Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Reflexivity, structure and agency: using reflexivity to understand Further Education students' Higher Education decision-making and choices
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Reflexivity, structure and agency: using reflexivity to understand Further Education students' Higher Education decision-making and choices
Do you wish to request the book?
Reflexivity, structure and agency: using reflexivity to understand Further Education students' Higher Education decision-making and choices
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Reflexivity, structure and agency: using reflexivity to understand Further Education students' Higher Education decision-making and choices
2019
Overview
The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate Archer's reflexive modalities in relation to Further Education (FE) students' higher education (HE) decision-making and choices. To do this, it draws on data from a qualitative, longitudinal narrative inquiry that explored how socioeconomically under-represented FE students made their HE decisions and choices. On a conceptual level, the research aimed to identify whether participants' HE decisions and choices were individualised or mediated by structure. Margaret Archer's reflexive modes were adapted to understand, first, how young people made their educational choices and decisions and, second, what role agency and structure played in this process. How participants' different reflexive modes were interpreted and how this facilitated more intricate understandings of how agency is exerted in the face of structural constraints are discussed. Yet, this paper also critically reflects on and questions the explanatory power of Archer's work in the context of this research.
