1. Rethinking Theory for retention using a social identity approach
Dr. Nicholas Bowskill
University of Derby
@sharedthinking
AdvanceHE Symposium on Student Retention and Success,
York, May 27th 2019

2. Tinto (1993) Social Integration Model
Separation of academic systems (content?) and social systems
Highlights commitment (motivation) arising from both systems
Highlights institutional experience and integration
Tinto (1993) Social Integration Model

3. Social Integration & INSTITUTIONAL Experience version 1.0
Social integration as “active engagement in a range of interpersonal relationships and social activities” (Brissette et al, )
Sociocultural view: Individual in different social settings
Social contact/support is less effective for health and engagement compared with social identification (Sani, 2012)
Risks a quantitative view (Sani,2012):
No of contacts & frequency of interactions had by an individual
Risks a generic idea of social experience (Praharso et al, 2017)
Social experience not always positive & can have negative effects
Social experiences not always stable
Social experiences not always personally meaningful

4. Social identities group members
Gender, race, ethnicities, LGBT, religion, social class, part-time students, political parties, First Generation Students, nationalities, hobbies, distance learning students, professions, mature students, academics, support professional, scientist, commuter students, physicist, veteran students, psychologist, educator, musician, worker, family, International Students, dancer, university,
A sense of who we are as
group members
the part of the self-concept informed by membership of social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

5. Haslam (2001) Levels of self-abstraction (MODIFIED)
Self & Social Identities
Sub-identities
Saliency
Context-sensitive
Social Comparison
Academic Department
Course Member

6. Social Identification (group level)
Social identification is the salient or activated group category in a given social context (e.g. Stets, 2000)
Social groups are only beneficial to health etc when associated with social identification (Cruwys et al, 2014)
Proximal relevant identities (immediate group) are more accessible and have more influence than identification with more abstract distal identities (institution etc) (Goldstein et al, 2008)

7. Student-Generated Induction: A Social Identity Approach (Bowskill)
A set of group processes for social identity formation supported by different technologies & different ‘social recipes’
Develops a sense of belonging plus social experience as content (norms) for the immediate group as proximal sub- identity.
Co-construction and ‘publishing’ of values, beliefs, concerns etc by the group to the group on group-relevant issues
Individuals see self in group and group in the self (Turner) in social identification

8. Group Identity Mapping (GIM) & Institutional Experience as social-GROUP content

9. Identity transitions (Prahaso ET AL, 2017) & SOCIAL-gROUP CONTENT rather than social integration & INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE
Identity Transitions
Identity formation as a process (Student-Generated Induction)
Adds a shared relevant identity rather than denying or replacing existing identities
Identification with proximal group identity
Elicit, modify & develop situated norms (SharedThinking)
Social-Group Content
Disciplines conceptualized as social identities with sub-identities (classes etc.)
Social identities have social content (norms) perceived in context-sensitive ways
The institution is experienced as social content from diverse social groups (mapped in GIM)

10. Why a Social Identity Approach?
“Identification is a predictor of engagement and increases in identification predict increases in engagement.” (Reynolds et al, 2011 in Haslam, 2017)
“Identification with the university is a key predictor of the extent to which students engage with and enjoy university life with significant consequences for continuation.” (Jetten et al, 2007 in Haslam, 2017)
CONTINUATION
ENGAGEMENT

11. Dr. Nicholas Bowskill
University of Derby
@sharedthinking