Exclusion Factors in Latin American Higher Education

Abstract

Access to higher education has increased substantially in Latin America, but inequalities in access to and completion of higher education still remain. In this regard, identifying vulnerable groups and exclusion factors is a priority in Latin America’s university systems. The aim of this article is to understand in depth governing board perceptions of exclusion factors in higher education institutions in Latin America. The study has identified five key factors that help better understand exclusion from higher education in Latin America: (a) personal characteristics, (b) family situation, (c) institutional features, (d) public policies, and (e) phases of university students’ development.

Keywords

higher education vulnerability achievement access exclusion inequalities

Introduction

Latin America is one of the regions of the world with the greatest and most persistent inequality, according to some of the basic indicators studied (i.e., incomes, consumptions expenditures, political influence, health and education, among others; Ascher & Mirovitskaya, 2012; De Ferranti, Perry, Ferreira, & Walton, 2004; Gasparini & Cruces, 2013). Previous studies on inequality and social development in Latin America have often highlighted some of the main factors explaining this situation, such as unequal distribution of productive assets, factor market imperfections, political and economic privileges, and limited development of public education and its political systems (Frankema, 2012; Huber & Stephens, 2012). Although, based on the Gini index,¹ a few Latin American countries still have some of the highest levels of inequality in the world (Honduras [57.0], Colombia [55.9], and Brazil [54.7]), recent data have shown that the gap between the poorest and the richest is narrowing (Lustig, Lopez-Calva, & Ortiz-Juarez, 2013). However, “social policy, including human capital and education, social insurance, and redistribution, need special attention if Latin America’s achievements over the last two decades are to be sustained and amplified” (Levy & Schady, 2013, p. 196).

University graduation and access rates are clear evidence of the level of equity, quality, and efficacy of university systems, as well as the level of social development of countries (OECD, 2011). The rising importance of higher education policies, as one of the main driving forces behind economic competitiveness, has been accompanied by substantial reforms (i.e., greater flexibility, reappraisal of the policies’ purposes, more clearly defined accountability to society) that attempt to bring higher education institutions (HEIs) more in line with the needs of society (Santiago, Tremblay, Basri, & Arnal, 2008). Thus, higher education in Latin America has been going through an important restructuring process for some years: (a) increasing access to higher studies, (b) promoting co-ordination with other universities and university systems, and (c) the establishment of efficacy criteria, such as, for example, success and drop-out rates (Torre & Zapata, 2012; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean [UNESCO-IESALC], 2010).

In the Latin American context, the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) cites indigenous groups, physically disabled people, the population with a low human development index (HDI), and women as potential groups at risk or in social exclusion (Marquez et al., 2007). Bashir and Luque (2012) distinguish between long-term (i.e., financial barriers) and short-term constraints (i.e., family background, prior education attainment) that impede access to higher education in Central America. They also indicate that the main obstacle that students with low socioeconomic levels face in accessing higher education is the impossibility of starting or completing secondary education.

Recent studies reveal a continual increase in enrollment in higher education in the Latin American countries (i.e., Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo [CINDA], 2011). According to CINDA (2011) data, between 2000 and 2008, there was a 62% increase in enrollment, mainly in the female population, which means that approximately 22 million people (13% of worldwide enrollment) enroll in higher education in the region. However, there remain certain inequalities (CINDA, 2011; OECD, 2012): (a) the access of women is mainly in the area of social sciences, (b) the highest percentage of enrollments is in the private sector, and (c) the probability of access to higher education is lower for people from backgrounds with lower socioeconomic levels. It is therefore necessary to move from quantitative policies to more qualitative policies that will improve the quality and equity of higher education in the region. According to Santiago, Tremblay, Basri, and Arnal (2008), to achieve fairer higher education, it is necessary to assess extent and origin of equity issues; strengthen the integration of planning between secondary and tertiary education systems; consider positive discrimination policies for particular groups whose prior educational disadvantage is well identified; provide incentives for tertiary education institutions to widen participation; and provide extra support for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Students from disadvantaged backgrounds are in a situation of inequality in terms of access, the continuity of studies, and the results of learning. In addition, vulnerable populations comprise people who, by their personal characteristics or particular circumstance, are, for the most part, exposed to exclusion, poverty, and the effects of inequity and violence of all kinds. Often, inequalities in education with causes linked to geographic origin, low socioeconomic background, income, social class, gender, ethnicity, or disabilities, among others, constitute critical dimensions of social exclusion (Byrne, 2005).

Recent research (Mato, 2012) demonstrates the role that university education plays in the system of promoting the most disadvantaged groups, supplying tools for professional and social promotion. Thus, university systems in Latin America must not only face the challenge of incorporating those groups that are traditionally excluded but also aspire to turn universities into a framework for developing a set of skills that allow the active, critical, and transformative participation of citizens in their economic and social systems. Progress in this skill set requires, among other things, the guarantee of the permanence of these people in university institutions. The development of policies that facilitate access to education opportunities is fundamental to combating the permanent nature of exclusion (Chowdry, Crawford, Dearden, Goodman, & Vignoles, 2013; Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler, & Bereded-Samuel, 2010).

Prior research on binomial exclusion/inclusion and inequalities in higher education has analyzed some of its key concerns: gender inequalities in higher education (Lörz, Schindler, & Walter, 2011), immigration, stratification and social reproduction of education (Triventi, 2013), strategies for enhancing student success and retention (Savitz-Romer, Rowan-Kenyon, Weilundemo, & Swan, 2010), the relationship between inclusion and quality or excellence (Whiteford, Shah, & Nair, 2013), student transition into higher education (Tieben & Wolbers, 2010), policies for widening participation in higher education (Dawson, Charman, & Kilpatrick, 2013), social class inequalities (Boliver, 2011), open learning as an opportunity for increasing student access and success in higher education (McAndrew, Scanlon, & Clow, 2010), and, of course, the definition of the main factors associated with participation and low success expectation in higher education (Centre for the Study of Higher Education [CSHE], 2008; d’Hombres & Nguyen-Hoang, 2011; Jones & Thomas, 2005).

Although there is no consensus about what factors are most determinant (Gibbons & Vignoles, 2009), literature focusing on the analysis of barriers to participation in higher education have identified such varied factors as (Boliver, 2011; Croxford & Raffe, 2014; Davies, Mangan, & Hughes, 2009; Gibbons & Vignoles, 2012) age, gender, social class, ethnicity, geographical distance to HEIs, first generation entrants, tuition fees, financial support, socioeconomic background, school grades, social network, and cultural capital, among others.

However, despite the many efforts and numerous existing studies, inequalities in access and completion of higher education still remain (Bashir & Luque, 2012). As existing indicators do not adapt entirely to the reality of inequality in the region (Aponte-Hernández, 2008), reducing inequalities and exclusion in Latin America, as a strategy to promote the sustainable development of our society, necessitates, among many other aspects, a contextualized delimitation of the vulnerable groups.

Thus, from a qualitative approach, the aim of this article is to understand in depth governing board perceptions about exclusion factors in HEIs in Latin America. This study thus offers an empirical analysis of students’ exclusion factors from risk environments to take into account during the academic life of any student in higher education.

Method

This research has been conducted as part of the project “El acceso y el éxito académico de colectivos vulnerables en entornos de riesgo en Latinoamérica (ACCEDES)” (“Academic Access and Success for Vulnerable Groups in Situations of Risk in Latin America”), cofounded by the European Union ALFA III program (http://projectes.uab.cat/accedes/). The project aimed to improve the inclusion levels within Latin American universities.

Qualitative methods were utilized in this study to examine university governing boards’ viewpoints on exclusion factors in Latin American higher education. This methodological approach allowed the researchers to focus on understanding the social meanings that people develop with respect to context, objects, and other people (Wengraf, 2001).

Data Collection and Analysis

The study’s fieldwork was conducted in 2013 and two data collection methods were utilized: in-depth interviews and focus groups. Both methods enable an in-depth exploration of perspectives, experiences, and opinions expressed by the university governing boards; access to the context; and an understanding of the specific meaning for the participants of the topic analyzed: exclusion factors in Latin American higher education. Governing boards are those that have the duties and responsibilities associated with “defining a strategic vision for the institution, setting institutional policies, monitoring institutional performance, and ensuring good stewardship of the institution’s assets [and taking] responsibilities for quality assurance and the equivalence of academic awards” (Saint, 2009, p. 8).

The in-depth interviews and focus groups were carried out based on the same semi-structured interview protocol and focused on higher education policies, the characteristics and typology of vulnerable groups, specific programs addressed to these groups, the factors generating disadvantage, forms of exclusion from university, and how exclusion becomes apparent in the progression of certain groups through university.

Nineteen institutional representatives of Latin American universities were interviewed, selected from among the 24 institutions involved in the ACCEDES project. The criteria for selecting the participants were as follows: (a) over 4 years’ experience in university management positions; (b) over 5 years working in their current university; and (c) responsibilities relating to student access and retention policies. Participants belonged to both private and public universities, with sizes ranging from 4,000 to 200,000 students (see Table 1). Each interview lasted approximately 50 min. Being able to access participants from 19 Latin American institutions has made it possible to build arguments that respond to the complexity of different realities, develop a deep and wide-ranging conceptual debate, facilitate linguistic clarity, and bring together different axiological viewpoints.

Table 1.

Participant Profile.

	n	%
Gender
Female	10	52.63
Male	9	47.37
Age
45 or under	3	15.79
Between 46 and 55	7	36.84
Over 55	9	47.37
Years of experience
Between 4 and 5 years	4	21.05
Between 6 and 7 years	5	26.32
8 or more years	10	52.63
Public and private HEIs
Public	12	63.16
Private	7	36.84
HEI size
10,000 students or fewer	4	21.05
Between 10,001 and 50,000 students	12	63.16
More than 50,000 students	3	15.79
Total
No.	19	100.00

Note. HEI = higher education institution.

In addition, the 19 university governing board members interviewed were grouped into three focus groups, comprising between four and seven participants each. Considering that exclusion factors are affected by contextual and geographical characteristics (Gereluk & Race, 2007; Wang, 2011), participants were grouped according to the three geographical regions of Latin America. The first focus group was held in Cuba and included representatives of Central America and the Caribbean islands (i.e., Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba). The second focus group was held in Venezuela and included representatives of the Central and Andean region (i.e., Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Venezuela). The last focus group was held in Paraguay and included the Southern countries (i.e., Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, and Paraguay). The focus groups have allowed us to gather a general information framework about the subject of the study, have stimulated a more in-depth reflection, and have allowed us to research complex phenomena and compare divergent views (Krueger & Casey, 2008; Litosseliti, 2003). The fact that all the participants were familiar with the ACCEDES project facilitated their participation and data collection, and increased the likelihood of obtaining more authentic answers (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006).

To meet the objectives of this study, the interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify recurrent patterns and themes. Data analysis was carried out by integrating inductive and deductive approaches, which allowed us to establish a constant dialogue between the data and current theories (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Using thematic analysis strategies (Miles & Huberman, 1994), we identified emerging cross-cutting themes from the interviews and focus groups and developed a preliminary category system that was completed by incorporating analysis categories sourced from the literature review.

Although, as we have mentioned, exclusion can manifest itself in different ways depending on the context (Gereluk & Race, 2007; Wang, 2011), the complexity of the phenomenon makes it advisable to conduct a preliminary comprehensive approximation. Therefore, the analysis carried out is cross-sectional and not comparative, focusing on those common aspects identified by the Latin American university governing boards.

Results

The university governing boards of Latin American universities in this research provided descriptive and discerning responses about their experiences. An analysis of the transcribed interviews and focus groups revealed five salient emergent themes: (a) personal characteristics, (b) family situation, (c) institutional features, (d) public policies, and (e) phases of university students’ development.

Personal Characteristics

Personal characteristics are one of the elements that interviewees most emphasize when they are asked about the characteristics of vulnerable groups. A student’s school record and previous academic performance are factors that can generate exclusion among young people: When there is low performance, particularly in the non-mandatory education levels, the possibilities of participating in third-level studies diminish—“The students’ background and performance throughout their academic history is a clear indicator of the likelihood of their success. If they were able to complete primary and secondary school, why would they not succeed at university?” (Institute Director, Uruguay). Regarding this same educational record, orientation toward a career is a key element. Career orientation is characterized by having clear academic interests, demonstrating motivation for certain studies, taking decisions based on this criteria, or receiving professional guidance during times of transition. In this regard, a participant stated,

In my view, there is a very important element in these cases, and that is for the student to have clear goals and objectives. If students really want to become professionals and they have a vocation, they will overcome the difficulties or will seek help from whomever they can to achieve their dream. I have seen extraordinary examples of people’s will to succeed in achieving the objectives they set out for themselves. (Chancellor, Mexico)

If we analyze personal characteristics, it becomes evident that self-perception or self-attribution of personal characteristics becomes a key element. Thus,

one of the factors affecting students in an at-risk situation is their own self-perception—their confidence in their ability to succeed, their self-efficiency, their self-control, and their ability to fulfill academic requirements. If they are predisposed to success they are very likely to be successful. (Vice-Chancellor, Nicaragua)

According to the views of those interviewed, financial difficulties are also an exclusion factor. Thus, young people from disadvantaged environments who must work while they are studying present a higher risk of exclusion. This circumstance is more apparent when employment conditions are tough and involve low-skilled work. A dean states in this regard,

I have seen brilliant students fail because they have to go to work in places with conditions that make it impossible to balance academia and work. And also earning very little money. In the end this discourages students and leads them to drop out. (Dean, Peru)

Family Situation

The family situation refers to how students’ relational and affective environment can become a key factor in exclusion. In fact, the close connection between academic and social integration is influenced, on one hand, by the students’ baggage when entering university and, on the other hand, by their family environment:

When you have to work to support your family or you have to seek resources to feed your children, studying at university becomes your second priority, even if you are highly motivated. Here in Bolivia, it is a very common story, especially amongst young women who get pregnant and have to care for their babies. (Chancellor, Bolivia)

A family’s ability to invest financial resources is another exclusion factor. Poverty and access to education are still closely connected factors in many Latin American countries. Thus, a participant stated, “There is a fact that has become evident in the last few years: poverty and lack of education are variables with a positive correlation, and this is associated with a lack of opportunities” (Vice-Chancellor, Costa Rica). Family support is a determining factor in young people’s academic success. As argued by the chancellor of a university in Panama, this support may be financial:

It is undeniable that coming from a family with scarce resources in which parents have not had the opportunity to get an education makes it harder for their children to access university. Low-income family status can have a negative effect in the absence of external support for education. (Chancellor, Panama)

Family support may also be emotional when young people receive extrinsic motivation and sufficient and constant support at home. One interviewee commented in this regard, “In some cases, when young people arrive home they may not find an environment that is favorable to study. Being the first university student in a family unit is very complicated; you have to break through many barriers” (Institute Director, Chile). Place of residence may also become a factor of exclusion, although this also depends on the availability of public transport. Young people living in the urban periphery or in rural areas with deficient means of transport may not access university studies or may withdraw prematurely:

When I talk about place of residence I am not only referring to the geographical location but also the disadvantages present in this place: distance, the time required for commuting, the costs involved in commuting, and, mainly, the difficulty in accessing means of transport. (Dean, Paraguay)

Institutional Features

The organizational dimension takes into account the characteristics of HEIs in relation to students at risk of exclusion, particularly the role of teaching staff. This is why the involvement and interest of teaching staff is essential in the design and development of strategies to minimize the risk of exclusion:

At the end of the day, there is a very important issue, and that is what the lecturer does within the classroom. Whether the lecturer is sensitive towards minorities—whether the lecturer has the capacity and is interested in designing different teaching strategies to help students. There is the issue of teaching staff training, but it still depends on the attitude of each lecturer. (Institute Director, Chile)

Beyond the lecturer’s individual dimension, it is important to know whether as part of the university’s general policy there are guidelines for dealing with the exclusion of vulnerable students. In this regard, interviewees emphasized the importance of having specific action plans, providing resources for minority groups, promoting programs with financial support, the possibility of getting support and constant guidance from experts, and so on. Each university’s strategic plan should include initiatives and actions to minimize exclusion factors. This view was expressed by participants: “In this university, there is a political commitment from the office of the chancellor to include ethnic and cultural minorities. Programs are developed, we respond to requests, and we invest resources in helping the most vulnerable students” (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Venezuela). The different strategies implemented by HEIs to prevent the exclusion of vulnerable students must be specific, must be defined contextually, and must have the capacity to respond to the specific characteristics of each group facing the challenges of higher education: “Universities wishing to address the issue of diversity must establish all kinds of programs, ranging from removing architectural barriers for students with reduced mobility to including blended distance learning for students from rural areas far away from the capital” (Chancellor, Colombia). Another exclusion factor that affects university institutions is the management of transition processes: transition from secondary school to university and transition from one academic year to the next within the university:

Certain critical moments can be identified in university life which require special attention, these include exam periods, academic year progression, access to education, etc.; specific actions should be provided for all these academic transitions, especially for students facing greater difficulties. (Vice-Chancellor, Dominican Republic)

Public Policies

The dimension of higher education public policies and the range of actions for their implementation are of key importance for the most vulnerable groups. Public policies, if they are decidedly aimed at eradicating the permanent marginalization and exclusion of the most vulnerable groups, may contribute to providing real opportunities for these groups to succeed in HEIs. Widespread public policies are a current phenomenon in different Latin American countries. In this regard, the interviewee from a Cuban university argues,

In Cuba, we are now analyzing the initiative approved in Brazil—a recent law that promotes the inclusion of African descent minorities in university. Today, nearly all higher education institutions are designing policies to protect the interests of certain traditionally marginalized minorities in Latin America. (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Cuba)

On the other hand, the government’s legal initiative must protect the university’s independence given the different realities existing within a single country. If national policy is applied uniformly throughout all universities, they will not be able to respond to the specificity of their environment. This is how the legal initiative becomes bureaucracy, given that

universities must have sufficient resources to provide services to vulnerable groups. Not all universities should act in the same way; it depends on the region and on the groups that they encounter. It should be possible to propose different things. I imagine that they have different needs in the country’s capital to those we have here, in more remote areas. (Vice-Chancellor, Dominican Republic)

Supporting this argument, some stated:

Each university is different, so it is fundamental for universities to be able to establish our own policies regarding vulnerable groups. We should have full capacity to take decisions about action plans, budgets, and priorities. On this matter, we cannot follow government dictates. (Vice-Chancellor, Costa Rica)

In conclusion, as suggested by another interviewee, the goal of public policies must be to compensate for young people’s situations of vulnerability or exclusion:

I don’t believe we have to facilitate the access of young people with the greatest problems; what government policies should ensure is that the difficulties faced by the most vulnerable groups are not a barrier for them to reach and succeed at university. (Chancellor, Colombia)

Phases of University Students’ Development

The four factors described above (i.e., personal characteristics, family situation, institutional features, and public policies) have different manifestations throughout the different phases of a university student’s academic life. We can differentiate three different stages or phases in the development of a student’s academic life. The impact of each of the four dimensions identified depends on the point in which the students find themselves in their academic lives. This time-related perspective requires rethinking the exclusion factors described above, as their expression can be different at each stage. The first stage, linked to socialization into university life and connected to the student’s own process of accessing higher education, includes initial contact with teaching staff and creating social networks with classmates:

The students who come to study from the high Andean plateau region, which are the most remote and badly connected areas from the city, are at a loss the first few months and find it hard to adapt to university life. In general, not only must they adapt to university life, but they must also adapt to living away from home, far from their families, with few resources and no friends. I think starting university is very difficult for these young students. (Chancellor, Bolivia)

The second stage of academic development is directly linked with the student’s participation and retention in the university. In most cases, university student retention is dependent on the availability of academic support (i.e., tutorials, study groups, introductory courses), socioeconomic support (i.e., scholarships, student loans, accommodation), and personal support (i.e., peer groups, advisory services, counseling):

We subject our students to demanding tests that are very difficult to pass. That is why students who have some kind of problem end up withdrawing after two or three initial semesters. Considering that each degree program presents its own challenges, imagine if there are also financial or linguistic problems or if one is living disconnected from one’s environment. Academic life is full of complexities that can cause a student to withdraw. (Chancellor, Mexico)

Finally, there is a third stage relating to academic egress and transition to the job market. Very often both institutions, due to lack of planning and resources, and students themselves, due to lack of interest or knowledge, do not pay much attention to this exit stage, thus reducing the social and economic impact of the investment carried out in university education. One of the interviewees expresses it as follows:

Career guidance has not been developed much here. I know that in Europe it is done, but here we do not have that tradition. Once students receive their university degree certificate, they leave and we don’t hear from them again. We do not help them with career guidance nor do we have resources to help them transition to adult life. I think this is one of the main challenges we face as a country and as a university. (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Venezuela)

Discussion and Conclusion

Identifying the factors that generate exclusion in higher education is essential if we are to characterize this phenomenon, and it is a necessary step toward introducing initiatives that will minimize or eradicate it. Identifying these factors of exclusion allows us to take decisions about institutional policies to reduce exclusion of the most vulnerable students from higher education.

In this article, we have studied the perceptions of the governing boards regarding exclusion factors for young people from vulnerable groups in university. Adding to other studies on inequality, inclusion, and equity in higher education in Latin America (e.g., Gazzola & Didriksson, 2008), we have identified five factors that explain exclusion in higher education: (a) personal characteristics, (b) family situation, (c) institutional features, (d) public policies, and (e) phases of university students’ development.

The results obtained allow us to classify exclusion factors for vulnerable groups in the university in two dimensions: intrinsic (i.e., personal characteristics and family situation) and extrinsic (i.e., institutional features and public policies). These dimensions have different manifestations throughout the different phases of a university student’s academic life (i.e., access, academic development, egress, and transition).

The intrinsic dimension includes exclusion factors linked to personal characteristics such as low academic performance in secondary school education, low self-esteem or low self-control, having received deficient academic training in secondary school, having to work in precarious conditions, and not having an explicitly defined professional or academic career plan. Our results concur with Martin, Spolander, Ali, and Maas (2014), who contend that student engagement depends on “the development of a positive student identity which influences students’ motivation to engage” (p. 200).

The second element of the intrinsic dimension is family situation, which includes a household’s precarious employment context, low educational attainment by parents and siblings, young students with family responsibilities (particularly if they are caring for children), family fragmentation, a family environment with difficulties accessing culture, and living in remote areas or areas that are badly connected with university centers. Other studies carried out in Latin America, specifically in Cuba, argue that family influences university students’ performance and that in the case of vulnerable young people the relationship between family and educational institutions should be strengthened (Salernou, 2013).

The extrinsic elements that explain exclusion from HEIs include the factors we have called institutional features and public policies. The institutional features factor considers aspects connected with (a) the lack of motivation or low levels of interest of academic staff; (b) the absence of programs to focus and facilitate transition between different academic stages, especially access to university; (c) insufficient provision of financial resources; (d) poor accessibility of facilities; and (e) the institution’s location. These results are consistent with previous studies focusing on organizational elements that determine inclusion in higher education and, in particular, with those studies that highlight the key role of teaching staff (Crosling, Heagney, & Thomas, 2009; Gibbons & Vignoles, 2012; Reay, Crozier, & Clayton, 2010; Thomas, 2013).

In addition, the public policies factor comprises elements associated with the lack of explicitly defined remedial actions, not establishing a quota or number of preferential entry university places for groups at risk of exclusion, ignoring priority groups, not recognizing university independence, and low levels of investment in public higher education. Evidently, these public policies respond to ideologies and underlying principles that inevitably shape the type of actions to be taken (Contreras, 2011; Kilpatrick & Johns, 2014; King, Marginson, & Naidoo, 2011). So, for example, Gidley et al. (2010) identify three types of ideology that explain higher education social inclusion theories and policies: (a) neoliberal ideology, linked to those actions seeking to improve access; (b) social justice theory, which seeks to promote student participation and integration; and (c) human potential ideology, which focuses on success through empowerment.

Finally, consistent with other studies on student participation and access to higher education (e.g., Johnson, 2006; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2011), the results indicate that the time-related dimension is key, both to understanding the inclusion–exclusion phenomenon in higher education and to propose actions that will facilitate access and attainment for the most vulnerable groups. Thus, it is important to consider that the four dimensions associated with exclusion are not evenly manifest throughout the student’s academic career.

Nonetheless, this study presents some limitations that mean that the results should be interpreted as a first approach to the field, as the selected sample (19 interviews from 24 universities) does not represent all universities in the whole Latin American Region. A more comprehensive approach to the causes of vulnerability in higher education should incorporate the points of view of those groups traditionally at risk (e.g., Native American groups, people with a very low HDI, women, students of unusual age groups, and people with disabilities). Complementary, a quantitative approach based on a large population survey study would enable us to check and validate the results already obtained, as well as allow us to develop predictive models on which to base decision making regarding university policies to improve access and performance among the most vulnerable groups in Latin America (e.g., Davies et al., 2009; Wintre et al., 2011). In addition, from a practitioner approach, we must consider that exclusion is a contextual factor that can become apparent in different ways depending on each environment, and for this reason it is advisable to adapt exclusion analysis criteria to the political, institutional, and university reality of each local area in the region (Percy-Smith, 2000).

In any case, increasing access, improving progression, and ensuring successful results in higher education should be a priority for educational systems, particularly in Latin America. Consequently, it is convenient to favor access to university for the majority of the population and establish mechanisms to avoid the exclusion of people belonging to the most vulnerable groups. Achieving higher success rates in higher education not only benefits students belonging to vulnerable groups (i.e., professional development, greater participation in social life, and improved employment prospects), it can also benefit universities and society as a whole (improved competitiveness, increased social capital, and greater equity of the university system; Bashir & Luque, 2012).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Diego Castro is an expert in social work and holds a degree in social education, a BA in pedagogy and a master’s in human resource management, as well as a PhD in science of education. He is specialized in leadership and management environments in educational institutions, one of his main research interests besides management and university governance and the process of innovation and improvement. He is also a counselor and lecturer in various universities and centers in Spain and Latin America.

David Rodríguez-Gómez is a lecturer in Teaching and Educational Administration at the Applied Pedagogy Department of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), and is a member of the Organizational Development Research Group (EDO). His research interests include knowledge management, educational administration and leadership, organizational learning, organizational development, ICT (Information and Communications Technology) in education, and university drop-out and retention.

Joaquín Gairín is an expert in social studies, a psychologist, and educationist. He has extensive teaching and institutional experience, and has been an educational center director, faculty dean, and director of department of the Institute of Science Education at the UAB. As an international consultant, he participates in programs of educational reform in Spain and Latin America. He is currently also in charge of projects on social and educational development, organization development, processes of educational changes, leadership, evaluation of programs and institutions, ICT (Information and Communications Technology) in education, and impact evaluation.

References

Aponte-Hernández

(2008). Inequality, inclusion, and equity trends in higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean: Towards an alternative scenario for 2020. In Gazzola

Didriksson

(Eds.), Trends in higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean (pp. 109-148). Caracas, Venezuela: IESALC-UNESCO.

Ascher

Mirovitskaya

(Eds.). (2012). Economic development strategies and the evolution of violence in Latin America. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bashir

Luque

(2012). Equity in tertiary education in Central America. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Boliver

(2011). Expansion, differentiation, and the persistence of social class inequalities in British higher education. Higher Education, 61, 229-242.

Byrne

(2005). Social exclusion. Berkshire, England: McGraw-Hill.

Centre for the Study of Higher Education. (2008). Participation and equity: A review of the participation in higher education of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and Indigenous people. Retrieved from http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv35491

Centro Interuniversitario de Desarrollo [CINDA]. (2011). Educación Superior en Iberoamérica. Informe 2011 [Higher education in Latin America. Report 2011]. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Ril Editores.

Chowdry

Crawford

Dearden

Goodman

Vignoles

(2013). Widening participation in higher education: Analysis using linked administrative data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Statistics in Society), 176, 431-457.

Contreras

(2011). Achieving equity for Latino students: Expanding the pathway to higher education through public policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

10.

Crosling

Heagney

Thomas

(2009). Improving student retention in higher education: Improving teaching and learning. Australian Universities’ Review, 51(2), 9-18.

11.

Croxford

Raffe

(2014). Social class, ethnicity and access to higher education in the four countries of the UK: 1996-2010. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33, 77-95.

12.

Davies

Mangan

Hughes

(2009). Participation, financial support and the marginal student. Higher Education, 58, 193-204.

13.

Dawson

Charman

Kilpatrick

(2013). The new higher education reality: What is an appropriate model to address the widening participation agenda? Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 706-721.

14.

De Ferranti

Perry

Ferreira

H. G.

Walton

(2004). Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean: Breaking with history? Washington, DC: World Bank.

15.

d’Hombres

Nguyen-Hoang

(2011). International and time comparisons of inequality in tertiary education. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/547670-1128086743752/Beatrice_dHombres_and_Phuong_Nguyen_Hoang.pdf

16.

Frankema

(2012). Industrial wage inequality in Latin America in global perspective, 1900-2000. Studies in Comparative International Development, 47, 47-74.

17.

Gasparini

Cruces

(2013). Poverty and inequality in Latin America: A story of two decades. Journal of International Affairs, 66, 51-63.

18.

Gazzola

Didriksson

(2008). Trends in higher education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Caracas, Venezuela: IESALC-UNESCO.

19.

Gereluk

Race

(2007). Multicultural tensions in England, France and Canada: Contrasting approaches and consequences. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 17, 113-129.

20.

Gibbons

Vignoles

(2009). Access, choice and participation in higher education (CEEDP101). London, England: Centre for Economics of Education, London School of Economics.

21.

Gibbons

Vignoles

(2012). Geography, choice and participation in higher education in England. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 42, 98-113.

22.

Gidley

Hampson

Wheeler

Bereded-Samuel

(2010). From access to success: An integrated approach to quality higher education informed by social inclusion theory and practice. Higher Education Policy, 23, 123-147.

23.

Hesse-Biber

Leavy

(2006). The practice of qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

24.

Huber

Stephens

J. D.

(2012). Democracy and the left: Social policy and inequality in Latin America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Johnson

(2006). Analysis of stopout behaviour at a public research university: The multi-spell discrete-time approach. Research in Higher Education, 47, 905-934.

26.

Jones

Thomas

(2005). The 2003 UK Government Higher Education White Paper: A critical assessment of its implications for the access and widening participation agenda. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 615-630.

27.

Kilpatrick

Johns

(2014). Institutional responses to social inclusion in Australian higher education. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 16(2), 27-45.

28.

King

Marginson

Naidoo

(Eds.). (2011). Handbook on globalization and higher education. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

29.

Krueger

Casey

M. A.

(2008). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

30.

Kuh

Kinzie

Buckley

Bridges

Hayek

(2011). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations: ASHE higher education report (Vol. 116). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

31.

Levy

Schady

(2013). Latin America’s social policy challenge: Education, social insurance, redistribution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 193-218.

32.

Litosseliti

(2003). Using focus groups in research. London, England: Continuum.

33.

Lörz

Schindler

Walter

(2011). Gender inequalities in higher education: Extent, development and mechanisms of gender differences in enrolment and field of study choice. Irish Educational Studies, 30, 179-198.

34.

Lustig

Lopez-Calva

L. F.

Ortiz-Juarez

(2013). Declining inequality in Latin America in the 2000s: The cases of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico. World Development, 44, 129-141.

35.

Márquez

Chong

Duryea

Mazza

Ñopo

(2007). Los de afuera. Patrones cambiantes de exclusión en América Latina y el Caribe [Outsiders. Changing patterns of exclusion in Latin America and the Caribbean]. New York, NY: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo.

36.

Martin

Spolander

Ali

Maas

(2014). The evolution of student identity: A case of caveat emptor. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38, 200-210.

37.

Mato

(2012). Educación Superior y pueblos indígenas y afrodescendientes en América Latina. Normas, políticas y prácticas [Higher education and native people and Afro-descendants in Latin America. Standards, policies and practices]. Caracas, Venezuela: UNESCO/IESLAC.

38.

McAndrew

Scanlon

Clow

(2010). An open future for higher education. Educause Quarterly, 33(1). Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/open-future-higher-education

39.

McMillan

Schumacher

(2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Edinburgh, Scotland: Pearson Education.

40.

Miles

Huberman

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

41.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2011). Education at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Author.

42.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. Paris, France: Author.

43.

Percy-Smith

(2000). Policy responses to social exclusion: Towards inclusion? Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

44.

Reay

Crozier

Clayton

(2010). “Fitting in” or “standing out”: Working-class students in UK higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 107-124.

45.

Saint

(2009, October 20). Guiding universities: Governance and management arrangements around the globe (Commissioned by the Human Development Network World Bank). Washington, DC: World Bank.

46.

Solernou

I. A.

(2013). La familia y su participación en la universalización de la Educación Superior. Educación Médica Superior, 27(1), 54-63.

47.

Santiago

Tremblay

Basri

Arnal

(2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD].

48.

Savitz-Romer

Rowan-Kenyon

Weilundemo

Swan

(2010). Educational pathways to equity: A review of global outreach and bridge practices and policies that promote successful participation in tertiary education. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-1099079956815/547670-1128086743752/Jamil_OutreachandBridge2011_Nov.4.pdf

49.

Thomas

(2013). What works? Facilitating an effective transition into higher education. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 14(1), 4-24.

50.

Tieben

Wolbers

(2010). Transitions to post-secondary and tertiary education in the Netherlands: A trend analysis of unconditional and conditional socio-economic background effects. Higher Education, 60, 85-100.

51.

Torre

Zapata

(2012). Impacto de procesos de aseguramiento de la calidad sobre las instituciones de educación superior: un estudio en siete países [Impact of process quality assurance of higher education institutions: A study in seven countries]. In Lemaitre

Zenteno

(Eds.), Aseguramiento de la calidad en Iberoamérica. Informe 2012. [Quality assurance in Latin America. Report 2012] (pp. 115-157). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Ril Editores.

52.

Triventi

(2013). Stratification in higher education and its relationship with social inequality: A comparative study of 11 European countries. European Sociological Review, 29, 489-502.

53.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-International Institute for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean [UNESCO-IESALC]. (2010). La Universidad latinoamericana en discusión [The Latin American university in discussion]. Caracas, Venezuela: Author.

54.

Wang

(2011). Social exclusion and inequality in higher education in China: A capability perspective. International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 277-286.

55.

Wengraf

(2001). Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. London, England: Sage.

56.

Whiteford

Shah

Nair

(2013). Equity and excellence are not mutually exclusive: A discussion of academic standards in an era of widening participation. Quality Assurance in Education, 21, 299-310.

57.

Wintre

M. G.

Dilouya

Pancer

Pratt

Birnie-Lefcovitch

Polivy

Adams

(2011). Academic achievement in first-year university: Who maintains their high school average? Higher Education, 62, 467-481.