**2. Conceptual frameworks**

#### **2.1 Systemic racial inequality in UK higher education**

There have been increasing numbers of widening participation students entering higher education over the last few decades in the UK, in line with an increasing number of students overall [1]. Widening participation indicates those students who have not traditionally accessed higher education: those from low income or disadvantaged backgrounds, being mature, having disabilities and/or being from certain ethnic groups [2]. In the UK, widening participation has meant that since the 1980s, more working class and second-generation children from families arriving in post-World War II/end of the British Empire migrations have enrolled into university education [3, 4]. In the academic department where this research was undertaken, 71% of students identify as being from ethnic minority backgrounds [5]. Further, most are Black African, women, in their 30s, with families and work in the health system. They reflect the widening participation trend, by being mature, from minority ethnic backgrounds, of lower social and economic standing, who seek education and training [6] to improve their life circumstances.

While there have been increases among different social and economic groups accessing higher education over several decades, challenges remain in meeting the widening participation remit of addressing the unequal access to and progress through it [2]. These include "pronounced differences in continuation and degree awarding outcomes for white and BAME [Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic] students, with lower rates of BAME students continuing or qualifying and receiving a first/2:1 compared with their white peers [1]". "Increasing access without increasing chances of success is becoming a new form of social exclusion within higher education [7]". Social exclusion is one of the fundamental causes of inequality [8]. This exclusion is especially so when disaggregating data around race and ethnicity. Concerning continuation rates from one year to the next, in aggregate, there is a gap of 3.5 points between Black and Asian ethnic minority students and white students: 86.7% versus 90.2%, respectively [1]. However, when disaggregating the data, the lowest continuation rates were found among students from Other Black Backgrounds, with a gap of 8.7 points (81.5%) and Bangladeshi students, with a gap of 7.3 points (82.9%) compared with white students (90.2%). In terms of degree attainment and classifications (first/2:1 both of which constitutes a 'good degree' outcome), the gap between white students and all other students is 13.3 points. Once disaggregated, however, this number rises to 23.3 points for Black African students, 19.2 points for Black Caribbean students and 24.4 points for Other Black Background students in comparison to white students [1]. Ethnic/racial inequality is also evident in graduate employment, with 50.1% of white graduates working in professional roles within 15 months of graduation, whereas only 43.0% of BAME graduates had professional employment within the same time period [1]. These disparities represent endemic ethnic/racial inequalities in higher education whose impacts endure beyond graduation.

The blame for these differential outcomes across different racial and ethnic groups has often been laid at the feet of the students – in what is known as the deficit model. This model frames "students and their families of origin as lacking *Ethnic Minority Students in the UK: Addressing Inequalities in Access, Support, and Wellbeing… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101203*

some of the academic and cultural resources necessary to succeed [9]" amid an assumption of equity across society. As will be explained below for health, many of the inequalities present in society are not the result of individual, family or community failings, but are the result of institutional and political structures [10, 11] that enable some to achieve success and disable others from the same. Laying the blame at the individual, their family and/or community is an example of prioritising values and expectations that the dominant population and calling these normal; this is white supremacy. White supremacy describes "the operation of forces that saturate the everyday mundane actions and policies that shape the world in the interests of white people [12]". This prioritisation of a monocultural and monolinguistic society is an explicit act to "eradicate the linguistic, literate and cultural practices many students of colour brought from their homes and communities [13]". Individuals, families and communities, who have other values, norms and expectations, instead of being acknowledged and embraced for these alternative sets of expertise and resources [13, 14] risk being classified as "subnormal [15]" or having deficiencies, due to operating from a different set of cultural mores and norms [16]. The deficit model does not interrogate the "multiple, intersecting factors" [17] within higher education that impact on the continuation and successful awarding of ethnic minority students. These factors include those from staff, such as implicit biases and low or lack of expectation for success, as well as from students, about their own fears of conforming to the negative lens through which society sees them and their potential [17]. The fault of who can be successful in higher education is a systemic problem and higher education needs to be conscious about its role in maintaining "barriers to student success [9]" through its assumptions and exclusive practices that reflect whiteness.

#### **2.2 Racial/ethnic, social and economic inequalities underpin inequalities higher education**

In February 2020, the UK's Health Foundation published a report [18] on the social determinants of health, providing an update to its predecessor from a decade earlier [19]. Over the 10-year period, health inequalities were found to have widened, with declines in education funding, increases in precarious work, including zero-hour contracts, lack of affordable housing and increased use of food banks. Plus, life expectancy had plateaued after a century of increases [20], with outcomes worse for ethnic minority groups [18]. One month later, the World Health Organisation [21] announced the outbreak of a viral infection that began an unprecedented time throughout the world. From an equity perspective, the pandemic of COVID-19 has "exposed and amplified inequalities [22]". At the time of writing, there have been upwards of 250 million cases and over 5 million deaths worldwide [23]. Although a pandemic, its responses have largely been at the level of the nation-state [4]. To tackle the virus's spread, the UK government introduced strict measures, including social distancing, wearing masks, and nationwide lockdowns [24], with UK universities quickly shifting from face-to-face teaching to online learning [4, 25] and rapid adaptation to teaching and learning remotely [26].

However, these restrictions did not equalise the risks of exposure to or mortality from COVID-19. As several authors attest [10, 11, 27, 28], inherent racial and ethnic inequalities in the UK pre-date the pandemic. The fundamental risks from COVID-19 are situated firmly around "the role of systemic racism and socio-economic inequalities [27]" that pushes the burden of co-morbidities onto Black and Asian ethnic minority groups. Existing inequalities around health care standards, misdiagnoses, pain threshold assumptions, poorer maternal health outcomes, and an association of ill-health with poor personal choices have made health care facilities unsafe places for BAME groups [27]. Racism, not race, is a fundamental cause of these disparities, suggesting that poorer educational opportunities and outcomes, impacts of the criminal justice system, housing and employment together drive stress and contribute to co-morbidities [28]. These may increase risk of COVID-19 infection [29]. The inequalities surrounding COVID-19 in England and those related to geographical region, gender, age and deprivation are cumulative, and confer more risk onto minority ethnic groups in relation to COVID-19 [11]. Reference [10] effectively summaries these findings, by stating that "racism both shapes social determinants of health and has its own effect on the health of ethnic minorities".

The linking of social and economic inequalities with health inequalities in England is not new. There have been several reports throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries calling out inequalities [19, 30–32]; with some authors linking inequalities to ethnic and racial discrimination [18, 33] and noting these as structural and institutional problems, rather than "individualised" issues [34]. "Systemic problems such as racism require structural interventions and reforms across the broad spectrum of society, including in healthcare, education, employment, and the criminal justice system [10]". COVID-19 is yet another cog in the wheel of ethnic and racial inequalities, which impact students' lives and their potential for success in higher education.

As a Public Health academic and student, we align ourselves within the social determinants of health ethic, to understand "the causes of the causes [8]", which emphasise the foundational character of deprivation and exclusion as underlying health inequalities. The "responsibility for health is shared across society [35]"; similarly, the responsibility for equitable education is equally shared across society. Therefore, it is imperative to address the inequalities in the system of education – by changing educational and systemic cultures of practice [1] – to achieve equity of process and outcome for all.

Following on from these two frameworks – of recognising that systemic injustices in higher education negatively impact ethnic minority students and that social and economic inequalities underpin health equalities – this research proceeds with the following research question:

What were the impacts of the COVID-19 lockdowns on ethnic minority students at a widening participation university in the UK?

#### **3. Methodology**

This research adopted a phenomenological, hermeneutic methodology of qualitative enquiry [36]. Exploratory and interpretative, qualitative methodologies seek to understand and explore the how participants perceived particular phenomenon [37, 38]. By doing so, researchers gain insight into the lived experiences of their participants [39]. Further, the research process undertaken was based in social constructionism [37, 38, 40–43], wherein participants and researchers collectively identified key insights, enabling the process of research to be more democratic and participatory [44].

The purpose of this research was to interrogate how higher education needs to improve to meet the needs of ethnic minority students. Two separate but related research projects inform this work. The data for one was collected to understand the impact of remote delivery on student wellbeing and mental health, using one-toone interviews; the data for the other was collected to understand the impact of pedagogical practices on student learning and belonging, using focus groups and anonymous module evaluations. Purposive sampling [45] was used for each, by inviting undergraduate students in the department to participate. Ethical approval


*Ethnic Minority Students in the UK: Addressing Inequalities in Access, Support, and Wellbeing… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101203*

#### **Table 1.**

*Participant demographics.*

was granted for each research project, and each participant consented to being included. All participants were fully informed about their rights, information security, intended use of data and that participation was fully voluntary [46].

The research comprised semi-structured one-to-one interviews, a focus group, anonymous pre- and post-module evaluations, and researcher reflections. Interviews lasted a median time of 20 mins. The focus group lasted 35 minutes. Each researcher used an interview guide but welcomed participant input which was relevant to the topic. The total number of participants was 20. **Table 1** represents the participant list.

Eleven students took part in the one-to-one interviews and nine further students participated in the focus group and the module evaluations. Black African/Black Caribbean students (n = 17), white British (n = 2) and Southeast Asian students (n = 1) participated. Females (n = 18) outweighed males (n = 2). The demographics represented in the dataset weigh more heavily toward ethnic minority representation; this is due with the self-selection process for participation and remains in line with student demographics in the department.

#### **4. Data analysis**

Interviews were recorded, and the recordings were listened to repeatedly for accuracy. The interviews were then transcribed and read numerous times to familiarise and to begin interpretation of the data. The researchers used thematic analysis [47] and recursive analysis [48] to analyse the data and inform the coding. Based on these analyses, common themes were recognised. These themes were then compared across the two data sets and overarching themes were agreed upon by the two researchers. Consequently, a descriptive study has been chosen to represent the data because it helps summarise the essential features of the collected data. It also facilitated data management and its coded representation transparently and systematically [49].
