Letter from the guest editors

Welcome to this special issue which includes eight articles focused on equity and inclusion policy in higher education. The articles are written by authors located in Australia, the United Kingdom, Finland, and the United States and highlight the ongoing challenges with meeting the needs of the rising number of ‘non-traditional’ students in the sector. Collectively, the articles develop our understanding of the performance (in its broadest sense) and experiences of these students at and beyond university, and in relation to their more traditional peers. The articles cover a diversity of non-traditional students from various countries and assess a range of outcomes, including retention at university, degree completion, student experience and graduate employment outcomes. They also give hope by identifying various ways we can better support higher education students of different backgrounds to improve their university experience, better succeed in their learning and attain positive outcomes at and beyond university. The issue commences with an article from O’Shea on the lived experience of students who are first-in-family to attend university in Australia. As O’Shea notes, over one-half of Australian students are first-in-family at university, and often belong to one or more equity groups. In Australia, the government has formally classified the following student equity groups: students with disability, those from non-English speaking backgrounds, who are Indigenous, of low socio-economic status, reside in regional and remote areas, and women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) fields of study (Dawkins, 1990). O’Shea found that reflections on their opportunities, experiences and challenges when seeking employment post-graduation showed being the first to university was important. Students, for example, often felt unprepared and unable to access adequate support to understand and navigate the complexities of the labour market. Rather than draw on institutional structures, they often relied on their own capabilities to secure graduate roles, such as personal agency, resilience, work ethic and flexible attitude. The article highlights the need for policy and practice that encourages and enables the development of social and cultural capital resources among first-in-family students for career purposes. In the next article, Li, Jackson and Carroll share their insights on how different entry pathways to universities in Australia can impact on students’ academic performance. They highlight how widening participation policy has led to a growth in alternative entry routes, including vocational education training, pathway provider colleges, and enabling programs (or preparation/bridging programs). Their study of over 80,000 students from 16 Australian universities found these students generally had poorer academic outcomes than secondary school entrants, although not the case for most undertaking enabling programs. The article also clarifies how certain under-represented student groups are outperformed academically than their more privileged peers, illuminating policy responses for greater, nuanced academic support for both non-traditional student groups and those entering via alternative pathways. JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT 2023, VOL. 45, NO. 2, 123–125 https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2023.2181519