critical Race Theory which is ‘committed to social justice,
locating the voice of marginalized and employing the concept of intersectionality’ (Ortiz
and Jani 2010, p. 176). Drawing on CRT through the lens of CCW, this article attempts to
deeply explore the ‘voices’ of one group of disadvantaged students, a cohort marginalised
both educationally and financially. These participants were derived from a region that
contains some of the most impoverished areas based on indicators related to social well-
being, health, economic and education outcomes (Vinson et al. 2015). The following
section provides a detailed overview of this region as well as providing demographic
details of participants volunteered during interviews.

Research context and design

The study was conducted at a large campus (n = 24,099) of a regional university during
2013 and involved in-depth interviews with 23 students who identified as being first-in-
family to attend university. The university is located in an area with comparably poorer
educational outcomes and higher levels of unemployment. Traditionally, this region has
relied on mining and manufacturing for employment, but in recent years, both sectors have
faltered leading to higher rates of unemployment, 6.2 % for the region compared to 5.2 %

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 65

nationally. Similarly, nearly 25 % of couple families have neither partner working com-
pared to 19 % for the country as a whole (ABS 2011). Whilst there is no available data set
on first-in-family students, the latest available statistics (2006) indicates that the total
percentages of 25–34 year olds holding a degree in areas close to the university vary from
10 to 20 %, which is again lower than state (22 %) and national (21 %) figures.
In 2013, when this study took place, 14 % of enroled students at this university were
derived from low socio-economic backgrounds as defined by census collection districts and
postcode indicators.1 Data on first-generation status rely on student self-disclosure on
university enrolment forms, and whilst statistics are not released publically, the percentage
of first-in-family domestic students who attend this university is approximated at 15 % of
the total population; this is both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.
The research was funded by a small university grant, and the focus was on domestic
students in the first year of study who identified as being first-in-family on their enrolment
form (n = 1500). The overall research objective of the study was to deeply explore the
experiences of this cohort as they participated in university studies with particular refer-
ence to how this participation informed intergenerational choices around, and perceptions
of, higher education amongst family and community.
A random sample of 800 students was sent an email invite to participate in the study,
and a total of 63 students responded to the invite. Twenty-eight participants attended an
interview, but five interviews were later eliminated because participants either revealed
university attendance amongst other family members (3) or that they were undertaking a
second degree (2). Interviews lasted an average of 50 min as students were encouraged to
reflect upon experiences at length. Whilst this study is limited by size, context and location,
the qualitative findings do explore this field in a deeply descriptive manner, and this study
has informed further exploration of this field (O’Shea et al. 2015).
Each of the participants presented as Anglo Australian but as the interviews evolved a
diversity of circumstances and backgrounds emerged. For example, five participants
explicitly referred to ‘working-class’ or ‘blue-collar’ origins (Rose, Yvonne, Tina, Tom,
and Eva), two described being of migrant descent (Sam and Helen) and two make direct
reference to poverty within the family (Nigel and Natalie). A number were in receipt of
social security payments or hardship scholarships (Alan, Elaine, Emma, Eva, Lena, Linda,
Nancy, Natalie, and Yvonne); for those who had been previously employed most reported
casual or unskilled work experiences. Table 1 highlights the broad demographic charac-
teristics of the cohort, including a summary quote from each regarding ‘getting to’ uni-
versity; these quotes further reveal the diversity of this cohort.
Interview transcripts were imported into NVivo (10), and line-by-line analysis was
employed to identify initial codes and emerging thematic categories; a constant compar-
ative method of analysis (Charmaz 2006) was utilised to examine concepts that inductively
emerged from data. Undoubtedly, my positioning as a woman, a parent and a university
staff member impacted upon what I ‘saw’ within the data. Rather than sideline these
subjectivities, I adopted an ongoing and recursive form of ‘bracketing’ (Rolls and Relf
2006) engaging in regular reflection and memo writing whilst analysing these data. This act
of writing enabled me to recursively engage with the data, checking implicit assumptions

1
Prior to 2010, socio-economic status (SES) was measured in relation to postcodes; low, medium and high
SES status was calculated by Australian Bureau of Statistics data on factors such as income, educational
attainment, employment status and dwelling types. Since 2010, this measurement has been refined by
drawing on data within census collection districts, which are more narrowly comprised of 250 households in
a common postcode.

123
66 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Table 1 Demographic details of research participants

Name Age Children Program Status Prior Summary quote on
employment ‘getting to’ university

Alan 42 2 B Commerce Married Musician I sort of see where my

parents and family life
went and I knew that I
wasn’t going to be able
to be a blue-collar
worker all my life and I
didn’t want to be.
Some people are cut
out for that; some
people love that—for
me, no. I wanted to
start using my brain
instead of my brawn
Emma 19 No B Science Single School student A lot of them [family
members] didn’t get
the chance to do this
sort of thing and have
so much support
through the university,
getting the scholarships
and all that sort of
thing
Nigel 26 No B Education Single Casual retail …that was just the society
(shop) that I’d grown up in.
University students
weren’t all that
common
Tina 28 No B Science Partnered Navy personnel …you’ve got to optimise
your opportunity that
you are here- I feel
very lucky to be here
Tom 62 No B Commerce Partnered Hospitality Of course that’s the
greatest deterrent—do
us oldies really want to
go into a classroom
with all these bright
and sparkly new kids
and have to play at
their level
Helen 19 No B Arts Single Student …they always ask me like
‘‘What’s it like there?
Are the people nice?
How are the academics
there?’’ I know one of
my brothers, his
interest is always
pegged for uni—he’s
always wanted to do it
but it was sort of like
he’s got a family and
he’s got to care for
them so he can’t really
fit it into his timetable

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 67

Table 1 continued

Name Age Children Program Status Prior Summary quote on

employment ‘getting to’ university

Linda 20 No B Arts Single Student [Uni] kind of been my

own selfish thing and to
show everyone that I’m
not what they say
Tony 22 No B Health Single TAFE [My family] don’t really
Sciences student/casual have too much to say
work about me going to
university other than
they assume that all
university students are
on drugs
Carla 22 No B Science Single TAFE High school wasn’t
student/casual me…I’ve kept doing
work dead end jobs—just
little bits there, little
bits there. I think it was
good that they’re
[cousins and family]
seeing me now that I’m
actually doing
something with my life
Nancy 64 No B Commerce Single Long-term I never could, in my
unemployed younger days, get to
university because you
had to pay for it in our
time—it wasn’t the
case that you could get
it for free
Terry 23 No B Engineering Single Retail (hire I was just second-
shop) guessing myself
coming here, whether it
was the right thing to
do or not just because
my marks weren’t
really that great
David 32 1 B Arts Partnereda Casual bank I’ve always wanted to
employee come to university; I
know I’ve wanted to be
a teacher since I was
15 years old because
some of my teachers I
just have the utmost
respect for
Kylie 17 No B Science Partnered Student It was getting over what
everyone else had to
say to get here.
Everyone in my
family… I was kind of
the black sheep
because of my parents
so it was overcoming
what everyone else had
to say to be able to get
here

123
68 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Table 1 continued

Name Age Children Program Status Prior Summary quote on

employment ‘getting to’ university

Ann 36 2 B Science Partnered Retail In some low income

(supermarket) families, it’s something
that you’re brought up
to just get out and go
get a job; you’re not
brought up to go get a
higher education
Elaine 36 5 B Commerce Single parent Office admin It was something that I
(recently (accounts) didn’t really think
repartnered) myself when I finished
high school; I finished
Year 10 and I didn’t
think I could have gone
to uni; we never
discussed that plan. I
just went straight out to
work like my parents
did
Eva 48 2 B Nursing Single parent Cleaner [Uni] is prestigious, it is
(widowed) selective and I always
know I’m proof of
that… hard work—
being selected because
of hard work
Lena 43 2 B Arts Single parent Shift worker When I was actually
(divorced) growing up, a lot of
the—especially kids in
my area—it was
basically almost taught
that university was
only for those that were
really smart, extremely
smart…
Natalie 43 2 B Arts Single parent Casual We’ll manage. I’ll work.
(divorced) employment I’ll work and do full-
(bank/retail) time uni. I will do it. If
I’ve got to do it I will
do it. I will drive
myself (laughing)—I
need to, I really need to
Nina 36 3 B Arts Partnereda Dental nurse I was raised in the
‘‘University isn’t for
people like us’’—
they’re mum’s words.
My job is in the home
and that’s where I
should be…I’m trying
to tell our kids that No,
you need to do this,
you’ll want to do this;
there is a big, wide
world out there

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 69

Table 1 continued

Name Age Children Program Status Prior Summary quote on

employment ‘getting to’ university

Rose 28 2 B Arts Partnered P/T in retail I was like ‘‘Maybe I

shouldn’t be here,
maybe I’m just a
fraud’’. I was like ‘‘Oh
my God’’…My second
assignment. When I got
my marks back I think
that’s when I was like
‘‘Okay, I deserve to be
here just like anyone
else’’ and I finally just
went ‘‘Okay, you can
do this. It’s all good’’
Sam 44 2 B Arts— Partnereda Tourism I wanted to learn but there
Creative was also like a need for
me to become… not to
become smarter but
just to become more…
you know, just to have
that broadening of my
consciousness
Sheila 28 1 B Arts Partnered Hairdresser I always knew when I was
younger—like when I
left school—‘‘I’ll go to
uni but I’m not ready to
go to university now’’.
I wasn’t ready, I
wanted to travel and do
other things
Yvonne 45 2 B Arts Single parent Teaching My mum didn’t have a
assistant trade at all. So I think
really middle-class
families, they are all
for education and then
a lot of your working
class or poor, they
don’t quite grasp the
importance of it
a
Partner been to university

and destabilising assumed understandings. Interviews were open-ended to position the

interviewees in the role of expert, providing the opportunity for experiences to be
remembered in detailed ‘storied moments’ (Polkinghorne 1995, p. 11). The interview was
guided by a series of broad topics as follows:
• Experiences of university as well as motivations around attending
• Reactions from friends and family
• Family members’ perceptions of university attendance
• Experiences related to ‘being’ a university student

123
70 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Initial analysis revealed how participants drew upon a range of personal and familial
resources to move into higher education and also survive in this environment. In order to
further ‘open-up’ the data, the Community Cultural Wealth framework provided a pow-
erful means to conceptualise how first-in-family students draw upon existing capitals and
also how these capitals are used to enact educational success. The following section
presents the findings with discussion, but focuses on three key capitals namely aspirational,
resistant and familial capital, both navigational and social capitals also featured in analysis
but are explored in other related publications (O’Shea 2014a, b). Linguistic capital was
characterised by the ways parenting students used storytelling as a means to engage
children in the university environment and will be explored in a future publication.
However, there are also silences in Yosso’s framework in relation to this particular cohort
and so this discussion will also propose an additional capital termed ‘experiential capital’
that participants referred to during interviews.

Discussion of findings

For most of this cohort, commencing university was overwhelming, but this sense of the
unknown and bewilderment was more pronounced for the older participants. Both Nina
and Yvonne sum up the nature of these first impressions:
I had no idea—the first day I was here and I got lost and wandered around and I went
home to my husband and said ‘‘There’s a whole food hall there and a supermarket
sort of thing and everything’’…I wasn’t expecting that. (Nina)
It feels like I’m in an institution that has a whole different language. (Yvonne).
For the students who had left school within a year of two of coming to university (Emma,
Helen, Kylie), this transition was less traumatic. For example, Emma had come directly
from school, and whilst she was the first in her family to attend, her reflections about
commencing are very different to Nina and Yvonne’s, her preparedness is very clear as she
explained:
‘Well I’d been to a couple of the ‘‘Into Uni’’ days and that sort of thing. I sort of not
‘‘fell in love’’ with the university but I was really, really happy with it and had good
expectations when I came and they’ve been fulfilled so that’s good’ (Emma, 19). Whilst
this research categorised participants in terms of being ‘first-in-family’, it is important to
note that various social domains and identities intersected individuals. Experiences in
higher education were shaped by a diversity of variables including (but not limited to) age,
gender, social class and ethnicity. In recognising this intersectionality, this study moved
away from one-dimensional constructions of first-in-family learners, which largely focus
on perceptions of ‘lack’. The narratives told in interviews indicated that whilst these first-
in-family participants may not have an educational memory of higher education partici-
pation nor a family ‘other’ knowledgeable in academic practices, there are other more
fundamental but equally rich personal resources drawn upon in this transition. To further
analyse and explore the particular strengths of this cohort, Yosso’s conceptualisations of
aspirational, resistant and familial capitals were considered in relation to the emergent
themes.

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 71

Aspirational capital

Aspirational capital is a form of resilience which allows both the individual and their
children to ‘dream of possibilities beyond their present circumstances, often without the
objective means to attain those goals’ (Yosso 2005, p. 78). As such, aspirational capital
provides the basis for a culture of possibility, and during interviews, each participant
displayed this capital in some way. This variously took the form of retaining the dream of
attending university through to encouraging family members to consider university as a
viable option.
Amongst older learners, there was a collective sense that attending university was a
long-held ambition and also something for the self rather than others; this was particularly
the case for the older women:
…uni is just me, it’s just something else I’ve actually wanted to achieve. (Lena)
…I wanted to go uni for me so I got in. I was like ‘‘I’ll start doing it for me’’…
(Rose)
I am older and I kind of know who I am and what I want and what I want to get out of
this…I’m doing this for me. (Elaine)
Eva, a widower with two dependent children, explained how her motivation for coming to
university was long-held, a dream that she had worked towards for many years. Eva’s
extended family was characterised by early disengagement from formal learning, her three
sisters left high school with no qualifications, as did both parents. Eva characterised her
family members as ‘hard workers’, but she was the only one to gain a final high school
certificate. After school, university attendance was not an option for Eva: ‘I had parents
that didn’t encourage any of that … the general feeling is ‘‘You leave and you get a job’’’.
The death of her husband provided both a catalyst and motivator for her attendance but her
immediate need to work and also parent two young children had led to a seven-year hiatus
before applying to university. For Eva, gaining entrance to her degree was the achievement
of a deeply held desire as she described:
I haven’t breezed in here, I’ve really had to work hard … there was no plan B for me,
it had to be to come here and get this. (Eva)
Appadurai (2004) argues that the capacity to aspire is informed by ‘navigational
capacity’, those who are more privileged have better access to resources that enable them
to ‘…explore the future more frequently and more realistically’ (p. 69). To enact future
desired selves, it is necessary for individuals to have the opportunity to practice aspiration
building and move beyond their ‘brittle horizon of aspirations’ (p. 69). The horizons for
these students may have been somewhat ‘brittle’ but they are not without aspirations rather
it has taken them a little longer to ‘map a journey’ (p. 76) to university. Seven participants
explicitly stated that these aspirations had been confirmed since arriving, for example
Linda, who was interviewed with her mother, described how prior to entering university all
she had ‘wanted was a job at Myer2…’ but now:
Linda: Now I’m thinking about it, I can be an intern…
Natalie (Mum): You can do it all. You’re under-selling yourself
Linda: Yes, I was kind of ripping myself off

2
Myer is an Australian department store.

123
72 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Both Linda and Natalie were attending university simultaneously, but a range of
financial and educational factors hampered this attendance. Linda had disengaged from
formal education in her early teens, and her mother, a sole parent, had given up work to
attend university. Both existed on government benefits and lived in state housing. Financial
constraints were mentioned throughout the interview, only recently had they managed to
gain an Internet connection due to a one-off hardship grant. When asked about reactions
from others about their attendance, Natalie explained how ‘…it’s been shock because
they’ve constantly put us down into a category and boxed us into this little thing that we fit
into because of housing, Centrelink [government benefit]…’ However, rather than be
thwarted by these attitudes, Natalie explained ‘So that’s a motivation too—‘‘Stuff you
all!’’’ Aspirations can be derived from a variety of sources and sometimes can be a reaction
to perceived limitations, a form of what Yosso (2005) terms as ‘resistant capital’.

Resistant capital

Resistant capital refers to knowledge and skills that have developed due to ‘resistance to
subordination’ (Yosso 2005, p. 80), the specific focus of CCW being how people of colour
resist racist messages and subordination. However, in the case of these participants, many of
whom indicated being in receipt of state benefits or on low incomes, this capital is better
conceptualised as a form of resistance to the status quo. This resistance was a powerful
motivator for engaging and persevering in higher education. For the older female participants,
this resistance was also related to prescribed gender roles and the need to do something for the
‘self’ rather than others. The transformative properties of attending university are particularly
noted in the research conducted with female learners (O’Shea 2014a, b; Stone and O’Shea
2012), but the older female participants in this study also referred to their attendance in terms of
resistance. University participation was regarded as an opportunity to resist constraints around
what is deemed as possible, a refusal, perhaps, to be defined by Appadurai’s ‘brittle horizons’.
Ann, who had her first child at 19, described how she drew upon people’s perceptions of
her as a ‘nobody’ to provide the impetus to attend university ‘…because I was a young
mum people obviously don’t expect you to go out and achieve something at such a late part
in life but I always knew that’s what I wanted to do…’(Ann). Similarly, other participants
reflected on how resistance to not only others but also limitations caused by employment or
social class provided the means to persevere at university, as Lena explained: ‘…people …
said a few years ago: ‘‘You’ll never go to university’’. Same when they’d turn around and
say ‘‘You’ll never own a house’’. Sorry, I’m at uni and I own a house.’
The interviews indicated how these students were not blank slates when they arrived at
university but instead drew upon existing capital resources, applying these in innovative
ways to support this transition. Both family and community, or what Yosso terms as
familial capital, also complemented this personal agency, limiting the isolation of indi-
viduals by providing embodied support.

Familial capital

Research has pointed to the importance of developing social network within the university
(Perry and Allard 2003; Spady 1970; Tinto 2002; Wilcox et al. 2005), but few studies
explore how family networks impact upon first-in-family students. Much of this previous

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 73

research reflects on the family as being a deficit to the student or as Gofen (2007) explains
portraying first-in-family students ‘as succeeding despite their family background’ (au-
thor’s emphasis, n/p). However, a small number of studies indicate how family and
community support can assist educational success and retention, particularly for minority
students. For example, Choi (2002) reports how for Korean Americans retaining close ties
to family was a positive predictor for academic success. Drawing on almost a decade of
research, Nora (2001–2002) argues that support from ‘significant others’ particularly
family members cannot be overlooked in students’ educational success.
Participants in this study similarly described how family assisted them to navigate and
transition into this environment. Yvonne’s sister whilst not able to advise on ‘academic
stuff or anything like that’ provided necessary encouragement in difficult times:
Even at my darkest, darkest times that I’ve had last semester, she was always, ‘‘You
know, you can actually do this…’’ (Yvonne)
Similarly, David’s wife provides practical and emotional support: ‘With my wife, I talk to
her about everything; I think she reads my essays more than anyone’. Children, in
particular, provided both motivation and also ‘reassurance’ that this choice was the right
one. Rose described her children’s reactions:
My older one … he’s always saying ‘‘I understand mum, you’ve got to go to uni so
you can be a teacher’’…My youngest, he sits up at the table ‘‘I’m doing uni work
mum’’ and things like that.
Children provided both an impetus to return to higher education and also an encourage-
ment to continue particularly with regard to future financial security. Alan described how
with ‘the kids […] growing up…I came to the realisation that I’m never going to be rock
star’ and so enroled in a Commerce degree.
Participants also reflected upon how familial capital had been enriched because of this
attendance. Parents of older children referred to new conversations about learning that
were occurring; very different conversations to what they had experienced growing up.
Ann had always considered university to be for others: ‘people who are a lot smarter or
have parents who have the money to put them through uni’. However, Ann’s experiences at
university were actively redefining her ambitions for her son:
I’ve been stretching his mind … so he’s really looking now at even becoming an
interpreter, following a career path so he can go and travel…
Sam is also enriching family capital in home by redefining going to university as ‘natural
and all very normal’. When asked why she is encouraging her children to attend university,
she simply explained:
From what I’m getting out of university, just the pure sublime… that process of
learning and that process of retaining information… it’s empowering. (Sam)
Finally, themes related to age and experience also featured strongly in these narratives. The
following section explores how prior experiences impacted upon higher education
participation, indicating access to a form of ‘experiential capital’ for older participants.

123
74 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Experiential capital

The experiences encountered by the older and younger students obviously differed but
interestingly perceptions of age and age appropriateness for study featured most strongly in
the older students’ narratives. Five of the older students described feeling a sense of stigma
around their age. For example, Nigel at 26 revealed how he needed to ‘play down’ his age
relying on the fact that he looked younger:
… they all thought that I was 19 or 20 or something which is great; they just accepted
me immediately without that ‘‘Oh he’s an older age student’’… (Nigel)
Nancy explained how ‘…you’re looking at a sea of kids which is fine and I think some of
the old buggers would probably freak out on the first day going ‘‘Geez, I’m out of here, this
is too much for me with all these kids’’’. Yet, being more mature was also perceived as a
strength for the older members of this group, Elaine described how ‘… I’m not just doing it
because my employer’s sent me to uni…I’m doing this for me’. This age difference
provided her with the confidence to ‘bounce off the teacher a bit more. The students that
have just come from high school just sit there…’. Similarly, David described his younger
self as someone who was ‘social’ and ‘wouldn’t get the work done’ compared to: ‘Now, I
sit down, I plan out my assessments… I actually dedicate time to study’, whilst Sheila
outlined how her experiences as an apprentice hairdresser provided her with skills to deal
with both staff and students at university.
The two eldest participants, Nancy (64) and Tom (62), defined a range of a priori
knowledge that they applied to the environment. Tom argued that ‘…us oldies are well
aware of [our] shortcomings. You don’t get to our age without knowing what you’re good
at and what you’re not good at.’ For Nancy, her knowledge was both reassuring and
distracting: ‘…what I’ve got to do is sit down and shut up because my problem is that I
know the answers to the questions and I’ve got to let you kids answer the questions …’. For
older students, skills and knowledge they had acquired in their pre-student lives provided
significant capital, which they drew upon. This experiential capital was a distinct strength
for this group, providing skills in managing competing demands, dealing with difficult
people (sometimes staff) and also maintaining resilience in often very trying circum-
stances. Additional analysis of the nature and application of this capital forms the focus of
further research in this field (O’Shea et al. 2015).

Conclusions and recommendations

This study responds to Nunez’s (2009) call for qualitative analysis of how students actually
access and convert capital within the higher education environment, providing insight into
the ‘dynamics of capital conversion’ (p. 42). In terms of aspirational capital, it was clear
how participants drew upon both ambitions and desires for the future as a form of moti-
vation. These participants are often the ‘high achievers’ of their social class (Gofen 2007),
and having well-articulated aspirations provides not only an impetus to enrol but also a
source of strength whilst persisting. Closely linked to these motivations was what Yosso
terms as ‘resistant capital’, which was largely related to learners’ experiences of social
stratification. Key to these students’ narratives was resistance to prescribed gender roles
and also, status quo, particularly for female students and those stigmatised by poverty or
social class.

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 75

Research indicates that older women are most likely to experience guilt and anxiety
around a move into higher education, particularly those with caring responsibilities. A
number of authors have indicated how returning to education for women can challenge
roles and positionality within the household (Brine and Waller 2004; George and Maguire
1998). For women, time for study is a gendered construct with an expectation that women
will coordinate learning activities around household activities (Stone and O’Shea 2013).
Whilst few studies have focussed solely on first-in-family women, broader research indi-
cates the powerful changes learning can have on mothering identities (Giles 1990) and
roles in the household (Stone and O’Shea 2012) leading, in some cases, to relationship
breakdowns (Edwards 1993). We often underestimate the power of higher education
institutions to be spaces, which can enable learners to engage with ‘issues of power’ (Pyne
and Means 2013, p. 187). However, the narratives of these older female participants serve
as a powerful reminder about how university attendance can provide an opportunity to
rewrite life scripts and redefine prescribed gender roles in a powerfully liberating way.
Applying the lens of Yosso’s familial capital to this study also revealed the very
powerful influence that family had on learners. These participants described how their
learning was both encouraged by others and also engendered knowledge acquisition within
the household. University attendance provided a new capital as fresh discourses around
learning emerged with the intergenerational impacts of these conversations heralding
benefits for all. Parental workplace participation has measurable positive impacts on family
members’ emotional and financial well-being (Cassells et al. 2011) but how parental
educational participation impacts upon family well-being is relatively unknown. These are
the hidden or invisible outcomes from university attendance: conversations within the
household and the passing of knowledge between family members.
Yosso’s model has largely been applied to students from ethnic minorities, but this
framework has much to offer research on broader under-represented groups in the uni-
versity landscape. This study has used CCW as a lens to expose how assumptions around
cultural wealth are based upon the values of dominant social groups rather than existing as
neutral artifacts. However, this is not an unproblematic application, and there are some
silences in Yosso’s model, particularly how prior life experiences impact upon transition
and engagement within this environment. Research on how first-in-family status intersects
with a range of variables (including age and gender) in the production of cultural wealth is
ongoing (O’Shea et al. 2015). The latter research includes interviews with significant
others in students’ lives to gain a more nuanced understanding of this intersectionality.
When students step into the university environment, the focus should be less on working
upon the students to change or alter them in order to engender a ‘sense of fit’ with the
institution. Rather, we need to rethink how we consider the notion of integration within
higher education organisations. This reconceptualisation should consider the very strong
capitals that learners arrive with, regardless of ethnicity, SES status or educational back-
ground. As this research has indicated, these students all arrived with a range of capitals,
but the challenge for institutions is to work effectively with what learners have rather than
expect them to change or disregard these strengths. Higher education policies and practices
need to shift away from the manufacturing of ‘sameness’ (Bejarano and Valverde 2012)
amongst new entrants.
Equally, it may be necessary to rethink institutional integration conceptually. As Nunez
(2009) argues in relation to Latino students, effective integration may ‘not represent a full
commitment to the institution’s mores…but, rather represent a distinctive sense of agency’
(p. 42). For the students in this study, this ‘sense of agency’ is clearly situated in the
narratives told around aspirational, resistant, familial and, in some cases, experiential

123
76 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

capitals. Applying Yosso’s framework to this Australian first-in-family cohort serves to

reposition understanding of this group not as students ‘without’ but rather as individuals
‘with’—this represents a significant shift in thinking within educational policy discourse
both within Australia and beyond.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by a University of Wollongong Educational Strategies

Development Grant (2013).

References
ABS. (2011). Census quickstats. http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au
Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In V. Rao & M. Walton
(Eds.), Culture and publication (pp. 59–84). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Aschaffenburg, K., & Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics of social repro-
duction. American Sociological Review, 62(4), 573–587.
Ball, S., Davies, J., David, M., & Reay, D. (2002). ‘Classification’ and ‘Judgement’: Social class and the
‘cognitive structures’ of choice of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(1),
51–72.
Bejarano, C., & Valverde, M. (2012). From the fields to the university: Charting educational access and
success for farmworker students using a Community Cultural Wealth framework. Association of
Mexican-American Educators (AMAE) Journal, 6(2), 22–29.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the
sociology of education (pp. 241–257). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage
Publications.
Brachman, C. (2012). Improving access and success for first-generation college students. America’s Promise
Bulletin. http://www.americaspromise.org
Brine, J., & Waller, R. (2004). Working-class women on an access course: Risk, opportunity and (re)-
constructing identities. Gender and Education, 16(1), 97–113.
Bryan, E., & Simmons, L. A. (2009). Family involvement: Impacts on post-secondary educational success
for first-generation Appalachian college students. Journal of College Student Development, 4,
391–406.
Cassells, R., McNamara, J., Gong, H., & Bicknell, S. (2011). Unequal opportunities: Life chances for
children in the lucky country. Sydney: The Smith Family.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London:
Sage Publications.
Chen, X. (2005). First generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college transcripts
(NCES 2005–171): National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office.
Choi, K. (2002). Psychological separation–individuation and adjustment to college among Korean American
students: The roles of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4),
468–475.
Christie, H., Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Hounsell, J., & McCune, V. (2008). A real rollercoaster of confidence and
emotions: Learning to be a university student. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 567–581.
Coates, H., & Ransom, L. (2011) Dropout DNA, and the genetics of effective support. AUSSE Research
Briefings, 11, 1–16. http://research.acer.edu.au/ausse/1/
Dumais, S. A., & Ward, A. (2009). Cultural capital and first-generation college success. Poetics, 38,
245–265.
Edwards, R. (1993). Mature women students: Separating or connecting family and education. London:
Taylor and Francis.
Elder, G. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12.
Evans, S. (2009). In a different place: Working class girls and higher education. Sociology, 43(2), 340–355.
Gardner, J. N. (1996). Helping America’s first-generation college students. About Campus, 1, 31–32.
George, R., & Maguire, M. (1998). Older women training to teach. Gender and Education, 10(4), 417–430.
Giles, J. (1990). Second chance, second self? Gender and Education, 2(3), 357–361.
Gofen, A. (2007). Family capital: How first-generation higher education students break the intergenera-
tional cycle (pp. 1–33). Wisconsin-Madison: Institution for Research on Poverty.

123
High Educ (2016) 72:59–78 77

Ishitani, T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behaviour among first generation college
students in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885.
Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. (2013). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across
multiple perspectives. London: Routledge.
Nora, A. (2001–2002). The depiction of significant others in Tinto’s ‘‘Rites of Passage’’: A reconceptual-
ization of family and community in the persistence process. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1),
41–56.
Nunez, A. (2009). Latino students’ transition to college: A social and intercultural capital perspective.
Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 22–48.
O’Shea, S. (2007). Well I got here…but what happens next? Exploring the early narratives of first year
female students who are the first in the family to attend university. Journal of Australian and New
Zealand Student Services Association, 29, 36–51.
O’Shea, S. (2014a). Transitions and turning points: How first-in-family female students story their transition
to university and student identity formation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
27(2), 135–158.
O’Shea, S. (2014b). Filling up silences: First-in-family students, capital and university talk in the home.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 34(2), 139–155. doi:10.1080/02601370.2014.980342.
O’Shea, S., May, J., Stone, C. & Delahunty, J. (2015). Breaking the barriers: Supporting and engaging first-
in-family learners and their families. Final Project Report. http://firstinfamily.com.au
OECD. (2013). Education indicators in focus (September). http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-
school
OECD. (2015). OECD employment outlook 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/empl_outlook-
2015-en.
Ortiz, L., & Jani, J. (2010). Critical race theory: A transformational model for teaching diversity. Journal of
Social Work Education, 46(2), 175–193. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2010.200900070.
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-generation college students: Addi-
tional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3),
249–284.
Perry, C., & Allard, A. (2003). Making the connections: Transition experiences for first-year education
students. Journal of Educational Policy, 4(2), 74–89.
Pitman, T. (2013). Miraculous exceptions: What can autobiography tell us about why some disadvantaged
students succeed in higher education? Higher Education Research & Development, 32(1), 30–42.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.750278.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23.
Pyne, K., & Means, D. (2013). Underrepresented and in/visible: A Hispanic first-generation student’s
narrative of college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(3), 186–198.
Reay, D., Ball, S., & David, M. (2005). Degrees of choice: Social class, race and gender in higher
education. Chester: Trentham Books Limited.
Rolls, L., & Relf, M. (2006). Bracketing interviews: Addressing methodological challenges in qualitative
interviewing in bereavement and palliative care. Mortality, 11(3), 286–305.
Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange,
1, 64–85.
Spiegler, T., & Bednarek, A. (2013). First-generation students: What we ask, what we know and what it
means: An international review of the state of research. International Studies in Sociology of Edu-
cation, 23(4), 318–337.
Stone, C., & O’Shea, S. (2012). Transformations and self-discovery: Stories of women returning to edu-
cation. Champagne, IL: Common Ground Publishing LLC.
Stone, C., & O’Shea, S. (2013). Time, money, leisure and guilt: The gendered challenges of higher edu-
cation for mature-age students. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(1), 95–116.
Thayer, P. B. (2000). Retention of students from first generation and low-income backgrounds. Opportunity
Outlook: The Journal of the Council for Opportunity in Education, 2–8.
Thomas, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). First generation entry into higher education: An international study.
Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press.
Tinto, V. (2002). Establishing conditions for student success. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Confer-
ence of the European Access Network. Monash University, Prato.
Tramonte, L., & Willms, J. D. (2009). Cultural capital and its effects on education outcomes. Economics of
Education Review, 29, 200–213.
Vinson, T., Rawsthorne, M., Beavis, A., & Ericson, M. (2015). Dropping off the edge 2015. www.dote.org.
au

123
78 High Educ (2016) 72:59–78

Waterman, S. J., & Lindley, L. S. (2013). Cultural strengths to persevere: Native American women in higher
education. NASPA: Journal about Women in Higher Education, 6(2), 139–165.
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the
people: The role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 30(6), 707–722.
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of Community Cultural
Wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

123