Non-Inclusivity, Discrimination and the Othering of Female Students in Higher Education with Lived Experience of Trauma and Adversity

Abstract

This chapter explores the experiences of female students who have lived experiences of adversity and trauma in their interactions with UK higher education personnel when they disclose and ask for support. The findings demonstrate that despite HE policies promoting inclusivity and equality, there is a deficit in the approaches taken by frontline staff towards students. This nurtures a harmful culture of othering which often leads women to early withdrawal from their studies. Solutions to this problem include training and awareness for HE staff including a trauma informed approach which recognises and responds to the rapidly changing student population.

1. Introduction

Higher education (HE) is a key driver for female empowerment [1]. Universities can be influential in supporting gender equality and inclusion, both on campus and in the wider society [2]. Universities are experiencing a rapidly widening student demographic; UCAS¹ report that since 2020, more female students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds across the UK are studying for degrees [3]. In 2022, a record number of students from deprived areas enrolled at university [4]. Simultaneously there has been a gradual increase in demand for pastoral support, in particular mental health support. These demands fall on academic staff and university support services [5]. In 2017, a 50% rise in demand for mental health provisions in universities was reported by the Institute for Public Policy Research [6]. This research will show that female students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often require enhanced levels of support but may find it difficult to access. Previous research demonstrates that academic staff often struggle to engage with students at a pastoral care level [7]. Pinnock’s research revealed a lack of academic awareness of the needs of non-traditional students and underdeveloped student support systems [8]. Previous research by Bleijenbergh et al. [9] also shows female students are also vulnerable to gender inequality [10]. This can impact negatively on their experiences in HE. According to Rosa and Clavero,

‘Universities can be powerful institutions for promoting gender equality and inclusion, not only in the higher education context, but also in society at large. Nevertheless, universities remain both gendered and gendering organizations’ [11].

The objective of this study was to learn more about the experiences of female students in HE in the UK who have lived experiences of adversity and trauma. I was especially interested in women with challenging backgrounds who ask for help and support. The objective of examining this group of women came from my own experiences of non-inclusive and othering conduct by some university staff whilst I was a student; and later as an academic when working with women and witnessing first-hand the challenges they face when integrating into HE; whilst trying to overcome the adversity they have in their lives. The way they are treated by university personnel when they ask for support is pivotal to their wellbeing, self-belief and present/future success.

The study explores women’s interactions with HE personnel, from academic to support staff. It focuses on three key themes that were revealed in the findings: non-inclusivity, othering and discrimination. Although small scale, this study contributes to existing knowledge about the problem of inequality and gendering in HE. It also makes some new discoveries about the way women from certain backgrounds can find themselves being othered by HE personnel in ways that lack connectedness with existing policies on inclusion and equality. Drawing on findings from interviews with ten women who were enrolled on university courses and who asked for support for various difficulties, it was discovered that non-inclusive practices which are inconsistent with general principles of inclusivity.² and othering remain problematic. This conflicts directly with overarching frameworks within HE Governance such as inclusivity and equality.³ It prevents female students from reaching their potential. In some cases the conduct described by participants suggested that they had been subjected to discrimination; therefore it considers whether there are breaches of the law in respect of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EA) and Abrahart v University of Bristol 2022.⁴ The chapter concludes by calling for more considerate practice including a ‘trauma informed’ approach to student’s needs; and a greater awareness of non-inclusive practices. These can lead to discrimination and othering of some female students entering HE, who, due to their life experiences, may already feel they are devalued and othered in society.

2. Underpinning concepts

2.1 Women in higher education

Historically women in the UK were not allowed to study in HE. In 1868, nine women attended the University of London. This was the first time women had been admitted to a UK university. It was considered to be ‘an immensely significant moment for the university, for women and for society as a whole’ [12]. By 1918, thanks to the Suffragette movement, women in the UK were able to vote [13]. In 1920, Oxford university permitted women to take full degrees. They had previously been allowed to study there but were awarded a lesser degree than men. In 1948 Cambridge university also allowed women to study there. During the late 1800s the idea of women achieving full degrees at Cambridge university caused riots in the city. It was said that male undergraduates were ‘burning effigies of female scholars and throwing fireworks at the windows of Women’s colleges’ [14].

In the twenty-first century social transformations such as the feminist movement have made universities accessible to women from all social classes. Females have overtaken males in HE [15]. They are 35% more likely to go to university than males [15]. However, despite four decades since the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act, research shows that institutional bias towards women still exists [15]. Research by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) found that,

‘Universities report on institution-wide policies and services that promote gender equality. For example, nine out of ten universities have a non-discrimination policy against women and universities are actively protecting those reporting gender discrimination, with 86% of institutions stating a policy for this’ [16].

However, the same study found that,

‘Most universities were unable to provide relevant evidence of their policies and services that support women’s advancement, suggesting that while certain codes may ostensibly be in place, they are not yet being implemented across institutions, and students and staff may be unaware of them’ [15].

Research shows that female students are still being treated differently to male students ([17], Accessed: 2 May 2023). The devaluation of females is prevalent in gendered institutions [11] and is another facet to a sexist culture. We know that sexism continues to be a problem in UK universities. According to Di Nitto et al. ‘universities are no less sexist than other social institutions’ [18]. Utley, writing for Times Higher Education explains, ‘Sexism is defined as prejudice, stereotyping or discrimination on the basis of sex and is far too common on university campuses’ ([19], Accessed: 3 May 2023). It is noted that ‘it is mostly but not exclusively aimed at women’ [20]. The existing literature tends to focus on the interactions between male and female staff [21] and male and female students ([19], Accessed: 15 May 2023). What is seems to miss though is the interrelationship between university personnel and female students; this is where a gap in knowledge was identified.

Inequality and non-inclusivity towards female students in HE have serious implications. Talented students experience barriers to success meaning they are unable to thrive. Those who have experienced adverse life events are often more vulnerable to such treatment, yet they often suffer greater effects from this [22]; for example, failing to integrate with peers, isolation, early withdrawal from studies, failing to graduate, mental health and social problems such as believing that they are not worthy of their qualification or avoiding applying for graduate jobs. Collectively these factors can have a detrimental impact on the social mobility of female students as well as reinforcing an often-protracted sense of isolation and ‘not belonging’ [23]. Neuman states that ‘to belong is a fundamental human need that can shape the way people think and feel’ ([17], Accessed: 21 April 2023). The findings in the current study convey the sense of isolation felt by the participants; this had a long-term negative impact on their confidence when engaging with their course and later seeking employment. All ten participants spoke of university being a lonely experience where they felt isolated and did not ‘fit in’ with peers or some academic staff, the latter who they envisaged as privileged and unable to emphasise with them because they are women who come from deprived and challenging backgrounds.

UK universities promote a proactive and comprehensive approach to student support that is designed to create a holistic network of academic and central support personnel ([24], Accessed: 16 May 2023). Yet Collias argues that ‘higher education has never been an oasis of acceptance and nurturing’ ([25], Accessed: 12 May 2023). Laws and Fiedler suggest that ‘the university environment has challenged the motivation of academic staff to engage in pastoral care, academic staff are often disturbed by unplanned student intrusions’ [7]. Rodrigo and Clavero argue that because men are at the centre of power in academia the problem of gender inequality has not been addressed sufficiently to reflect changes in the student population [11]. This argument is advanced by David, who suggests ‘patriarchy or hegemonic masculinity in HE is still strongly felt’ [15]. Morris et al. put forward that those engaged in promoting gender equality in HE ‘inevitably come up against a complex range of institutional barriers [26]. Despite the wide-reaching policies on equality and inclusivity we find compelling evidence that outdated cultures still exist within HE. These become apparent when some of the most vulnerable students ask for support.

2.2 Social mobility

One of the key motivators for women who have fought adversity to enter HE is the potential for social mobility. Social mobility is defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OEDC) as ‘equality of opportunity’ ([27], Accessed: 14 April 2023). This means that people should have the same opportunities to do well in life, ‘regardless of the socio-economic background of their parents, their gender, age, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, birthplace, or other circumstances beyond their control’ ([27], Accessed: 14 April 2023). According to de Bellaigue et al., ‘the twentieth century saw substantial changes in the educational and occupational opportunities available to women in Britain, these may have been supposed to foster new patterns of female mobility’ [28]. However, women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to have less chance of studying at HE level and achieving a graduate career [29]. This is why the role of civil society, and the private sector is so crucial in shaping equal opportunities ([30], Accessed: 3 May 2023). In practice it means that women from these backgrounds can access HE and once they have, the way they are treated within this institution is paramount to their success. A key aspect of HE policy is inclusivity ([2], Accessed: 3 May 2023) which if adopted and practiced authentically, can ensure that students are able to reach their potentials and achieve social mobility.

2.3 Inclusivity

In recent years there has been an increasing focus on inclusivity within HE [31]. This is said to have been influenced by ‘increased globalisation and connectivity and interdependence between cultures, ideas and economies’ [32]. Inclusivity is defined as ‘the fact or policy of not excluding members or participants on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, disability’ [33]. In HE, inclusivity is specifically focused on ‘the ongoing and transformative process of improving education systems to meet everyone’s needs, especially those in marginalised groups’ [32]. Inclusive practice involves ensuring that there is no segregation or stigmatising of difference’ [34]. Inclusivity is essential to students’ overall learning and development [35]. Ways that inclusivity can be promoted in HE is by effective and ongoing partnership with students, taking students’ experiences and feedback into account, ensuring that teaching and learning is provided to support students from all economic backgrounds and supporting the needs of students academically and pastorally [36]. Some of the ways inclusivity is weakened are by having a closed-door hierarchal policy, using inappropriate language, inattentive listening, making assumptions about students, not treating people the same based on race, religion, gender, size, age, personality or country of origin, excluding or ignoring, and inconsiderate scheduling [32].

Hubbard et al. emphasise the ethos of inclusivity includes careful consideration as well as actions by HE staff,

‘We should adopt an intersectional approach to inclusion, recognising that individual students might belong to multiple disadvantaged groups. Inclusivity also recognises that students are individuals, not just members of a demographic ‘group’. Two students from the same ‘group’ might have very different experiences, so we must take care not to fall back on stereotypes or generalisations about what a particular group of student needs’ [36].

Although inclusive practice is not a legal requirement, most UK universities openly promote inclusive policy and practice which aligns with guidance by institutions such as Advanced Higher Education ([37], Accessed: 16 May 2023) and the Office for Students ([38], Accessed: 20 May 2023).

2.4 Othering

Othering is a situation whereby groups of people with a certain identity are marginalised and seen as outside the normal or conventional. People are othered based on race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, class, caste, culture, disability, religion and age. Othering is defined by Townsin as ‘considering another person, or group of people, as fundamentally different from ‘us’, thereby failing to acknowledge their subjectivities and complexities’ [39].

And by Cherry as,

‘A phenomenon in which some individuals or groups are defined and labelled as not fitting in within the norms of a social group. It is an effect that influences how people perceive and treat those who are viewed as being part of the in-group versus those who are seen as being part of the out-group’ ([40], Accessed: 21 April 2023).

Othering is commonly cited as a form of hatred towards ethnic minority groups [41] and women [41]. Powell suggests that othering as a general concept, ‘is not about liking or disliking someone. It is based on the conscious or unconscious assumption that a certain identified group poses a threat to the favoured group’ [42]. Many reasons have been put forward why some people engage in othering, but in higher education it is considered to be,

‘Bound to issues of inclusion and belonging. Those othered are positioned to ‘hold’ experiences of exclusion and outsider-ness by those who are positioned on the inside and the ‘norm’; othering takes us into the realm of power and how power and identity are interconnected and constructed’ ([25], Accessed: 12 May 2023).

It is believed that where people experience trauma such as child abuse, othering is an experience that can become internalised. This means that it is common for those who suffer trauma to hold hatred towards themselves and towards others with similar life experiences. This internalisation is likely to be a defence mechanism towards being othered and excluded. It will be argued later that an effective way to avoid othering women in HE is to adopt a trauma informed approach which is now widely used in many services that work with traumatised people ([43], Accessed: 25 April 2023).

2.5 Adversity and trauma

Trauma and adversity are used to describe both single and reoccurring distressing life events or situations. Trauma does not have definitive examples but can include emotional, physical or sexual abuse, a violent or frightening event, witnessing harm to someone else, family conflict or domestic abuse, losing a family member or friend to suicide. Some experiences can be so traumatic they leave a person with mental health implications over a much longer period. Trauma is not a mental health condition, however, experiencing trauma and adverse life events can result in a person struggling with their emotional wellbeing, relationships and mental health ([44], Accessed: 22 April 2023). Adversity and trauma can cause a condition called post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Research has found that women have a two to three times higher risk of developing PTSD compared to men [45]. Symptoms of PTSD tend to vary but common symptoms are negative thoughts and feelings that make daily life exceedingly difficult for sufferers, and a ‘fight or flight’ reaction to stressful situations. Olff found that women with PTSD tend to react to stressful situations with a tend-and-befriend response rather than the fight-or-flight response that is often assumed [45]. Seeking out others to support when they need support themselves can have further implications for their wellbeing and can deflect the attention from their own needs. Research has consistently shown that ‘females have complex patterns of adversity which carry differential risks for mental health, emotional, and social outcomes later in life’ [46]. These risks, when coupled with the demands and stresses of studying, and negative experiences whilst in HE, can result in women being unable to continue with their studies, or they ‘soldier on’ unsupported, with long term harmful implications [46].

3. The Applicable Law and Regulations in HE

The Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in England (RFHEE). This Framework is published by the Office for Students which states that the,

‘Primary aim is to ensure that English higher education is delivering positive outcomes for students – past, present, and future. We seek to ensure that students, from all backgrounds (particularly the most disadvantaged), can access, succeed in, and progress from higher education’.

The RFHEE four primary regulatory objectives are as follows: all students, from all backgrounds, and with the ability and desire to undertake higher education:

1. Are supported to access, succeed in, and progress from, higher education.

2. Receive a high quality academic experience, and their interests are protected while they study or in the event of provider, campus or course closure.

3. Are able to progress into employment or further study, and their qualifications hold their value over time.

4. Receive value for money.

The regulatory framework is designed to mitigate the risk that these primary objectives are not met. The regulatory objectives will be considered later in conjunction with this study’s findings.

4. The Equality Act 2010: implications for HE institutions

The EA sets out protected characteristics which are the grounds upon which discrimination is unlawful. These includes age and sex. The EA sets out prohibited conduct of direct discrimination. Section 13 of the Act defines direct discrimination to be when a person treats one person less favourably than they would another because of a protected characteristic. The EA has provided for the treatment of students. Section 91 of the Act prohibits the governing body of an HEI from discriminating against a person or student in the following ways: in the way it affords the student access to a benefit, facility or service, by not providing education for the student, by not affording the student access to a benefit, facility or service, by excluding the student, by subjecting the student to any other detriment [47]. The EA requires public sector bodies (including universities) to have due regard to the need to: eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation advance equality of opportunity between people who do and do not share a protected characteristic, foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not share a protected characteristic.

4.1 Duty of care to students

The UK government state that,

‘Higher Education providers do have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinarily competent institution and, in carrying out these services, they are expected to act reasonably to protect the health, safety and welfare of their students’ [48].

However Scolding notes that when it comes to the duty of care to provide pastoral support, there is no real clarity about how that works in practice ([49], Accessed: 20 April 2023). The Association of Managers of Student Services in Higher Education (AMOSSHE) Duty of Care Guidance provides principles of good practice for universities which include the delivery of student support services including effective provisions for support, transparency and a clear designation of responsibility, and importantly,

‘The necessary training, development and support should be available to all relevant staff to enable them to undertake their roles and responsibilities in providing support to students efficiently and effectively’ [50].

In summary students are owed a duty of care by the university, academic staff [51] such as personal tutors⁵ and study advisers and by central Student Services. AMOSSHE advise that students who disclose challenging circumstances on admission should be given an ‘assessment of need report‘which sets out key information to those with a duty of care to the student’s wellbeing.⁶ Universities must have regard to the RFHEE objectives and are bound by the equality legislation not to discriminate or allow discrimination against students. It is not conclusive that the law protects the right to inclusivity in HE, but arguments have been put forward that inclusivity is a human right in relation to disability under International law [52] and that inclusivity is a moral human right [53]. It is however the case that non inclusive behaviour can emanate into discrimination which would then become unlawful.

5. Methodology

Following a feminist methodology, a qualitative, small-scale study was carried out involving ten participants who identified as female students with lived experience of adversity and trauma. Ethical approval for the study was sought and approved by the researcher’s institutions’ ethics panel.⁷ The first stage was an online survey sent to the Student Unions of seven UK universities⁸ with a request to cascade the survey to female students. The survey included questions on disclosure of adverse/traumatic life events and subsequent support seeking whilst in HE. Adversity and trauma were not defined in the recruitment information so that women were able to define their own experiences. There were 63 respondents who completed a survey. From those responses ten participants were recruited via purposive sampling.⁹ Six students came from different universities. The remaining three were students at different colleges within the same university. They were chosen because they confirmed that they had: a, lived experience of trauma, adversity, and b, they had disclosed either a characteristic or a disability to their university and had asked for support and assistance. For ethical purposes, before obtaining their consent, the women were asked to confirm that they were no longer experiencing domestic abuse or any other form of abusive relationship and that they were comfortable talking about their trauma. The ethical responsibility when working with vulnerable people is enhanced. Participants may not be conventionally vulnerable, but if they are in dependent and/or abusive relationships, they can feel coerced or pressured into taking part in research, so extra care is needed to ensure their involvement is ethical [55]. Each of the participants was allocated a pseudonym name to protect their identities. These names have been used to identify each person’s narrative in the findings.

The second part of the study was the collection of data by semi-structured and interviews conducted face to face. Feminist research methods favour conversational interviews in a supportive and empathic environment. Reinharz explains ‘the use of [unstructured] interviews have become the principal means by which feminists have sought to achieve the active involvement of their respondents in the construction of data about their lives’ [56]. According to Ann Oakley, the feminist perspective rejects traditional masculine interviewing techniques where there is the avoidance of sensitivity and emotionality. Rather it embraces the traits of openness, emotional engagement and the development of trust within a non-hierarchal relationship [57].

Opening questions focused on asking women about their experiences of HE in general, then more specifically in the context of adversity and trauma they had suffered. Further questions were asked about specific support they sought, from who and their views on the responses and adequacy of support provided. The aim of the interviews was to collect data from natural conversation so that the participants did not feel pressured to give ‘correct answers’. This approach provides the potential for obtaining rich and detailed data. This data provides empirical information about the lives and perspectives of the participants through use of words [58].

The data was analysed using discourse analysis. This method studies aspects of social life which is understood through the analysis of language and its contextual meaning. Discourse analysis supports the idea that language and discourse, in the sense of speech and communication, is not a fixed reality, but one that is shaped by social context. According to Jankowicz, discourse analysis is of relevance when listening to people’s own narratives of a situation. It allows researchers to gain an understanding of people and how they communicate and explore meaning from conversations about the social life of participants [59]. From individual data, we can look for analytic themes and discursive features. From the data as a whole, we can look for patterns in words, anecdotes and the use of language [60]. In the present study, the participants’ discourses were analysed twice. Firstly, to look for specific words and phrases that were relevant to the research aims, and secondly, to look at each conversation holistically to get a sense of the participants’ interactions with academics and professionals and how this made them feel whilst considering the implications of the findings under the principles of inclusivity and equality.

6. Study limitations

This research is not large scale enough to give an inclusive representation of the chosen study population. This work provides only a snapshot of practice in HE which corresponds with previous research and makes some new discoveries. The recruitment method also limits the generality of the findings, because it may be that only women who had negative experiences were compelled to participate. This limitation was balanced by the identification of respondents who clearly expressed their motivation for participation, this being the wish to share their experiences so that awareness is raised and such conduct by HE staff is challenged. The recruitment method also allowed for women to enquire and agree to the research with total autonomy, there were no gatekeepers involved, thus respondents had full control over their participation. It is argued that the data collected is reliable and valid; because it is drawn from students from different institutions there is a good level of representation. Although the data is subjective and based on participant’s interpretations of their experiences, this is the basis of qualitative research and is an accepted method of investigating social phenomena.

7. Findings and discussion

The participants ranged in age from 21 to 40 at the time of their interviews. Five participants described themselves as white, one as black British, one as white and Asian, the remaining three did not specify their ethnicity. All the women came from lower socio-economic backgrounds and considered HE as a pathway to social mobility and ‘better career prospects’.¹⁰ All the participants confirmed that they had disclosed details of their circumstances to various university personnel including, central administration, personal tutors, lecturers and disability/wellbeing/mental health support workers. A theme in the findings was that a degree was more than just a qualification to these women. Going to university to study was a major life experience where they hoped to escape or transcend adversity and build their self-esteem for a more positive future.

Analysis of the results revealed significant deficiencies in inclusivity and othering at ground level with collective evidence of devaluation of these female students. These personal narratives are combined in a manner allowing for a broader picture of female students’ experiences in HE to emerge, spotlighting the challenges and obstacles they often face when trying to overcome adversity and thrive academically, professionally and personally.

The findings demonstrate that despite policies on inclusivity and equality being heralded by universities, these principles are not always upheld by individual staff. There were many examples of good practice given by the participants, in particular by mental health workers and personal tutors, but of concern are the examples of non-inclusivity and in some cases discrimination which overall leads to the devaluation and othering of female students with lived experience of adversity.

Anna is a domestic abuse survivor; she spent the first two years of her law degree living in a women’s refuge with her children. Anna said that she found a ‘wall of disregard’¹¹ from several members of staff when she asked for specific support such as being allowed to attend a different class that worked with her childcare. Anna also described a male lecturer making ‘disturbing observations’¹² during a meeting where he alluded to victims being weak for not leaving an abusive partner. Anna learned that the lecturer made no secret of his contempt for domestic abuse survivors. She raised concerns about his conduct to her personal tutor, but she believes that no action was taken.

Karima is a post graduate student; she is a domestic abuse survivor who had to leave her home with her children in her first year of study. When Karima asked her personal tutor for help because she was worried about missing lectures due to having to move home, she was refused assistance. She recalled the tutor said ‘if we make provisions for you, we will have to offer it to all the students’.¹³ She was then directed to the course information booklet which stated that it is a student’s responsibly to attend all classes. She recalled the conversation was ‘shut down’¹⁴ by the tutor with no compromise for her situation. Billy is studying social work; she spent her early years in the care system and was profoundly traumatised by her childhood experiences. She suffered from reoccurring bouts of depression. Billy felt ‘singled out’¹⁵ as a care leaver in ways that suggested she was more likely to fail than other students; an example of othering being a lecturer advising her that students with ‘baggage from childhood’¹⁶ should not pursue a career in social work.

Lilly is studying for a master’s degree; she grew up taking care of, and often being assaulted by troubled foster children because her parents were unable to manage them. She also experienced bullying from other students during her course, something that triggered symptoms of anxiety and PTSD from her childhood. When she sought support, she described her meeting with the programme leader,

‘I told her that what happened to me meant I couldn’t stand up to bullies and could she help me deal with the two women who were bullying me. She had no empathy whatsoever, I felt like I was to blame. I wanted to disappear into her office wall; I was ashamed for even asking for anything’.¹⁷

Paulina grew up in an emotionally abusive family. She suffered from severe PTSD and depression during her first year of her drama degree which led her to abuse alcohol to try and cope with her symptoms. She said she was ‘all over the place’¹⁸ and needed help but could find no support in her faculty. During her second year she accidentally fell pregnant and asked her personal tutor for advice and support. She recalled his visible discomfort when she told him she was pregnant, he then advised her to withdraw from her course. She found this advice particularly upsetting because she knew a fellow male student who was expecting a baby with his partner had been ‘offered all kinds of support including extenuating circumstances for his performance assessment’.¹⁹

Cass is an English literature student. She has been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder. She spent several years in psychiatric hospitals prior to being a student. She was provided with a support package from the university disability service, but she found the attitudes of some of the academic staff judgmental. She said her personal tutor had no idea how to talk to her about her situation and made several badly informed comments about mental health, for example, he asked her what would happen if she stopped taking her medication. Cass was not on medication and was managing her condition with cognitive behavioural therapy She felt that this comment was stigmatising of people with mental health conditions. Zara is an undergraduate. She was sexually abused in her early years. She had been a witness against her abusers in two criminal trials and was extremely vulnerable when she entered HE. Initially she chose not to disclose to the university. That changed when she attended her first small group tutorial.

‘There were about ten of us in the class. L (the teacher) thought he was ‘down with the kids’ he was messing around and everyone was laughing. Then he started telling jokes about some of those famous blokes who have been convicted of sexually abusing kids, saying some awful things about abuse survivors. I started to feel hot and nauseous, I left the class. I emailed him the next day, something like ‘some people have personal experience of abuse and your jokes were inappropriate’. His reply was something along the lines of ‘well if I’d known bla bla’, but what kind of person does that? Laughs at child abuse. I knew I could never be in a room with him again and it changed how I felt about my course’.

Elizabeth left her degree course before graduation. She suffered from an eating disorder linked to childhood abuse. She feels angry about the way she was treated at university. Although she said some of the academic staff were ‘wonderful’²⁰; her personal tutor was cold and unsupportive, telling her she should leave her course without advising her of any other support or options such as an interruption or extenuating circumstances. Elizabeth said that she was left feeling suicidal and with no choice but to leave a course she loved. Sammy had a similar experience. She lived with depression and OCD²¹ and was provided with a study mentor by the university who, from the outset, caused her problems. Sammy said the mentor was keen to discuss her own personal problems whilst ignoring Sammy’s study needs. The situation became untenable when Sammy learned that the mentor had made derogatory comments about her on a social media ‘group chat’,²² posting a ‘meme’²³ of a woman in on a physiatrist’s sofa with Sammy’s name pasted on. When she made a complaint to her faculty office she recalled, ‘the senior professor said I was probably being oversensitive and if I got mad at every little thing, I saw on social networks I was going to have a tough time and needed to have a thicker skin’.²⁴

Overall the narratives convey a sense of isolation felt by the participants. Despite trying to manage significant stressors and the impact of trauma, they often avoided help seeking until it was inexorable and then it was motivated by the concern that their studies would be compromised if they did not ask for help. A reoccurring theme was accounts of tutors or support staff seeming distant, unengaged or not listening. Sammy noticed that the professor did not make eye contact at all and talked to the wall above her head. Anna said the male lecturer talked over her and interrupted her every time she spoke.

8. How women were affected by the conduct

Participants talked about how this treatment made them feel. Some simply denied to themselves that this treatment had occurred and tried to normalise it so that they could continue with their studies. However, that was a short-term solution. Reactions included feeling isolated, mental distress, low self-esteem, a sense of being an imposter. They often went out of their way to avoid the individuals concerned, including not attending lectures or personal tutor meetings, thus enhancing their sense of segregation. Some were constantly on guard, anxious, or hypervigilant and some felt numb or detached from other people, activities and their surroundings. It is easy to see how a single incident of othering and non-inclusive behaviour can trigger a person who is sensitive to such treatment to find HE a negative and in some cases an intolerable experience. Early withdrawal and non-completion of studies is often a result, something universities are anxious to avoid ([61], Accessed: 21 April 2023). Statistics from Higher Education Statistics Agency show that 5.3% of full-time, first-degree entrants in 2019/2020 did not continue past their first year of study. Tinto found that student’s positive interaction with faculty and the peer group played a significant role in student experience, concluding that students who are not integrated are more likely to withdraw [62].

9. Implications

Negative responses to requests for help are detrimental to students, to HE ethos and to universities’ duty of care. The conduct described by the participants conflicts with the RHFEE overarching principle, ‘that students, from all backgrounds (particularly the most disadvantaged), can access, succeed in, and progress from higher education’. There are clear examples of non-inclusive and othering behaviour where women were excluded because of their gender, disability and/or backgrounds. This is poor practice that fails to meet the standards set by the AMOSSHE. Because some of the participants fall within the protected characteristics defined by the EA, the conduct they describe equates unlawful harassment under the EA because it made them feel degraded, humiliated, distressed and offended. There is direct discrimination under sections 13 and 91 of the EA. Direct discrimination concerns a person being treated differently and worse than others because of who they are or because of who someone thinks they are. Being advised to withdraw when others are provided with support and being told not to pursue a career because of life experience demonstrates different or worse treatment than other students. There is discrimination on the basis of gender where the student was discriminated against by being told to withdraw because she was pregnant. There is also discrimination arising from disability. In Abrahart v University of Bristol 2022,²⁵ Bristol County Court held that the university had breached the Equality Act. This case involved a student with depression and social anxiety disorder who committed suicide because of the failure of Bristol university to provide her with adjustments to assessment because of her disability. The case is relevant here because Billy, Paulina, Cass, Elizabeth, Lilly and Sammy have a disability defined within the Section 6 of the Equality Act, by way of a mental impairment. This was defined by the court as in Abrahart as ‘severe depression with prominent anxiety features’.²⁶ The court said that to equate discrimination a university must have actual or constructive notice of a disability.²⁷ Knowledge on the part of any member of university staff in that capacity should usually be enough. Direct discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EA would concern unfavourable treatment because of something connected to a disability.²⁸ The court held that discrimination would occur once a university knew that a mental health disability was preventing the student from performing and then treated them unfavourably. Under the EA education providers must not engage in unfair treatment such as the provision of policies, access to benefits, facilities or services or any other detriment. It is argued that asking for help and being told to withdraw due to illness or pregnancy; or not having adequate provisions in place which impact on the student’s ability to study equates unfavourable treatment as defined in Abrahart. Tyrer points out that ‘Abrahart will no doubt raise the profile of mental health issues in universities’ ([63], Accessed: 18 May 2023). But arguably it is more pertinent to the deficit in understanding of HE staff and the quality of responses to individual students’ support needs.

10. Suggestions and concluding thoughts

Whilst the findings show mainly examples of individual behaviour, othering and discrimination, rather than an institutional policy that permits such conduct; it does not lessen the gravity of this treatment. Indeed the attitudes of personnel can be attributed to an accepted ‘culture’ within an institution. Dumitrescu argues ‘universities preach meritocracy but, in reality, bend over backwards to protect toxic personalities, in what she calls ‘an ego driven industry’ [64]. There is a need for improved and more considerate practices underpinned by a better understanding of new emerging student populations. This can be obtained through mandatory training and examples of best practice from forward thinking institutions. For example, the University of Hull have created a framework with five areas of activity which contribute to inclusive practice across an institution ([36], Accessed: 16 May 2023). There is also a need for a more unified approach to support. Some participants described receiving excellent support from a centralised service such as mental health, but complete disregard from their teachers or personal tutors. Laws believes that there remains a lack of clarity on the role and boundaries around the promotion of student’s wellbeing. He argues that ‘pastoral care remains ill-defined despite enduring expectations held by university administrators’ [7]. May et al. suggest that ‘supporting students’ development and well-being should not be a distinct collection of services with deficit connotations but part of the curriculum content’ [65]. This policy would require a holistic process where academic and central student support services work together transparently to provide cohesive support to students, which could in turn create more accountability for individual staff.

Trauma-informed approaches (TIA) have become increasingly important in policy and adopted in practice as a method to reducing the negative impact of trauma experiences and supporting mental health ([66], Accessed: 18 May 2023). TIA is becoming a factor in the training of HE personnel, for example, when training academics as student sexual violence liaison officers, part of the course involves adopting a TIA towards students who report sexual violence ([67], Accessed: 18 May 2022). It is proposed that TIA be part of an institutions mandatory training to reflect the increasing numbers of students who have lived through trauma and adversity. TIA follows a simple set of principles that staff should follow when supporting students: safety, including attempting to prevent re-traumatisation, trustworthiness, with the objective of building trust among staff, and service users, choice, including listening to the needs and wishes of service users, collaboration, in that the organisation asking service users what they need and collaboratively considering how these needs can be met, empowerment, includes supporting people to make decisions and take action and cultural considerations including incorporating policies, protocols and processes that are responsive to the needs of individuals served ([67], Accessed: 18 May 2022).

More work needs to be done at both frontline staff level and in the wider HE context to address the problems of non-inclusivity, othering and discrimination. Women entering HE from adverse circumstances often have specific vulnerabilities or ‘triggers’, which are highly sensitive to inconsiderate practices, sometimes resulting in withdrawal from studies and reinforcement of low self-esteem. Training for HE personnel includes diversity, and equality awareness, as well as more focused training, for example, becoming an ally for students from LGBTIQAPD+ communities. A training program that provides TIA and promotes awareness of the needs of women with traumatic backgrounds is a step in the right direction. Hornsby and Clark advise a holistic approach to supporting students which includes positive relationships between students and staff’ including empathic mentoring, identification of positive character strengths and building resilience [68, 69, 70, 71, 72].

Finally, the women who I spoke to all suggested that more empathy, support and kindness from staff would have gone a long way to make their HE experience a better one. It may be that some staff simply need to think about the impact of their words and attitudes to students before they speak. It is easy to become jaded when there are such large numbers of students passing through our institutions each year; but we must remember that each student is in individual with different backgrounds and needs. HE personnel should also reflect on their personal biases often and engage with the available training that will encourage them to transcend negative attitudes, allowing them to support students in the manner they deserve.