‘Low income doesn't mean stupid and destined for failure': challenging the deficit discourse around students from low SES backgrounds in higher education
Abstract
The discourse around students from low socio-economic backgrounds often adopts a deficit conception in which these students are seen as a ‘problem’ in higher education. In light of recent figures pointing to an increase in the number and proportion of these students participating in higher education [Pitman, T. 2014. “More Students in Higher ed, But it's no more Representative.” The Conversation 28: 1–4] and an absence of evidence to support deficit thinking, this deficit discourse requires re-examination. Qualitative data from 115 interviews carried out across 6 Australian universities as part of a national study reveal that, contrary to the conception of these students as a ‘problem’, students from low SES backgrounds demonstrate high levels of determination and academic skills and that they actively seek high standards in their studies. This paper critically examines deficit conceptions of these students, drawing on findings from qualitative interviews with 89 successful students from low SES backgrounds and 26 staff members recognised as exemplary in their provision of teaching and support of students from low SES backgrounds. Drawing on these findings, this paper challenges the deficit discourse and argues for a more affirmative and nuanced conception of students from low SES backgrounds.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Deficit thinking holds students from historically oppressed populations responsible for the challenges and inequalities that they face.
“In general, deficit thinking1 holds students from historically oppressed populations responsible for the challenges and inequalities that they face”
From What Is Deficit Thinking? An Analysis of Conceptualizations of Deficit Thinking and Implications for Scholarly Research (2019) · cites this paper as McKay & Devlin, 2016
The vast majority of scholars engaging deficit thinking define it as a blame the victim way of thinking that attributes students' failures to their individual, family, or community traits.
“First, the vast majority of scholars engaging deficit thinking in their work define it as a blame the victim way of thinking that attribute students’ failures to their individual, family, or community traits, and utilize this definition throughout their analyses”
From What Is Deficit Thinking? An Analysis of Conceptualizations of Deficit Thinking and Implications for Scholarly Research (2019) · cites this paper as McKay & Devlin, 2016
Scholars consistently agree that deficit thinking perpetuates a blame the victim orientation toward communities that face inequalities in society.
“Scholars consistently agree that deficit thinking perpetuates a blame the victim orientation toward communities that face inequalities in society”
From What Is Deficit Thinking? An Analysis of Conceptualizations of Deficit Thinking and Implications for Scholarly Research (2019) · cites this paper as McKay & Devlin, 2016
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 49 · Cited by 126
- Authors
- McKay, J., & Devlin, M.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Federation University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- McKay, Jade
- Venue
- International Journal of Inclusive Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-09-18
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 347-363
- ISSN
- 1360-3116 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5173
- OpenAlex
- W1949328769
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 24.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Inclusive Education (publishedVersion)
- Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
- FedUni ResearchOnline (Federation University Australia) (submittedVersion)
- RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Office for Learning and Teaching
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Cultural Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- low socioeconomic status, deficit discourse, higher education, student success, academic skills, student support staff
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review