Barriers to Participation in Higher Education

Introduction

There are inequalities in participation in post-compulsory education and training by socio-

economic status, gender and ethnicity, among other characteristics. These surface
inequalities are largely reproduced in higher education, although there is no clear dataset
available to substantiate this. To establish that a particular social group is under-
represented in higher education (HE) we need to be able to define the group
unambiguously, know the prevalence of that social group in the relevant population, and
in HE, and be able to combine these and other elements – such as changes over time –
appropriately. Limitations in the available datasets encourage analysts to focus on new,
young and full-time students and to ignore non-participants completely. The metaphor of
‘barriers’ to participation is an attractive one that suggests an explanation for
differences in patterns of participation between socio-economic groups and contains
its own solution – removal of the barriers. Research suggests that there are three types
of barriers:

•Situational – such as direct and indirect costs, loss or lack of time, and distance
from a learning opportunity, created by an individual’s personal circumstances.

•Institutional barriers – such as admissions procedures, timing and scale of provision,

and general lack of institutional flexibility, created by the structure of available
opportunities.

•Dispositional barriers, in the form of an individual’s motivation and attitudes to

learning, which may be caused by a lack of suitable learning opportunities (e.g. For
leisure or informally), or poor previous educational experiences. A large body of research
since the 1950s has found that the determinants of participation, and non-
participation, are long-term. There is a clear pattern of typical learning ‘trajectories’ which
are both shaped by, and constrain, learning experiences. Thus, the key social
determinants predicating lifelong participation in learning involve time, place, gender,
family, and initial schooling. Such findings emphasise the importance of reviewing
evidence on participation through the ‘life course’ of each individual, and compromises
the analytic utility of the ‘barriers’ metaphor.

Problem statement

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a culturally and linguistically diverse large South Asian
country bordered by Afghanistan and Iran to the north and west, China to the northeast,
India to the east and the Arabian Sea to the south. The Muslim-majority country was
established in its current form after the partition of former British India into India and
Pakistan in 1947, and the subsequent secession of Bangladesh, formerly known as East
Pakistan, in 1971.

Nearly half of adults who responded to a national survey said self-doubt is one of
the largest challenges they would face if they enrolled in a postsecondary education or
training program Self-doubt was one of the top three challenges respondents cited, below
time and above cost.

Objectives

If Pakistan manages to educate and skill this surging youth population, it could harness a
tremendous youth dividend that could help to fuel the country’s economic growth and
modernization. Failure to integrate the country’s legions of youngsters into the education
system and the labor market, on the other hand, could turn population growth into what
the Washington Post called a “disaster in the making” “Putting catastrophic pressures on
water and sanitation systems, swamping health and education services, and leaving tens of
millions of people jobless”—trends that would almost inevitably lead to the further
destabilization of Pakistan’s already fragile political system.

Hypothesis or research questions

 What is the barrier In higher education
 Reason of barrier in higher education
 Types of barrier in higher education
 Percentage of people facing barrier in higher education
 Types of community facing barrier in higher education
 Economical barrier in higher education

Significance
A nation’s prosperity, progress and development is possible only when its citizens are
dynamic, enterprising and responsible. Without such citizens, a nation cannot achieve
progress in any field and education is the most important tool to create such types of
citizens. Higher education plays a vital role in a country’s overall development and growth. It
imparts in-depth knowledge related to different spheres of life. Furthermore, it not only
broadens an individual’s cerebral aptitude within a narrow specialization, but also gives a
wider perspective of the world around him or her. Higher education is no longer a luxury, it
is essential for survival. The core mission of higher education is to educate, to train, to
undertake research and to provide service to the community. In the context of globalization,
the scope and demand for higher education is increasing day by day and this demand can
only be fulfilled by quality higher education. Improving the quality of higher education is the
need of the hour. Pakistan’s higher education is not ranked anywhere among the world
higher education systems in terms of quality. The quality of higher education depends on
various factors such as favorable environment for teaching and learning, infrastructure,
teachers, curriculum, effective feedback, research opportunities and monitoring systems.
Higher education is a powerful and essential tool for building a modern, knowledgeable,
cultured and peaceful society, which can lead the country towards a bright future. It is also
considered one of the most important and strongest tools for the development of any
country. Primary education is necessary for creating a base, while higher education provides
the cutting edge. Higher education contributes to the growth of a nation by providing
specialized knowledge and skilled manpower.

Literature review

The notion of barriers to participation is, according to Gorard et al. (2007), an attractive
one because it suggests that there is an explanation for differences in participation
between certain groups as well as a possible solution – the removal of the barriers.
Therefore, if the cost of higher education is a barrier that prevents those from low-income
groups participating, then it might be argued that making university free of charge will
remove that barrier and widen participation. Indeed, a key aim of research in this area has
been to determine the nature and consequences of these barriers to participation. Many
of these barriers are considered to lie in the increased financial cost of university and in
other areas such as geographical mobility and the lack of flexible learning opportunities, as
well as in institutional barriers such as entry requirements and timing of provision. There
is a huge literature describing these barriers to participation and their potential impact on
the life chances of would be participants. We will look briefly at three of the most
pertinent here.

Methodology

I will use Questionnaire Method.

This will include

  In-house surveys
 Open question questionnaire
 Multiple choice questions

Target Population

I am going to collect data from my home district Lower Dir, Specifically hilly and remote
areas of District Lower Dir.

References
Stephen Gorard and Emma Smith Department of Educational Studies, University of
Yorksg5@york.ac.uk http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/equity/barriers.htm Helen May and
Liz Thomas Higher Education Academy, York Nick Adnett and Kim Slack Institute for Access
Studies, University of Staffordshire
ARCHER, L. AND HUTCHINGS, M. (2000) Bettering Yourself? Discourses of risk, cost and
benefit in ethnically diverse, young working class non-participants’
constructions of higher education, British Journal of Sociology of Education,
21(4), pp.555-574.
ARCHER, L., HUTCHINGS, M., AND ROSS, A. (2003) Higher Education and Social
Class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion, London: Routledge Falmer.
BALL, S., REAY, D. AND DAVID, M. (2002), ‘Ethnic Choosing’: minority ethnic students,
social class and higher education choice, Race, Ethnicity and Education, 5
(4), pp.333-358.
BALL, S. J. AND VINCENT, C. (1998) 'I heard it on the grapevine': 'Hot' Knowledge and
School Choice, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 19 (3),
pp.377-400.
BECK, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a new modernity, London, Sage.
BOWL, M. (2005) Frustrated Participants: Adult Learners and Higher Education
Aspiration, paper presented at Social Diversity and Difference Seminar
Series, University of Wolverhampton, 22 Feb 2005.
BOWL, M. (2001) Experiencing the barriers: non-traditional students entering HE,
Research Papers in Education, 16 (2), pp.141-160.
BROOKS, R. (2005) Friendship and Educational Choice: Peer influence and planning for
the future, Basingstoke: Palgrave.
CONNOR, H. (2001) Deciding for or against participation in Higher Education: the views
of young people from lower social class backgrounds, Higher Education
Quarterly, 55 (2), pp.204-224.
CROSS, P. (1981) Adults as Learners, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DU BOIS-REYMOND, M. (1998) ‘I don’t want to commit myself yet’: Young people’s life
concepts, Journal of Youth Studies, 1(1), pp.63-79.
FEINSTEIN, L., DUCKWORTH, K. AND SABATES, R. (2004) A model of intergenerational
effects of parental education, Research Brief, RCB01-04,
Nottingham: DfES.

The issues and problems discussed so far in this chapter concern elementary and secondary
schools in view of their critical importance for tens of millions of children and for the
nation’s social and economic well-being. However, higher education has its own issues and
problems. Once again, we do not have space to discuss all these matters, but we will
examine some of the most interesting and important.

 Content mostly copied from Google.

 Some points is based on our community students
 Also asked question from different institute students.
 Parents of some students also give participate in this question sessions.