View More View Less
  • 1 Faculty of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania, Email address: palmira.juceviciene@ktu.lt, ORCID: 0000-0002-4086-1230
  • | 2 Faculty of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania, Email address: jurgita.vizgirdaite@ktu.lt, ORCID: 0000-0002-2810-1140
Open access

Presented: European Conference on Educational Research 2018

Proposal Information

Accessibility to higher education (HE) is the necessary condition while striving not only for the knowledge economy, but also for the knowledge society (Drucker, 2001). It is emphasized in the documents of the international organizations as well (OECD, 2006; UNESCO, 1960, 2015), and is primarily underlined by the European Commission (Eurodyce, 2015).

UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960) was the essential world level document, which specified all human rights to education, while seeking to ensure “full and equal opportunities for education for all” [Article 1(a)]. The decision of the EU to create the common European HE area (1999) through the Bologna process provided necessary opportunities for underrepresented groups to have an access to HE.

The scholars who have researched accessibility to HE (Peters, 2007; Sachs & Schreuer, 2011, etc.) have detected that although the more general understanding of this question exists at the international level, specific countries implement accessibility to HE in rather different ways. It has been agreed that this uneven aspect first of all depends on the different contexts of the countries (Seale, 2013). It is especially visible when analyzing the accessibility of the disadvantaged groups (people with disabilities, women, and ethnic minorities).

Thus far, the researchers have not responded to the question: what factors condition differences of the accessibility to HE situation in various countries? This problem requires the attention of researchers. First of all, it relates to the disadvantaged groups, which is the priority of the EU.

Therefore, this presentation for the ECER2018 seeks to solve the aforementioned problem, while responding to the highly important research question: what factors condition accessibility differences of the disadvantaged groups to HE in various countries?

The aim of this presentation is to detect factors conditioning accessibility differences of the disadvantaged groups to HE in various countries.

Objectives

  1. To substantiate the factors conditioning the accessibility to HE of the disadvantaged groups.
  2. To reveal the factors, which are the reason for the differences of the accessibility to HE of the disadvantaged groups among countries.

Since the initiative of countries for the accessibility to HE is impacted by the position of the international organizations, in this presentation, the meaning of accessibility, and its relative terms are primarily seen from the positions of the policies of international structures, which are officially supported by many countries. First of all, it is the EU and the institutions representing it. Attention should be given to the report by the European Commission displayed in Eurodyce (2015). Here, the access is defined as “widening participation in higher education by ensuring equal opportunities to all sections of society, irrespective of socio-economic background and other factors which may lead to educational disadvantage” (Eurodyce, 2015, p. 4). It is quite broad and abstract description. Thus, we agree with those researchers (De Anna, 2016; Jaeger, Wentz, & Bertot, 2015), who use this meaning together with the “inclusion” concept, despite some differences.

It has been detected that human factors have a significant impact on the institutional decisions (Staniskienė, 2005). Due to this, the factors are analyzed as on different levels of the social environment. We apply Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1997) and its derivative bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000).

Factors conditioning accessibility to HE were analyzed based on several aspects: (a) the people with disabilities (Brandt, 2011; Liasidou, 2014), (b) women (Sifuna, 2006; Tavares, Tavares, Justino, & Amaral, 2008; Viefers, Christie, & Ferdos, 2006), and (c) ethnic minorities (Oplatka & Lapidot, 2012; Smith, 2007). We also used sources (Kim, Kwon, & Cho, 2011; Wallis, 2005) that allow detecting factors conditioning sustainability of the accessibility from the perspective of inclusion.

Methods

First of all, based on literature analysis, the factors conditioning the accessibility to HE of the disadvantaged groups are grounded. Three disadvantaged groups are emphasized: (a) people with disabilities, (b) women, and (c) ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the empirical research is applied to detect factors conditioning differences of the accessibility to HE of the disadvantaged groups in various countries. Case-study strategy based on the qualitative research is chosen. It happens when an important behavior of people or organizations needs to be analyzed and which cannot be manipulated (Yin, 2013). The data are produced using the triangulation based on the methods: document analysis, focus group, and expert interview.

The participation of the authors of this presentation in the ERASMUS+ project “Developing programs for Access of Disadvantaged groups of people and Regions to Higher Education” (DARE) provided this research with exceptional opportunities. This project was implemented by the EU countries (Spain, the Great Britain, Romania, Czech Republic, and Lithuania), Israel (University of Haifa was DARE project’s coordinator), Georgia, as well as the European Access Network.

DARE project aimed at promoting inclusive and responsive education in Georgia and Israel by widening access to HE for potential and existing students from three vulnerable groups: women, ethnic minorities, and those with disabilities (http://www.erasmusplus.org.il/dare).

Five countries and their HE institutions, of very different contexts, that are seeking to increase the accessibility to HE are analyzed. They were chosen based on the following criteria: (a) all of them are either an associated country with EU (Israel and Georgia), either EU member states (Lithuania, Czech Republic, and Romania); (b) all of them are involved into DARE project; (c) all of them officially accept the accessibility to HE goal as it has been defined by the EU and UNESCO; and (d) have different economic development levels and sociocultural context.

The unit of the case study is the concrete HE institution striving for the accessibility for target groups. The chosen four HE institutions from the DARE project countries beneficiaries (two institutions from Israel and two from Georgia) and four HE institutions from this project countries, which shared their experiences with beneficiaries (two from Lithuania, one from Romania, and one HE institution of Czech Republic).

The experts for interviewing were chosen from each country participating in the case study, in total – five experts who have research, practical, and international project experiences on the subject.

Conclusions

The factors of the accessibility to HE are substantiated and discussed in the presentation: (a) of the country level and (b) of HE level, including institutional, study process, and personal factors. The empirical research and cross-sectional analysis of the cases allowed to detect a list of the factors, which are the reasons of the differences of the accessibility to HE of the disadvantaged groups between the analyzed countries and their HE institutions. The largest impact is detected from human factors, among which are the people who make decisions based on the institutional level, as well as the teachers, particularly, their competence, and the positive attitude to the matter. An important place among the sociocultural factors is taken by understanding dominant in the society about the accessibility to HE, tolerance to disadvantaged people, and possibility to receive advanced experience, when it is shared by the persons or institutions that are more competent in this area. Networking becomes highly important in this aspect. The data revealing specificity of the mentioned factors in the researched countries are also provided in this presentation.

However, our research is limited in the context of researched countries. To generalize the received data in the European or even worldwide area, broader research should be conducted.

Our research results might be useful for the researchers analyzing how to increase accessibility to HE, while stepping into countries having different contexts. The results are also useful for the HE practitioners while striving to increase accessibility to HE.

References

  • Brandt, S. (2011). From policy to practice in higher education: The experiences of disabled students in Norway. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(2), 107120. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2011.570494

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In K. Arnold & I. C. King (Eds.), College student development and academic life: Psychological, intellectual, social and moral issues. New York, London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115125. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00114

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • De Anna, L. (2016). Teaching accessibility and inclusion. Rome, Italy: Carocci editore.

  • Drucker, P. F. (2001). Knowledge work and knowledge society: The social transformations of this century. Boston Spa, UK: British Library.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eurodyce. (2015). Euridyce brief: Modernisation of higher education in Europe: Access, retention, and employability. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jaeger, P. T., Wentz, B., & Bertot, J. C. (2015). Accessibility, inclusion, and the roles of Libraries. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries (pp. 18). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 15121520. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liasidou, A. (2014). Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher education. British Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 120135. doi:10.1111/1467-8578.12063

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OECD. (2006). Higher education: Quality, equity and efficiency by Meeting of OECD Education Ministers Athens. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/37126826.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oplatka, I., & Lapidot, O. (2012). Muslim women in graduate studies: some insights into the accessibility of higher education for minority women students. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 327344. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.514899

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peters, S. J. (2007). “Education for all?” A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 98108. doi:10.1177/10442073070180020601

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N. (2011). Inclusion of students with disabilities in higher education: Performance and participation in student’s experiences. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(2). doi:10.18061/dsq.v31i2.1593

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seale, J. K. (2013). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Sifuna, D. N. (2006). A review of major obstacles to women's participation in higher education in Kenya. Research in Post‐Compulsory Education, 11(1), 85105. doi:10.1080/13596740500507995

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, H. (2007). Playing a different game: The contextualised decision-making processes of minority ethnic students in choosing a higher education institution. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(4), 415437. doi:10.1080/13613320701658456

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Staniskienė, E. (2005). Svietimo politikos įgyvendinimo problemų tyrimo metodologija (lietuvos svietimo reformos aspektas) [Research methodology of educational policy implementation problems (context of education reform in Lithuania)] (Doctoral dissertation). Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tavares, D., Tavares, O., Justino, E., & Amaral, A. (2008). Students’ preferences and needs in Portuguese higher education. European Journal of Education, 43(1), 107122. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00331.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • The European Higher Education Area. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Retrieved from https://www.eurashe.eu/library/modernising-phe/Bologna_1999_Bologna-Declaration.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • UNESCO. (1960). Convention and recommendations adopted by the General Conference at its eleventh session: Convention against discrimination in education: Recommendation against discrimination in education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/DISCRI_E.PDF

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • UNESCO. (2015). World Education Forum 2015: Final report. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243724

  • Viefers, S. F., Christie, M. F., & Ferdos, F. (2006). Gender equity in higher education: Why and how? A case study of gender issues in a science faculty. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 1522. doi:10.1080/03043790500429948

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wallis, J. (2005). The web, accessibility, and inclusion: Networked democracy in the United Kingdom. Library Review, 54(8), 479485. doi:10.1108/00242530510619183

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321332. doi:10.1177/1356389013497081

  • Brandt, S. (2011). From policy to practice in higher education: The experiences of disabled students in Norway. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(2), 107120. doi:10.1080/1034912X.2011.570494

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In K. Arnold & I. C. King (Eds.), College student development and academic life: Psychological, intellectual, social and moral issues. New York, London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century: Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social Development, 9(1), 115125. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00114

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • De Anna, L. (2016). Teaching accessibility and inclusion. Rome, Italy: Carocci editore.

  • Drucker, P. F. (2001). Knowledge work and knowledge society: The social transformations of this century. Boston Spa, UK: British Library.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eurodyce. (2015). Euridyce brief: Modernisation of higher education in Europe: Access, retention, and employability. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jaeger, P. T., Wentz, B., & Bertot, J. C. (2015). Accessibility, inclusion, and the roles of Libraries. In B. Wentz, P. T. Jaeger, & J. C. Bertot (Eds.), Accessibility for persons with disabilities and the inclusive future of libraries (pp. 18). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kim, J., Kwon, Y., & Cho, D. (2011). Investigating factors that influence social presence and learning outcomes in distance higher education. Computers & Education, 57(2), 15121520. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.005

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liasidou, A. (2014). Critical disability studies and socially just change in higher education. British Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 120135. doi:10.1111/1467-8578.12063

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OECD. (2006). Higher education: Quality, equity and efficiency by Meeting of OECD Education Ministers Athens. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/37126826.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Oplatka, I., & Lapidot, O. (2012). Muslim women in graduate studies: some insights into the accessibility of higher education for minority women students. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 327344. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.514899

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peters, S. J. (2007). “Education for all?” A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 98108. doi:10.1177/10442073070180020601

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sachs, D., & Schreuer, N. (2011). Inclusion of students with disabilities in higher education: Performance and participation in student’s experiences. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(2). doi:10.18061/dsq.v31i2.1593

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seale, J. K. (2013). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

  • Sifuna, D. N. (2006). A review of major obstacles to women's participation in higher education in Kenya. Research in Post‐Compulsory Education, 11(1), 85105. doi:10.1080/13596740500507995

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, H. (2007). Playing a different game: The contextualised decision-making processes of minority ethnic students in choosing a higher education institution. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(4), 415437. doi:10.1080/13613320701658456

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Staniskienė, E. (2005). Svietimo politikos įgyvendinimo problemų tyrimo metodologija (lietuvos svietimo reformos aspektas) [Research methodology of educational policy implementation problems (context of education reform in Lithuania)] (Doctoral dissertation). Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tavares, D., Tavares, O., Justino, E., & Amaral, A. (2008). Students’ preferences and needs in Portuguese higher education. European Journal of Education, 43(1), 107122. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2007.00331.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • The European Higher Education Area. (1999). The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999: Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education. Retrieved from https://www.eurashe.eu/library/modernising-phe/Bologna_1999_Bologna-Declaration.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • UNESCO. (1960). Convention and recommendations adopted by the General Conference at its eleventh session: Convention against discrimination in education: Recommendation against discrimination in education. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/DISCRI_E.PDF

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • UNESCO. (2015). World Education Forum 2015: Final report. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000243724

  • Viefers, S. F., Christie, M. F., & Ferdos, F. (2006). Gender equity in higher education: Why and how? A case study of gender issues in a science faculty. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1), 1522. doi:10.1080/03043790500429948

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wallis, J. (2005). The web, accessibility, and inclusion: Networked democracy in the United Kingdom. Library Review, 54(8), 479485. doi:10.1108/00242530510619183

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations. Evaluation, 19(3), 321332. doi:10.1177/1356389013497081

The author instruction is available in PDF. Please download the file from HERE
 
The Submissions template is available in MS Word.
Please, download the file from HERE
Please, download the file from HERE (For book reviews).

 

 

Senior Editors

Founding Editor: Tamás Kozma (Debrecen University)

Editor-in-ChiefAnikó Fehérvári (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University)

Assistant Editor: Eszter Bükki (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University)

Associate editors: 
Karolina Eszter Kovács (Debrecen University)
Valéria Markos (Debrecen University)
Zsolt Kristóf (Debrecen University)

 

Editorial Board

  • Tamas Bereczkei (University of Pécs)
  • Mark Bray (University of Hong Kong)
  • John Brennan (London School of Economics)
  • Carmel Cefai (University of Malta)
  • Laszlo Csernoch (University of Debrecen)
  • Katalin R Forray (HERA Hungarian Educational Research Association)
  • Zsolt Demetrovics (Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest)
  • Csaba Jancsak (University of Szeged)
  • Gabor Halasz (Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest)
  • Stephen Heyneman (Vanderbilt University, Nashville)
  • Katalin Keri (University of Pecs)
  • Marek Kwiek (Poznan University)
  • Joanna Madalinska-Michalak (University of Warszawa)
  • John Morgan (Cardiff University)
  • Roberto Moscati (University of Milan-Bicocca)
  • Guy Neave (Twente University, Enschede)
  • Andrea Ohidy (University of Freiburg)
  • Bela Pukanszky (University of Szeged)
  • Gabriella Pusztai (University of Debrecen)
  • Peter Toth (HERA Hungarian Educational Research Association)
  • Juergen Schriewer (Humboldt University, Berlin)
  • Ulrich Teichler (University of Kassel)
  • Voldemar Tomusk (Estonian Academy of Sciences, Tallin)
  • Horst Weishaupt (DIPF German Institute for International Educational Research, Frankfurt a.M)
  • Pavel Zgaga (University of Ljubljana)

 

Address of editorial office

Dr. Anikó Fehérvári
Institute of Education, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University
Address: 23-27. Kazinczy út 1075 Budapest, Hungary
E-mail: herj@ppk.elte.hu

2020  
CrossRef Documents 36
WoS Cites 10
Wos H-index 3
Days from submission to acceptance 127
Days from acceptance to publication 142
Acceptance Rate 53%

2019  
WoS
Cites
22
CrossRef
Documents
48

 

Hungarian Educational Research Journal
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge none
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency  
Further Discounts Gold Open Access
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Hungarian Educational Research Journal
Language English
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
2011
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 11
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Nevelés- és Oktatáskutatók Egyesülete – Hungarian Educational Research Association
Founder's
Address
H-4010 Debrecen, Hungary Pf 17
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2064-2199 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 0 5 4
Jun 2021 0 3 2
Jul 2021 0 14 12
Aug 2021 0 15 19
Sep 2021 0 30 31
Oct 2021 0 9 16
Nov 2021 0 0 0