homework2

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riss20

International Studies in Sociology of Education

ISSN: 0962-0214 (Print) 1747-5066 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riss20

First-generation students: what we ask, what we know and what it means: an international review of the state of research

Thomas Spiegler & Antje Bednarek

To cite this article: Thomas Spiegler & Antje Bednarek (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 Education, 23:4, 318-337, DOI: 10.1080/09620214.2013.815441

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2013.815441

Published online: 16 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1400

Citing articles: 20 View citing articles

First-generation students: what we ask, what we know and what it means: an international review of the state of research

Thomas Spiegler* and Antje Bednarek

Department of Social Science, Friedensau Adventist University, Friedensau, Germany

(Received 23 January 2013; final version received 14 May 2013)

In the course of educational expansion, student populations have become more diverse. This paper represents an international literature review on the topic of first-generation students (FGS), i.e. students whose parents have not obtained a higher education qualification. On the basis of more than 70 research articles and reports on FGS from several countries, we find that the focal points in FGS research concern their pre-college characteristics, mobility factors, decisions about institution, degree and subjects, FGS’ experiences at university, and academic outcomes. Summarising the state of research on these topics, we point to two problems: (1) the international incommensurability of data on FGS due to differences in how FGS are defined and researched; (2) the depiction of FGS’ problems as individual rather than structural problems. We recommend that structural changes such as making organisational structures in higher education institutions more transparent are in order instead of offering special support programmes only for FGS.

Keywords: first-generation students; higher education; educational mobility; working-class students

1. Introduction

Achievement in educational institutions and access to higher education are related to social background. The higher the social strata students are from, the more likely they succeed in educational institutions. International data confirm this as a global pattern with only slight variations (OECD, 2012; Orr, Gwosć, & Netz, 2011). However, a certain degree of mobility can also be found in all countries. The present review focuses on an upwardly mobile group of students: the so-called first-generation students (FGS). FGS are commonly defined as students at universities/colleges whose parents did not obtain a university/college degree.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

International Studies in Sociology of Education, 2013 Vol. 23, No. 4, 318–337, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2013.815441

� 2013 Taylor & Francis

This paper is an international review of empirical research about FGS. It is based on approximately 70 empirical studies mainly from the USA, Germany, the UK, and Canada which were published during the last two decades. Due to linguistic reasons, we included only articles written in English or German. We realise that this limits our selection; however, we cover most of the central aspects of FGS research because the bulk of it cur- rently comes from the USA. Our aim is not only to summarise the gist of FGS research but also to reflect critically on (1) what questions are asked by scholars focusing on FGS and (2) what the wider implications of research in this field is. We set out with a brief introduction into the differing definitions used in FGS research and their respective ramifications. Section 2 summarises the main findings on FGS. In the last section, we point out national specificities in the way FGS are researched and discuss the contribution of FGS research in constructing FGS as a ‘group at risk’.

2. First-generation students: definitions and numbers

2.1. The definition of FGS status

The definition of ‘first-generation student’ is based on our understanding of the ‘student’ status and of the attribute ‘first-generation’. There are differing definitions for both, each of which present the researcher with a slightly different segment of the student population.

To be a student at tertiary level usually means to study for a three- or four-year bachelor degree (or a comparable or higher degree) at a higher education institution. Nearly all of the German research on FGS is based on this definition and it is also common in studies from other countries (Ishitani, 2006; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). The Eurostudent IV report works with this definition and regards those as students who study in a programme on ISCED-level 5A (Orr, Gwosć, & Netz, 2011).1 A broader definition also includes students who study for a less then three-year degree at a higher education college or community college (e.g. Chen, 2005; Hahs-Vaughn, 2004; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Pascarella, Wolniak, Pierson, & Terenzini, 2003).

A different group that is sometimes mentioned together with FGS are the so-called ‘non-traditional students’ (e.g. Bowl, 2003; Kim, Sax, Lee, & Hagedorn, 2010). Non-traditional status is mainly based on criteria like age, family status, study–work relation and income. As this group overlaps only partially with FGS, we do not include it here.

The second aspect is the understanding of the attribute ‘first-generation’ which refers primarily to the education of the parents. It does not necessarily mean to be the first student within the family as older siblings may have already attended a university. Here also, we find varying definitions. The narrow one includes only parents without any college or university experience at all (e.g. Ishitani, 2006). The more encompassing definition

International Studies in Sociology of Education 319

which is widely used in the US literature includes also parents with some college education, e.g. community college post-secondary certificates or an associate’s degree (Davis, 2010; Engle & Tinto, 2008). Parental education is by some scholars combined with and therefore insufficiently distinguished from correlating other variables such as ‘low income’ (e.g. Engle & Tinto, 2008; Jehangir, 2010b). Other studies especially from the UK use class affiliation rather than educational levels to define upward mobility which shifts the focus from education to occupation (Lehmann, 2009a; Reay, Crozier, & Clayton, 2009; Reay, David, & Ball, 2005).

2.2. Share of FGS

Since diverse definitions are used in FGS research, comparability of data doc- umenting the proportion of FGS is limited. Measurements and results vary remarkably. It is not possible to go into details but we want to offer a few examples which illustrate the problem and highlight some general trends.

The Eurostudent IV report (Orr, Gwosć, & Netz, 2011), compiling data from 24 European countries, allows an international comparison of the share of FGS.2 The figures range from 21 to 76%. Divided into three groups we get the following picture:

• Lower share of FGS (20–40%): e.g. Denmark (21%), Germany (31%) and Norway (35%);

• Middle group (41–60%): e.g. France (42%), Switzerland (44%) England/Wales (49%) and Austria (56%);

• Higher share of FGS (61–80%): e.g. Poland (65%), Turkey (71%), Italy (73%) and Portugal (76%)

The most recent OECD report (2012) lists comparable percentages for stu- dents related to parents’ ISCED-level, but it applies, for most of the countries, a wider definition of student status which includes also students who aim for an ISCED 5B-degree. The resulting ranking of the countries looks similar, the percentages being in most cases up to 10 percentage points higher. In this list, Canada (30%) and the USA (36%) are among the lower share group, whereas Australia (51%) is close to the OECD-mean of 53%.

The picture becomes even more diverse when we look at intra-national variations. Saenz, Hurtado, Barrera, Wolf, and Yeung (2007) report the lowest figures for the USA. Their data show a relatively constant decline of the share of FGS (definition employed: neither parent attended a post-secondary institution) with full-time enrolment at a four-year institution from about 30% in the mid-seventies to 16% in 2005. Chen (2005, p. 5) reports that 22% of all the 1992 12th-graders who enrolled in post-secondary education had parents without college education. Kojaku and Nuñez (1998, p. 56) calculate a share of 47% FGS in all types of American post-secondary institutions. This figure

320 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

increases to 66% if we also include students whose parents had some college education but did not obtain a bachelor’s degree. In Germany, 49% of all students have parents without higher education experience. If we exclude those students whose parents hold high vocational qualifications, the share of FGS declines to 30% (Isserstedt, Middendorff, Kandulla, Borchert, & Leszczensky, 2010, p. 126).3

In general there exists a strong positive correlation between the percentage of parents without higher education in a given country and the corresponding share of FGS.4 In Sweden, for example, 49% of all students are FGS whereas in Portugal this percentage is 70% (OECD, 2012). The share of parents without higher education in the age group of the students’ parents’ corresponds with these figures: at 64% it is much lower in Sweden than it is in Portugal (91%). The ratio between students’ and parents’ share is the same in both countries (.77).

The comparability of international data on FGS is hampered by at least three factors. Firstly, different definitions of FGS status lead to remarkable variations in their proportional share. Secondly, even if the same definition is applied, non-academic vocational training systems have developed differently. Professions which require at least some college education in a specific country can be obtained in others at practice-orientated institutions. And thirdly, even if we apply the same definition in comparable educational systems, the data do not serve as direct and comparable measurements for educational equity. A high share of FGS indicates a phase of educational expansion. The higher the share of academic-educated parents becomes over time, the less likely it will be to find a high percentage of FGS.

3. Research foci and the first-generation students’ profile

In this section, we assemble the main questions FGS research focuses on and give an overview of the corresponding answers which emerge from the literature. The main questions concern the following: pre-college characteris- tics, mobility factors, decisions about institution, degree and subjects, FGS’ experiences at university, and academic outcomes.

3.1. Pre-college characteristics

The analysis of pre-college characteristics of FGS usually compares them on several aspects with non-FGS. Generally speaking, FGS are more likely to be from lower income and lower status-occupational homes; they tend to be older; and they are more likely to belong to an ethnic minority in the coun- try they live in.

In the USA, the share of students with a low-income background is higher among FGS than within the group of non-FGS. About half of all FGS who were 12th-graders in 1992 come from a family with an income

International Studies in Sociology of Education 321

lower than $25.000 per year (Chen, 2005, p. 7). Among students whose parents had some college education the equivalent proportion was 25%, and among those with one parent with at least a bachelor’s degree, it was less than one tenth. According to Saenz and others (2007, p. 23), FGS are twice as likely to report major concerns over financing college. Less than 20% of American FGS come from the highest socio-economic quartile, whereas among non-FGS, this share is nearly 60% (Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998, p. 10). FGS tend to be older than non-FGS when they enrol at university (Choy, 2001; Davis, 2010; Inman & Mayes, 1999). According to 1989/1990 data American FGS are also more likely to be financially independent from their parents, to have dependants of their own (e.g. children), and to be married (Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998, p. 14).

A further difference that occurs in the US data is related to the students’ abilities. FGS on the whole have lower mean grade point averages (GPA) (Saenz et al., 2007, p. 29), lower aptitude test scores (SAT, ACT) (Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998, p. 11; Saenz et al., 2007, p. 32) and a lower level of mathematics completed at high school than non-FGS (Chen, 2005, p. 7).

FGS are more likely to have an ethnic minority or migration background. Compared to students whose parents have at least a bachelor’s degree, more than twice as many American FGS (36% as compared to 16%) are either Black, Hispanic or of other ethnic minority backgrounds (Chen, 2005). In the USA, the proportion of FGS among Hispanic students is the highest among all ethnic groups (Saenz et al., 2007, 10f). As regards gender, the proportion of female students among American and British FGS is higher than it is among non-FGS (Chen, 2005; Davis, 2010; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Reay et al., 2005; Saenz et al., 2007). In Germany, the share of female stu- dents is identical in both groups (Isserstedt et al., 2010).

In general, FGS are presented as having a less advantageous profile. Despite the fact that they are the high achievers of their social class, there remain remarkable differences to students with a higher socio-economic background.

3.2. Educational mobility factors

Although FGS have overcome the obstacles which make advancing into higher education less likely for them, only a small section of FGS research inquires into the factors that enabled or supported their mobility. The existing data indicate that the main factors are family characteristics, counsellors and influences at school.5

While family background plays a vital role in the development of educational inequality, it can also be a central resource for educational success. Gofen (2009) suggests a shift in the perspective on FGS, stating that they do not succeed despite their limited family background but due to the resources that their families provide. Parents’ attitudes towards education

322 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

play a central role, Gofen argues, as do interpersonal relationships and family values. In the following description of these aspects we combine Gofen's categories with findings from other research.

3.2.1. Parental attitudes to education

Parents with low formal education are by no means a homogenous group. Contrary to the stereotype of a low-educated family setting, parents can be strongly orientated towards education. As several studies show, parents may themselves have wanted to pursue higher education but were unable to do so, e.g. due to a migration process (Niehaus, 2008). Their central advice to their children is: ‘Don’t become like us.’ (Rohleder, 1997, p. 113, also Gofen, 2009). They are aware that the chances of earning a stable income and avoiding unemployment are rising with higher education (Thomas & Quinn, 2007, p. 85). Part and parcel with valuing education is to invest in it. Despite the scarcity of economic resources, throughout secondary schooling parents of FGS have often supported their children by, for example, providing textbooks and computers, driving their children to distant schools, supporting them mentally and engaging with teachers if it appeared that they were not promoting their child to his or her ability (Gofen, 2009; Reay, 2000). An important source for FGS’ mobility are thus parents who value their children’s education and invest time and resources in it (e.g. Brendel, 1998; El-Mafaalani, 2012; Grendel, 2012; Kupfer, 2012; Rodriguez, 2001; Rohleder, 1997). This does not necessarily require personal familiarity with the benefits of higher education.

3.2.2. Interpersonal relationships

Placing high value on education within the family circle can be closely connected with special role-assignments for a specific child. This child is seen e.g. as a delegate, role example for younger siblings or, in case of a pre- vious migration experience, as a mediator in an intergenerational step-by-step process of arrival in the new culture (Gofen, 2007; London, 1989; last point also Niehaus, 2008; Raiser, 2007). Acting in these roles allows FGS to develop a sense of responsibility from early childhood onwards. Being singled out as a special child, e.g. as especially creative, a good learner or an otherwise unique child, and the parents’ unquestioned belief in the child’s abilities independent from performance at school are also seen as mobility mechanisms (Rodriguez, 2001, pp. 98–103).

3.2.3. Family values

As laid out above, valuing education often plays an important role in first-generation students’ biographies. In addition, Gofen proposes (although without providing further explanation), that values like solidarity, respect,

International Studies in Sociology of Education 323

achievement, ambition and individual responsibility for future outcomes also have a positive impact on the educational process (Gofen, 2009). She uses the term ‘family capital’ to describe this ‘ensemble of means, strategies, and resources embodied in the family’s way of life that influences the future of their children’ (Gofen, 2009, p. 115).

Besides the family, school can play an important role for FGS mobility. Teachers, guidance counsellors and other adults at school have a vital role in creating ideas about one’s future or in promoting already existing aspira- tions to go to university. They can function as mentors who give encourage- ment and provide information about university courses and how to access them. Mentors also provide ‘the hope and confidence necessary for making the mental leap to consider college’ (Kojaku & Nuñez, 1998, p. 47). A cru- cial part of their support can be help with funding applications for scholar- ships or grants (ibid.). Part of the mentoring process is to identify students’ potential and to give assurance about higher education being a realistic goal. Levine and Nidiffer (1991) as well as Hurst (2012) see most of this kind of support congregated in the roles which guidance counsellors and teachers have in students’ high school experience. Words of praise and appreciation by teachers or other experiences that enhance one’s self-perception are also frequently mentioned in the literature (Brendel, 1998; Reid & Moore, 2008; Schlüter, 1999). For the US-context, Reid and Moore (2008) refer to the helpful role of special high school courses or programmes that prepare for college (also Levine & Nidiffer, 1991).

The degree to which educational institutions offer support is closely related to the political opportunity structures for educational upward mobility (e.g. Miethe, 2007). These structures change remarkably between places and times (Lundgreen, 2006; Miethe, 2011), and the odds which FGS have to beat change with them.

A further aspect concerning mobility factors is the observation that FGS have often achieved highly at primary and secondary school and that they have been motivated good learners (Brendel, 1998, p. 260; Grendel, 2012; Reay et al., 2009). Students differ in their personality profiles and those who have a greater degree of fit with attitudes and characteristics which are welcomed at school seem to have a better chance to perform well.

3.3. Choice of institution, degree expectations and subject

A central step on the way to university is the decision about which subjects to enrol in, which degree to aim for and which universities to apply at. Research indicates that the frame for these decisions and the results vary depending on class background and type of attended secondary school (Ball, Davies, David, & Reay, 2002; Reay et al., 2005). In general, FGS are more likely to study less prestigious subjects at less prestigious universities with a lower orientation towards advanced degrees.

324 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

US-data show that FGS tend to be enrolled in less academically selective institutions, even after controlling for cognitive development, parental income, academic motivation and high school grades (Pascarella et al., 2004). The choice of institution is influenced by the availability of financial aid, the possibility to finish courses in a shorter time period, proximity to home and work, and the reputation of the institution as one where it is possible to find part-time employment and which offers ‘interesting courses’ (Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998, pp. 25–27). There is a higher percentage of FGS in the US who study at two-year institutions (instead of four-year) (Chen, 2005; Kojaku & Nuñez, 1998). Germany evinces a comparable pattern according to which the share of FGS is higher by one-third at universities of applied sciences (‘Fachhochschulen’) than it is at the other universities (Isserstedt et al., 2010, p. 126).

FGS are more likely to choose a distance learning institution (Prümmer, 1997; Thomas & Quinn, 2007) or a university close to their home (Reay et al., 2005). Parents of FGS seem in general less involved than their middle-class counterparts in the decisions about whether, what and where to study (Reay et al., 2005, p. 75). If the student attends a prestigious university, this is more likely seen as something surprising that happened ‘by chance’ than as a result of clear career plans (Reay et al., 2009).

The degrees the students plan to obtain vary in correspondence with differences in the chosen institution. Chen (2005, p. 7) reports for the USA that 95% of those whose parents hold at least a bachelor’s degree expected to obtain a bachelor’s or more, whilst in the FGS group this percentage was 75%. The difference between these percentages increases the higher the degree aspirations become (e.g. master’s, Ph.D.). Kojaku and Nuñez (1998, p. 95) show that less than 37% of FGS plan to obtain an advanced degree (post-BA). If the parents hold a bachelor’s degree, the percentage is 57% and it increases to 82% for parents with a post-baccalaureate degree. Data for Germany describe a similar pattern: the higher the tertiary degree, the lower the percentage of enrolled students with a low educated family back- ground (Isserstedt et al., 2010, pp. 132–133).

Differences also become apparent regarding the subjects students choose. In Germany, students with less-educated parents are underrepresented in medical science but overrepresented in social sciences and education (Isserstedt et al., 2010). The influence of social background is persistent over decades but is overall not very high (Georg, 2005). American FGS are likewise underrepresented in the fine arts and humanities subjects which are more likely associated with limited perspectives on the job market (Chen, 2005; Davis, 2010, p. 45). In contrast, they are over-represented in business subjects and health sciences (Chen, 2005). FGS approach university in a more utilitarian manner and choose courses with distinct associated job prospects. Lehmann (2009b) identified the same preference among Canadian FGS; they predominantly enrolled with career goals in professional-type

International Studies in Sociology of Education 325

occupations in mind, e.g. to become a lawyer, doctor or teacher. For them, university studies function much like a highly qualified vocational education.

3.4. Everyday life at university

Scholars have frequently focused on the question how FGS experience academic study. There is a general consensus that FGS are more likely to have certain shortcomings and that their everyday life at university therefore requires ‘coping’ (Bowl, 2003; Byrd & MacDonald, 2005; Davis, 2010; Jehangir, 2010a; Rodriguez, 2001; Thomas & Quinn, 2007). This can mainly be attributed to their faulty understanding of what the student role entails. As a result, FGS, at least initially, make less time for studying, are less interested in extracurricular activities and take longer to realise what the course requirements are (Bowl, 2003; Collier & Morgan, 2008; Davis, 2010; Inman & Mayes, 1999). More often than other students, FGS feel out of place in the university environment.

A strong strand in the literature on FGS is dedicated to describing their lack of preparedness for university studies. FGS often do not take into account how time-intensive university studies can be. Compared to non-FGS, the proportion of FGS in part-time employment and the number of hours they work are higher (Davis, 2010; Inman & Mayes, 1999; Reay et al., 2005). FGS are more likely to live off-campus rather than in student residences (Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998), to spend more time with their families and continue to help out at home in various ways, or to care for their own children (Bowl, 2003; Hurst, 2012; Jehangir, 2010b; Lubrano, 2004; Rodriguez, 2001). In the end, FGS have less time for studying. They take fewer courses than their non-FGS counterparts and thus obtain fewer credits per term (Pascarella et al., 2004).

FGS also do not become involved in student life as much as other students do. They attend fewer extra-curricular courses and events and overall have lower social integration scores (Grayson, 2011; Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007). They rate their chances of joining a student society (sorority or fraternity) lower than do non-FGS (Pratt & Skaggs, 1989) and, according to Pike and Kuh (2005), they perceive the university environment as less supportive. Living off-campus has the strongest negative effect on social integration (Pike & Kuh, 2005, p. 289). Grayson’s (2011, pp. 618–619) study shows that Canadian FGS commence their degree studies with the lowest participation rate in campus events and that this rate declines further as they continue their studies.

The upshot of this is that, spending less time in the university environment, FGS take longer to develop an understanding of study organi- sation. This includes learning what lecturers expect a course assignment to look like, how to go about composing essays and how to submit course

326 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

work in a timely manner (Collier & Morgan, 2008). If their course work is of poorer quality, FGS struggle to find out how to obtain help improving it (case studies on this in Hurst, 2012).

FGS are thus often described as lacking vital knowledge about university when they enrol. Numerous qualitative studies from Europe and North America have shown that FGS are aware of deficits compared to non-FGS. This comparison on the whole makes FGS feel rather insecure about them- selves, their background and the constraints they are under (Brendel, 1998; Grendel, 2012; Hurst, 2012; Lehmann, 2009a; Schmitt, 2010). Other stu- dents seemingly ‘belong’ to the university whilst FGS are like ‘fish out of water’, possibly even experiencing what should be called a ‘culture shock’ (Bowl, 2003; Reay et al., 2009). Not being ‘naturally’ enabled to play the student role well (Collier & Morgan, 2008), FGS may show characteristics of stigma management, e.g. by concealing their class identities and cultural tastes or by affecting a more confident attitude towards the institution and their own academic capabilities than they really feel (Granfield, 1991, p. 322; cf. Orbe, 2008).

FGS may and do excel at their studies, even when they have enrolled at elite institutions, but only a few studies highlight this fact (e.g. Reay et al., 2009). Successful FGS report that a strict work ethic acquired in earlier work experience, time-management skills and the ability to work in a goal-oriented manner enable them to diligently follow the curriculum despite employment and family obligations (Aries & Seider, 2005; Byrd & MacDonald, 2005; Lehmann, 2009a). Plus, what is distracting for one first- generation student may actually be an advantage for another: for some FGS, family support and the awareness that being at university is a little bit ‘against the odds’ are strong motivating rather than debilitating factors in everyday student life (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005; Gofen, 2009).

3.5. Academic performance

FGS’ academic performance at university is (in North America) mostly operationalised via academic grades and attrition rates. The state of research regarding grades and competences of FGS shows some diversity. In general, it can be said that they perform as well or only slightly – and not always significantly – poorer than other students (Grayson, 1997; Hahs-Vaughn, 2004; Pascarella et al., 2003, 2004). More influential than parental education seems to be the degree of involvement in university life (Grayson, 1997; Hahs-Vaughn. 2004; Pascarella et al., 2004; Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007). As described above, FGS tend to be less involved which contributes to their poorer outcomes.6

Attrition, defined as students leaving their initially enrolled institutions without returning either to their initial or other institutions (Ishitani, 2006, p. 871), is the second common outcome measurement. The general finding

International Studies in Sociology of Education 327

is that FGS have a higher risk of attrition compared to non-FGS. The highest risk period of departure are the first two academic years (Ishitani, 2006; Kojaku & Nuñez, 1998). Data from the USA show that between two-thirds and three-quarters of FGS persist after the first year at the same institution, whilst for non-FGS this percentage is between 5 and 10 percentage points higher (Engle & Tinto, 2008, p. 11; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005, p. 414). This gap increases if we focus on degree attainment. Seventy-two percent of the FGS (non-FGS: 87%) who aim for a bachelor’s degree at four-year institution stay on, and the figure for all FGS in postsecondary education is 57% (non-FGS: 80%) (Chen, 2005, p. 49).

The risk of attrition remains higher for FGS even after controlling for ethnic background, gender, high school grades, family income, type of institution and academic and social integration (Choy, 2001; Ishitani, 2003). An analysis by Martinez, Sher, Krull and Wood (2009) indicates that the effect is mediated by full-time work. In addition, the likelihood of attrition is higher for FGS who are married, male and Hispanic, whose primary language is not English or who attend a private institution (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). Seay, Lifton, Wuensch, Bradshaw and McDowelle (2008, p. 18) examined if the general student attrition risk factors (as described by Horn & Premo, 1995) occur more frequently among FGS and they found that FGS differ from their peers in five of the seven fundamental factors: delayed enrolment, part- time enrolment, full-time employment, financial independence and number of dependent children. Thomas and Quinn’s (2007, p. 84) qualitative study of British FGS who left the university lists as the main reasons for withdrawal: inappropriate information regarding course choice, difficult transition between secondary school and university, unclear academic expectations and lack of guidance, insufficient access to support, alienation and isolation, too many other commitments and financial pressures.

4. Discussion and conclusion

In this section, we limit our focus on a brief comparison of national specificities in FGS-research and on the picture of FGS as a ‘group-at-risk’. As a conclusion, we present three theses about the role of FGS research in the construction of this group-at-risk picture.

4.1. International commonalities and national specificities

FGS research spans a wide continuum: it includes large data-sets and complex multivariate analyses on the one hand and, on the other hand, a broad range of qualitative studies which focus on FGS’ presentation of their own experiences at university.

The material on FGS is unevenly disseminated in the international research community. Most of the research has been carried out in the USA,

328 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

more often than elsewhere with a quantitative design focus. It is not unusual for qualitative studies in the American context to combine social research with presentation of the author’s own, mostly difficult, biographical experiences as an FGS.

German research on FGS has gone through several distinct phases. In the 1990s, the connection between students’ pathways to university and their parents’ educational background was mainly framed as a matter of class and gender (Borkowski, 1997; Brendel, 1998; Rohleder, 1997; Schlüter, 1999). Latterly, and influenced by the results of the international PISA studies, the discourse on FGS has shifted its focus from class affiliation to the level of parental education and to FGS with a migration background (e.g. El-Mafaalani, 2012; Grendel, 2012). Quantitative studies on FGS still have their focal point in (unequal) access to university whereas qualitative studies in the German context centre on experiences with and the wider biographi- cal impact of upward mobility.

Within British education research, precedence is given to the relationship between working-class status, university access and experiences at univer- sity. Large quantitative surveys enable British educationalists to analyse the effects of class affiliation on access and its impact on several aspects con- cerning tertiary education, but they give little information on generational status. This also applies to the comprehensive Canadian survey carried out by Finnie, Mueller, Sweetman and Usher (2008). Several Australian studies also show this predilection to empirically research and subsequently theorise this group of students with a focus on class. This explains why the bulk share of the material on FGS is of American provenance.

4.2. The construction of a risk group

According to the title, this paper deals with three questions: What we ask, what we know and what it means. The first two are covered in the above overview. It became clear that the dominant perspective is the comparison between FGS and non-FGS. The focus lies on aspects related to access, experiences and success at university. In general, FGS are pictured as students who are less prepared and less likely to succeed. Our main thesis regarding the meaning of this is that the way the data are collected, analysed and discussed contributes to the construction of FGS as a group at risk. Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella and Amaury (1996) wrote in their concluding paragraph that FGS are:

[…] a subgroup of students who are entering America’s colleges and universi- ties in increasing numbers, and they can be expected to continue to grow over the next decade […] First-generation students differ in many educationally important ways from the students higher education has traditionally served. Because of these different characteristics and experiences, they are a group at risk. (Terenzini et al., 1996, p. 20)

International Studies in Sociology of Education 329

More than 15 years later, this group-at-risk perspective is still apparent within FGS research. In the following, we are going to point out three aspects that contribute to the construction of this group.

4.2.1. Arbitrary distinction

The distinction between FGS and non-FGS is well grounded in empirical data which reveal many significant differences between these groups, partly even after controlling for other influential variables. FGS status seems to be an important independent factor that contributes to the explanation of differing educational pathways (Auclair et al., 2008, p. 25). Nevertheless, the distinction between FGS and non-FGS is in some respects also arbitrary. Studies which apply a more nuanced measurement for parental education show that differences in parental education are reflected on the side of the students along a continuum. Differences between FGS and non-FGS are mirrored when we compare parental education groups, e.g. less than high school with high school, high school with some college, some college with bachelor’s degree, or bachelor’s degree with post-baccalaureate degrees (Chen, 2005; Choy, 2001; Ishitani, 2006; Kojaku and Nuñez, 1998; Lee, Sax, Kim, & Hagedorn, 2004; Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Lee et al. (2004) in particular show in their highly nuanced analysis that parental education matters on all levels. Data from Germany tend in the same direction (Isserstedt, Middendorff, Fabian, & Wolter, 2007; Isserstedt et al., 2010). The high number of studies that compare FGS with non-FGS and report statistically significant differences may lead to the impression that these are two heterogeneous groups which are highly homogenous within. In fact, however, both groups show remarkable intra-group variance, and the differences merely lie in a higher or lower likelihood to find specific patterns, not in the existence of fundamentally different phenomena.7

Dividing students into FGS and non-FGS not only eliminates the variance within the groups (as categorised variables necessarily do) but conceals that the influential variable is the transmission of cultural capital in its various forms for which formal parental education is only a proxy-variable (cf. Baumert, Watermann, & Schümer, 2003). Data indicate that regarding the distribution of cultural capital, both groups overlap remarkably.

4.2.2. Labeling individuals

The tenor of research about FGS is that they do not fit into university as well as non-FGS. This lack of fit appears to often be addressed in terms of primarily being an attribute of the individual. Resembling what is known as ‘deficit perspective’ (Valencia, 1997), FGS are portrayed as those who have problems to master the college student role (Collier & Morgan, 2008). As they do not fit in, they try to conceal where they are from in the hope of

330 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

possibly ‘making it by faking it’, as Granfield (1991) put it. Students whose parents went to university are still the dominant reference point for this. They are the ‘traditional’ (and ‘normal’) students for whom universities seem to be designed. As laid out above, research indicates that FGS tend to have more difficulties to understand requirements, to fulfil the student role and integrate into the university. As this happens to FGS who obviously met the criteria for enrolment, this suggests that post-secondary institutions are sensitive to social background characteristics and that they value quali- ties which lie beyond individual academic merit. That this is so is partly made possible by inequality mechanisms in former stages in the education system. Ultimately, structural problems inherent in the organisation of education are camouflaged as cultural deficits of individuals. If, in contradis- tinction to the present situation, FGS were consistently viewed as fully legitimate participants in higher education, then notable differences to non- FGS would be brought into connection with the institutional infrastructure (as examplified in Berger & Kahlert, 2005; Gomolla & Radtke, 2009; Reay et al., 2005). Shortcomings would then be attributed to specific institutions and institutional structures, classroom practices and information policies.

4.2.3. Ambivalent effects of special programmes

Already more than 100 years ago, Simmel (1993 [1906]) argued that, viewed sociologically, the poor are constructed by the support and help they receive or should receive. Currently, debates regarding potential stigmatising effects of special support programmes for disadvantaged groups are taking place in several fields (e.g. related to ethnic minorities or women). This discourse can be extrapolated onto the situation of FGS. At several institutions and in several national contexts, the awareness of the situation of FGS leads to a range of recommendations for policy-makers, teachers or universities (e.g. Engle & Tinto, 2008; Levine & Nidiffer, 1991). At times, this includes ideas of special programmes or self-help groups which only target FGS in order to help them to reach the level of non-FGS (e.g. Jehangir, 2010b; McKay & Estrella, 2008). Undoubtedly, these programmes can have positive effects for individual FGS who participate. Nevertheless, we want to point out the ambivalent effect of these forms of support.

The existence of special programmes and support addressed specifically to FGS indicates that our educational institutions, to an extent, fail to include a legitimate group of students in their daily routines. Special programmes for FGS, then, attribute a deficit to them as individuals by offering help designed to suit their ‘special needs’. In the long run, a more sustainable approach would be to change the educational system in such a way that successful participation depends less on conditions that lie outside the system. In the case of universities and colleges, it could mean that, for example, the necessary information about organisational structures and

International Studies in Sociology of Education 331

expectations is made transparent to all students. Likewise, the educational curriculum should include modules imparting those necessary skills which cannot be acquired in the majority of secondary education institutions.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments and useful suggestions which led to an improvement of this paper.

Notes 1. Eurostudent IV uses the 1997 ISCED. In 2011, the UNESCO released a revised

version (36 C resolution) in which the former level 5 is subdivided into the three levels 5–7. The former 5A is comparable to the new level 6.

2. Here based on the share of students whose parents have an education below ISCED-level 4. For countries with strong vocational training systems (e.g. Austria and Germany), this underestimates the share of FGS as high vocational qualifications fall into ISCED-level 5B.

3. E.g. ‘Techniker’ (certified technician) or ‘Meister’ (certified trade worker) which is comparable to a less than four-year college degree in the USA.

4. In the OECD report 2012 both variables correlate for a list of 27 countries with r = 0.92 (own calculation). Saenz et al.’s (2007, p. 9) analysis also evidences this relationship; both percentages declined in the US between 1971 and 2005 in a parallel pattern.

5. Kupfer (2012) goes beyond that and focuses on the relation between identity and upward mobility. She highlights the connection between higher education experience and specific identity concepts.

6. This contradicts Grayson (2011) who confirms the differences in college experiences and grades but finds no relevant correlation between involvement indicators and academic outcomes.

7. Referring to the attrition discourse, Stuber (2010, p. 117) argues that the empha- sis on attrition masks the extent to which FGS actually persist at university.

Notes on contributors Thomas Spiegler teaches sociology and methods of social research at the Department of Social Sciences at Friedensau Adventist University (Germany). His research focus is on sociology of education. Currently, he is conducting a research project about factors for upward mobility of FGS in Germany in cooperation with the German National Merit Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes).

Antje Bednarek received a PhD in sociology from the University of Aberdeen (Scotland) with a critical ethnographic study of young Scottish Conservatives. Her research foci include sociology of education, ethnographic research methods, sociology of values and social theory.

References Aries, E., & Seider, M. (2005). The interactive relationship between class identity

and the college experience: The case of lower income students. Qualitative Sociology, 28, 419–443.

332 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

Auclair, R., Bélanger, P., Doray, P., Gallien, M., Groleau, A., Mason, L., & Mercier, P. (2008). Transitions – Research paper 2 – First-generation students: A promising concept? Montreal: The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Ball, S. J., 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, 51–72.

Baumert, J., Watermann, R., & Schümer, G. (2003). Disparitäten der Bildungsbeteili- gung und des Kompetenzerwerbs [Disparities in educational participation and attain- ment]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 6, 46–72.

Berger, P. A., & Kahlert, H. (Eds.). (2005). Institutionalisierte Ungleichheiten [Insti- tutionalised inequalities]. Weihnheim und München : Juventa Verlag.

Borkowski, B. (1997). Parias und Heldentöchter. Bildungsaufsteig und Soialausb- ruch von Frauen [‘Pariahs and heroic daughters.’ Upward mobility through edu- cation and women’s social break-out]. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus Verlag.

Bowl, M. (2003). Non-traditional entrants to higher education: ‘They talk about people like me’. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Brendel, S. (1998). Arbeitertöchter beißen sich durch [Working-class daughters struggle their way through]. Weinheim: Juventa.

Byrd, K. L., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out: First-generation college student perspectives. Community College Review, 33, 22–37.

Chen, X. (2005). First generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college transcripts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence and attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). ‘Is that paper really due today?’ Differences in first-generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations. Higher Education, 55, 425–446.

Davis, J. (2010). The first-generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and strategies for improving persistence and success. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

El-Mafaalani, A. (2012). BildungsaufsteigerInnen aus benachteiligten Milieus [First- generation students from disadvantaged milieus]. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute.

Finnie, R., Mueller, R. E., Sweetman, A., & Usher, A. (Eds.). (2008). Who goes? Who stays? What matters? Accessing and persisting in post-secondary education in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Georg, W. (2005). Studienfachwahl: Soziale Reproduktion oder fachkulturelle Entscheidung [Choice of degree subject: Social reproduction or a decision influ- enced by disciplinary culture]. ZA-Information, 57, 61–82.

Gofen, A. (2007). Family capital: How first-generation higher-education students break the intergenerational cycle. Institute for Research on Poverty. Discussion Paper no. 1322-07. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.

Gofen, A. (2009). Family capital: How first-generation higher education students break the intergenerational cycle. Family Relations, 58, 104–120.

Gomolla, M., & Radtke, F.-O. (2009). Institutionelle Diskriminierung [Institutiona- lised discrimination] (3rd ed.). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

International Studies in Sociology of Education 333

Granfield, R. (1991). Making it by faking it. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20, 331–351.

Grayson, J. P. (1997). Academic achievement of first-generation students in a Canadian university. Research in Higher Education, 38, 659–676.

Grayson, J. P. (2011). Cultural capital and academic achievement of first-generation domestic and international students in Canadian universities. British Educational Research Journal, 37, 605–630.

Grendel, T. (2012). Bezugsgruppenwechsel und Bildungsaufstieg. Zur Veränderung herkunftsspezifischer Bildungswerte [Change of reference group and educational upward mobility: On changes in family-specific values placed on education]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2004). The impact of parents’ education level on college stu- dents: An analysis using the beginning post-secondary longitudinal study 1990– 92/94. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 483–500.

Horn, L., & Premo, M. D. (1995). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary education institutions: 1992–93 (NCES96-237). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.

Hurst, A. L. (2012). College and the working class: What it takes to make it. Rotterdam: Sense.

Inman, W. E., & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first-generation community college students. Community College Review, 26, 3–22.

Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behaviour among first-generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteris- tics. Research in Higher Education, 44, 433–449.

Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 861–885.

Isserstedt, W., Middendorff, E., Fabian, G., & Wolter, A. (2007). Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in der Bundesrepublick Deutschland 2006. 18. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks durchgeführt durch HIS Hochschule-Informations-System [The economic and social situation of students in the Federal Republic of Germany in 2006. 18th social survey of the German Student Association carried out by HIS Higher education Information System]. Bonn: BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.

Isserstedt, W., Middendorff, E., Kandulla, M., Borchert, L., & Leszczensky, M. (2010). Die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Studierenden in der Bundesre- publick Deutschland 2009. 19. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks durchgeführt durch HIS Hochschule-Informations-System. Bonn: BMBF, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung.

Jehangir, R. (2010a). Higher education and first-generation students. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jehangir, R. (2010b). Stories as Knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first- generation college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45, 533–553.

Kim, K. A., Sax, L. J., Lee, J. J., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2010). Redefining Non-tradi- tional Students: Exploring the self-perceptions of community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34, 402–422.

Kojaku, L.K., & Nuñez, A.-M. (1998). Descriptive summary of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students, with profiles of students entering 2- and 4-year institu- tions. National postsecondary student aid study: 1995–96. Statistical analysis report. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse.

334 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

Kupfer, A. (2012). A theoretical concept of educational upward mobility. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 22, 57–72.

Lee, J. J., Sax, L. J., Kim, K. A., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2004). Understanding students’ parental education beyond first-generation status. Community College Review, 32(1), 1–20.

Lehmann, W. (2009a). Becoming middle class: How working-class university students draw and transgress moral class boundaries. Sociology, 43, 631–647.

Lehmann, W. (2009b). University as vocational education: Working-class students’ expectations for university. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30, 137–149.

Levine, A., & Nidiffer, J. (1991). Beating the odds: How the poor get to college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 409–428.

London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their families. American Journal of Education, 97, 144–170.

Lubrano, A. (2004). Limbo: Blue-collar roots, white-collar dreams. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lundgreen, P. (Ed.). (2006). Bildungsbeteiligung: Wachstumsmuster und Chancenstrukturen 1800–2000 [Participation in education: Growth patterns and opportunitiy structures 1800–2000] (ZfE Beiheft 7–06). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., Krull, J. L., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Blue-collar scholars? Mediators and moderators of university attrition in first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 87–103.

McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K. K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 534–549.

McKay, V. C., & Estrella, J. (2008). First-generation student success: The role of faculty interaction in service learning courses. Communication Education, 57, 356–372.

Miethe, I. (2007). Bildung und soziale Ungleichheit in der DDR [Education and social inequality in the GDR]. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Miethe, I. (2011). Politik, Bildung und Biografie. Zum Zusammenhang von politi- scher Gelegenheitsstruktur und individuellem Bildungsaufstieg [Politics, educa- tion and biography: The connection between political opportunity structures and individual educational advancement]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12 (no. 2). Retrieved February 8, 2012, from http:// nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs110287

Niehaus, I. (2008). Grenzgänger. Geglückte Bildungskarrieren türkischstämmiger Migrantenkinder [Border-crossers. Successful educational careers of second gen- eration migrants with Turkish family backgrounds]. Marburg: Tectum.

Nuñez, A. -M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES 98-082). Washing- ton, DC: Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.

OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. Orbe, M. P. (2008). Theorizing multidimensional identity negotiation: Reflections

on the lived experiences of first-generation college students. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2008, 81–95.

International Studies in Sociology of Education 335

Orr, D., Gwosć, C., & Netz, N. (2011). Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe. Synopsis of indicators. Final report. Eurostudent IV 2008–2011. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag.

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experience and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249–284.

Pascarella, E. T., Wolniak, G. C., Pierson, C. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2003). Experiences and outcomes of first-generation students in community colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 420–429.

Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276–300.

Pratt, P., & Skaggs, T. (1989). First generation college students: Are they at greater risk for attrition than their peers? Research in Rural Education, 6, 31–34.

Próspero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation, integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31, 963–975.

Prümmer, C. V. (1997). Frauen im Fernstudium [Women enrolled in distance learn- ing programmes]. Frankfurt: Campus.

Raiser, U. (2007). Erfolgreiche Migranten im deutschen Bildungssystem - es gibt sie doch [Successful migrants in the German education system – they do exist after all]. Berlin: LIT Verlag.

Reay, D. (2000). A useful extension of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework? Emotional capital as a way of understanding mothers' involvement in their children’s education. The Sociological Review, 48, 568–585.

Reay, D., Crozier, G., & Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in Paradise’? Working-class students in elite universities. Sociology, 43, 1103–1121.

Reay, D., David, M. E., & Ball, S. J. (2005). Degrees of choice: Class, race, gender and higher education. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books.

Reid, J. M., & Moore, J. L. (2008). College readiness and academic preparation for postsecondary education: Oral histories of first-generation urban college students. Urban Education, 43, 240–261.

Rodriguez, S. (2001). Giants among us: First-generation college graduates who lead activist lives. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Rohleder, C. (1997). Zwischen Integration und Heimatlosigkeit. Arbeitertöchter in Lehramt und Arztberuf [Between integration and homelessness: Working-class daughters in teaching and medical professions]. Münster: Westfälisches Dampf- boot.

Saenz, V. B., Hurtado, S., Barrera, D., Wolf, D. S., & Yeung, F. (2007). First in my family: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year institutions since 1971. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California.

Schlüter, A. (1999). Bildungserfolge [Success in education]. Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Schmitt, L. (2010). Bestellt und nicht abgeholt. Soziale Ungleichheit und Habitus- Struktur-Konflikte im Studium [Ordered and not picked up. Social inequality and conflicts between habitus and structure at college]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Seay, S. E., Lifton, D. E., Wuensch, K. L., Bradshaw, L. K., & McDowelle, J. O. (2008). First-generation graduate students and attrition risks. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 56, 11–25.

336 T. Spiegler and A. Bednarek

Simmel, G. (1993). Zur Soziologie der Armut. In A. Cavalliand & V. Krech (Eds.), Georg Simmel. Aufsätze und Abhandlungen 1901–1908, Band II. Gesamtausga- be Band 8 (pp. 363–372). Suhrkamp: Frankfurt.

Stuber, J. M. (2010). Integrated, marginal, and resilient: Race, class, and the diverse experiences of white first-generation college students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24, 117–136.

Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Amaury, N. (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1–22.

Thomas, L., & Quinn, J. (2007). First generation entry into higher education. An international study. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Valencia, R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. London: Falmer.

International Studies in Sociology of Education 337