Re: Activity 4: Thinking about your Topic (1.5 hours)

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:46:27 GMT

by Kaz Williams.

Proposed Topic
A regional, student-centred evaluation of whether widening participation policy in South Wales has translated into equitable structural opportunity through pedagogical design and institutional practice.
The project examines whether universities have meaningfully adapted their structures to support non-traditional students, and whether disparities in continuation and attainment reflect structural misalignment rather than student 'deficit'.

Pros
• Clear policy Link – The study is linked in widening participation policy in Wales, therefore relevance beyond a single institution.
• Clear developmental structure – The project follows a clear hierarchy: structural opportunity - lived experience - outcomes.
• Student-centred focus – It investigates lived experience rather than relying solely on institutional self-report.
• Manageable qualitative depth – UWTSD serves as a single institutional case study, allowing for focused exploration.
• Regional relevance – The survey tests patterns across South Wales without attempting to rank institutions.
• Theoretical grounding – Institutional habitus, policy implementation theory, and inclusive pedagogy provide a coherent analytical frame.

Cons / Risks
• Ambition at regional scale – Including multiple universities increases complexity.
• Survey construct sprawl – Risk of trying to measure too many aspects of structural opportunity.
• Access challenges – Regional survey distribution may be difficult without institutional cooperation.
• Outcome data limitations – Access to comparable continuation and attainment data may be restricted.
• Scope creep (main worry) – Risk of drifting into broader cultural critique beyond pedagogical structures.

Accessibility to Information
• Qualitative access – Good access to students at UWTSD for interviews or focus groups.
• Survey distribution – Requires cooperation from other South Wales institutions or alternative routes (student networks, WP).
• Policy documentation – Publicly available WP and institutional strategy documents provide contextual material.
• Outcome data – Likely limited to publicly reported data rather than institutional data.

Timescales
Months 1–6
• Refine conceptual framework and literature review.
• Finalise operational definition of “structural opportunity”.
• Ethics application.
Months 6–12
• Conduct qualitative data collection at UWTSD.
• Preliminary thematic analysis.
Months 12–18
• Develop and pilot regional survey.
• Launch regional survey.
Months 18–24
• Analyse quantitative data.
• Integrate findings with qualitative themes.
• Review continuation and attainment gap data.
Months 24–30
• Synthesis and writing.
• Develop recommendations.

Reflection
The project is ambitious. The qualitative case provides depth, the regional survey provides breadth, and outcome data provide contextual validation rather than causal proof.
The key to feasibility will be:
• Maintaining a narrow definition of structural opportunity.
• Limiting survey constructs.
• Treating regional data as pattern-testing rather than institutional benchmarking.
If those boundaries are kept, the project is hopefully manageable at doctoral scale while retaining some regional policy relevance.

Re: Activity 3: Reading Luse et al (2012) (1.5 hours)

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:37:42 GMT

by Kaz Williams.

Luse et al. detailed the importance of taking a broad interest (e.g. widening participation policy) to a more clearly defined and 'manageable' research problem, and to consider 'feasibility; I don't have to change the world with my research... well, not yet :) The article also detailed the importance of defining population, context, and evidence clearly. This in an area I will need to work on.

In short, balance your ambition with what will work.

Re: Activity 2: Reading and Reflecting on Weatherall (2019) (2 hours)

Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:31:18 GMT

by Kaz Williams.

Doctoral writing as the development of my research skills, knowledge etc and positionality:

A thesis is not simply the presentation of findings, but a formative process through which the researcher clarifies their position within a field. Writing is, therefore, not neutral or unbiased. In my project, I want to focus on 'structural equity' rather than deficit narratives around students. My critical question is whether disparities are primarily student-based or embedded within institutional design?

The process of writing can shape, develop and highlight who I am, my beliefs, values, and what is important to me.

The relevance of reflexivity in doctoral work:

Writing requires conscious reflection on assumptions and positioning. The writing itself becomes part of the 'critical' project.

The main point I took away was to by critical, to challenge convention, to not be afraid test and defend approaches to my research to get to my 'truth'

Forum for these weeks

Re: Activity 4: Thinking about your Topic (1.5 hours)

Re: Activity 3: Reading Luse et al (2012) (1.5 hours)

Re: Activity 2: Reading and Reflecting on Weatherall (2019) (2 hours)