Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
An Exploration of the Student-Personal Tutor
Relationship
Annabel Yale
Department of Psychology
Edge Hill University
This thesis is submitted to the Department of Psychology, Edge Hill University, in
partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
June 2018
I. Declaration
I declare that this thesis is my own work carried out under the normal terms of
supervision. I confirm that this work has not been submitted for any comparable
academic award.
i
II. Acknowledgements
When words seem inadequate and do not match the depth of my emotions… My heartfelt thanks goes to all my family and friends as without your continued support I could not have done this.
To my Mum and Dad who have always believed in me and loved me no matter what, you are my inspiration. Dad you are no longer with us but not a day goes by that I don’t miss you and need you here. Mum, you are my world and I dedicate this PhD to you and my Dad’s memory.
To my wonderful and long suffering husband of 30 years Ian, who in spite of my best efforts has never wavered in his love, care and support of me.
To my amazing children, Laura (bold, brilliant and bonkers), Alex (strong, beautiful and industrious), Emily (loving, thoughtful and a mathematical genius) and Louis (a hero in the making), their partners (Sam, Tom, George and Abbey) and pets (Chief, Honcho, Bella and Rocket, and Jenny and Blozzi since passed) for being there for me no matter what, always with armfuls of cuddles and kind words (and the odd beverage).
To my sister Kathryn (the real academic in the family) and brother David (a genius in most respects) who in spite of knowing all my failings still love, support and believe in me, and their wonderful families, not least of all my fabulous nieces (Imogen and Enid) and nephews (Josh, Dexter and Felix).
To my bff Linda (aka Tatty Totty) who knows what I need before I know and keeps me sane. There’s been lots of laughter and tears along the way but Totty times have been my sanctuary (with our lovely Toff Totty Lesley). Special thanks to my beautiful cousin Pam whose kindness and reassurance I could not be without (and gives the best hug), friends Trudy and Donski for their wise words and humour, and my two adopted daughters Helen and Helen who have become treasured friends.
And a big thanks to all my academic pals in Psychology, Social Sciences and Early Years who have offered support and encouragement along the way.
And finally to my supervisors Pat, Linda and Philip for all your support, encouragement, experience and sheer brilliance! You have each brought something unique and much valued to the team and always offered me a listening ear, good humour and wise words. I could not have done it without you guys!
Thank you everyone,
Annabel
ii
III. Publication from Thesis
Chapter 5: Yale, A. (2017). The personal tutor–student relationship: student expectations and
experiences of personal tutoring in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education.
pp. 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877
iii
IV. Contents
I. Declaration................................................................................................................................. i
II. Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. ii
III. Publication from Thesis..........................................................................................................iii
V. Abstract.................................................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1 Introduction and Higher Education context.............................................................1
1.0. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
1.1. Background to the Higher Education (HE) context............................................................1
1.1.1. Tuition fees.........................................................................................................................2
1.1.2. Employability Agenda........................................................................................................2
1.2. Challenges in Higher Education..........................................................................................3
1.3. Impact of the changing Higher Education context.............................................................5
1.3.1. Impact of the changing Higher Education context on academic staff.................................5
1.3.2. Impact of the changing Higher Education context on student-tutor relationships..............6
1.4. Key issues..............................................................................................................................8
1.5. Impact of the changing Higher Education context on student expectations......................8
1.5.1. Sources of expectations......................................................................................................8
1.5.3. Importance of student expectations..................................................................................10
1.6. Personal tutoring in Higher Education.............................................................................11
1.6.1. Importance of the personal tutor role...............................................................................11
1.7. The psychological contract.................................................................................................14
1.7.1. The utility of the psychological contract in a Higher Education context..........................15
1.8. The specific research context.............................................................................................16
1.8.1. Research rationale...........................................................................................................17
1.8.2. This research....................................................................................................................18
1.9. Overall................................................................................................................................19
Chapter 2 Personal Tutoring Literature Review......................................................................20
2.0. Chapter overview................................................................................................................20
2.1. Background to personal tutoring.......................................................................................20
2.2. Personal tutoring models and approaches to student support...........................................21
2.2.1. Institutional Approaches..................................................................................................24
2.3. Importance of the Personal Tutor role for first year students...........................................26
2.4. Personal Tutor-Student relationship..................................................................................30iv
2.5. Challenges to the Personal Tutor role...............................................................................33
2.6. Current challenges.............................................................................................................35
2.7. Overview of main findings.................................................................................................37
Chapter 3 Psychological Contract Literature Review...............................................................39
3.0. Chapter overview................................................................................................................39
3.1. Overview of the Psychological Contract............................................................................39
3.2. Theoretical origins of the Psychological Contract construct pre-Rousseau’s (1989) reconceptualisation...................................................................................................................40
3.4. Antecedents of the PC........................................................................................................47
3.5. Contents of the PC..............................................................................................................48
3.6. PC breach...........................................................................................................................49
3.6.1. Outcomes of breach..........................................................................................................51
3.6.2. Managing the PC.............................................................................................................56
3.7. Methodological challenges.................................................................................................57
3.8. Using the PC in a Higher Education context....................................................................58
3.9. Overview.............................................................................................................................60
Chapter 4 Methodology.............................................................................................................62
4.0. Methodological considerations..........................................................................................62
4.1. Methodology.......................................................................................................................63
4.1.1. Case Study rationale........................................................................................................63
4.1.2. Focus group rationale......................................................................................................64
4.1.3. Interview rationale...........................................................................................................65
4.1.4. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis rationale and approach.................................66
4.1.5. Psychological contract rationale......................................................................................67
4.2. The data collection process................................................................................................68
4.2.1. Research context..............................................................................................................68
4.2.2. Participants......................................................................................................................68
4.2.3. Procedure.........................................................................................................................69
4.3. Approaches to Data Analysis..............................................................................................71
4.3.1. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)..............................................................71
4.3.2. Trustworthiness of the data..............................................................................................72
4.3.3. Ethics................................................................................................................................73
4.3.3.1. Specific ethical considerations......................................................................................73
4.3.3.2. General ethical considerations......................................................................................75
4.3.3.3. Ethical processes...........................................................................................................76
v
4.4. The role of the researcher..................................................................................................76
4.4.1. Reflexivity.........................................................................................................................77
4.5. Overview.............................................................................................................................78
Chapter 5 Study 1 – Focus session 1.........................................................................................79
5.0. Introduction and Higher Education Context.....................................................................79
5.0.1. Personal Tutoring In Higher Education...........................................................................80
5.1. Method................................................................................................................................81
5.1.1. Background context..........................................................................................................81
5.1.2. Participants......................................................................................................................81
5.1.3. Procedure.........................................................................................................................81
5.1.4. Rationale for choice of methods.......................................................................................82
5.1.4.1. Focus session................................................................................................................82
5.1.4.2. Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis.......................................................................82
5.1.5. Ethical considerations.....................................................................................................83
5.2. Analysis...............................................................................................................................84
5.3. Discussion...........................................................................................................................94
5.4. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................96
Chapter 6 Study 2 – Focus session 2.........................................................................................98
6.0. Introduction........................................................................................................................99
6.0.1. Expectations of Higher Education....................................................................................99
6.0.2 The Personal Tutor role in Higher Education.................................................................100
6.1. Method..............................................................................................................................102
6.1.1. Participants....................................................................................................................102
6.1.2. Procedure.......................................................................................................................102
6.1.3. Focus session and IPA...................................................................................................103
6.1.4. Data Analysis.................................................................................................................103
6.2. Analysis.............................................................................................................................104
6.3. Discussion.........................................................................................................................110
6.4. Conclusion........................................................................................................................112
Chapter 7 Study 3 - Interviews..............................................................................................115
7.0. Introduction......................................................................................................................115
7.0.1. Importance of relationships............................................................................................115
7.0.2. Antecedents to the relationship.......................................................................................116
7.0.3. Barriers to the relationship............................................................................................116
7.0.4. Interactions....................................................................................................................116
vi
7.1. Method.............................................................................................................................117
7.1.1. Participants....................................................................................................................117
7.1.2. Procedure.......................................................................................................................117
7.1.3. Interviews and IPA.........................................................................................................118
7.1.4. Data Analysis.................................................................................................................119
7.2. Analysis.............................................................................................................................120
7.3. Discussion.........................................................................................................................135
7.4. Conclusion........................................................................................................................140
Chapter 8 Study 4 – Application of psychological contract theory....................................142
8.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................142
8.0.1. Overview of the Psychological Contract (PC)................................................................142
8.0.2. Higher Education context...............................................................................................145
8.1. Method..............................................................................................................................146
8.2. Analysis and discussion....................................................................................................147
8.2.1. Antecedents to the PC.....................................................................................................147
8.2.2. Contents of the PC..........................................................................................................148
8.2.2.1. Relational dimensions.................................................................................................148
8.2.2.2. Transactional dimensions............................................................................................149
8.2.3. Attributions and breach..................................................................................................150
8.3. Conclusion........................................................................................................................160
Chapter 9 General Discussion................................................................................................162
9.0. Overview of main findings...............................................................................................162
(see Appendix K for a Schematic Model of the combined IPA and PC findings)......................162
9.1. The other side of the psychological contract....................................................................170
9.2. Specific recommendations from the thesis for PT practice.............................................175
9.3. Limitations of the research...............................................................................................176
9.4. Suggestions for future research.......................................................................................176
Chapter 10 Conclusion and Reflection...................................................................................179
10.0. Conclusion......................................................................................................................179
10.1. Reflection........................................................................................................................181
References...............................................................................................................................185
vii
V. Abstract
Annabel Yale: An Exploration of the Student-Personal Tutor Relationship submitted for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
This thesis provides an in-depth exploration of the student-personal tutor relationship from the
perspective of first year students in a case study university. Few studies have looked at student
perceptions of the personal tutor (PT) relationship and none using Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and Psychological Contract (PC) theory. A series of studies
were designed using focus sessions (Study 1 and 2), and interviews (Study 3 and 4), in which
experiences and expectations of personal tutoring, particularly focusing on the student- PT
relationship, were gathered and explored. Data from the two focus sessions was analysed using
(IPA) and the findings compared in terms of any differences in expectations and experiences of
personal tutors. The findings were used to inform the interviews which were designed to elicit a
more in-depth and idiographic exploration of student expectations and experiences. Interview
data was also analysed using IPA and the findings then subjected to another form of analysis
using Psychological Contract (PC) theory as a framework for exploring the nature of the
relationship and its consequences further. The aim was to ascertain the utility of PC theory to
provide further insights into student expectations of the role and the consequences of a breach of
PC between student and personal tutor. A number of factors are found to impact the relationship
and include clear role expectations and consistency in provision from a PT who cares and with
this the relationship (and student), will flourish and students will experience less uncertainty and
stress associated with the role and in general. The research indicates that meetings which
include combined relational and transactional elements are valued by the student and over time
this contributes to trust developing and the perception of quality of the relationship and the
degree. Students receive mixed messages relating to student support and are simultaneously
constructed as both demanding consumers and as weak and needy and this contributes further to
confusion and conflict over expectations of independence. The quality of the relationship
influences stress associated with deciding to ask for a meeting and negative responses to a
breach in the PC between student and their PT. The findings support a well-structured and
integrated PT system which allows for individualised support within a developmental
framework. The research is novel in using IPA to explore the student-PT relationship, and the
first to combine an IPA approach from the theoretical stance of the PC. It provides new insights
into the complexity of student perceptions and how, through subjective sense making processes
over time, these impact on emotions, behaviour and cognitions. Key Words: Personal
Tutoring; Higher Education; students; psychological contract; student expectations;
relationships.
viii
Chapter 1 Introduction and Higher Education context
1.0. Introduction
This chapter will start by exploring the broader higher education context in relation to any
changes and challenges that may impact on students’ experiences and expectations of
university. Specifically it will provide an overview of two major changes; first, the increases in
tuition fees, and second, the government’s employability agenda. It will then look at how these
factors impact students in terms of both the relationships between students and tutors and also
how this might affect students’ expectations and experiences of higher education. The ways in
which universities might respond to this changing context will then be explored, focusing on the
importance of student support and the nature of it, particularly in relation to the first year
experience. This will then lead to an introduction and discussion of the personal tutor role as a
form of support, the importance of this role and how the role might have a positive impact on
students’ experiences and expectations of higher education. This will then lead to an
introduction to the concept of ‘psychological contract’ as a possible framework for further
exploration of students’ experiences and expectations of personal tutoring and higher education.
This chapter will end with an overview of the main research aims and questions underpinning
this thesis and its unique contribution to the research area.
1.1. Background to the Higher Education (HE) context
Since the 1970s, HE has become more available to the masses, with the biggest rises in student
numbers occurring since the 1990s after the government committed to a widening participation
agenda (UNESCO, 2009). From 1992, a move was made by the then Conservative government
to make higher education more available to the masses with the conversion of many colleges
and polytechnics into universities (McCulloch, 2009). New Labour continued with the
increasing participation agenda, which was further supported by the Dearing Report in 1997.
The stated aims and purpose of the Dearing Report (1997, p. 3) were to take a bipartisan
approach across the UK to examine the current state of HE and to:
... make recommendations on how the purpose, shape, structure, size and funding of
higher education, including support for students, should develop to meet the needs of
the United Kingdom over the next 20 years, recognising that higher education embraces
teaching, learning, scholarship and research.
This resulted in wider participation and a diverse student body with varied life experiences,
educational backgrounds, and situations, which brought with it more diversity in terms of
individual support needs. This has led to a change in the nature of a university education from
training elites for leadership to training the masses for employment in a context where 1
university education is now a mass consumption product. Boden and Nedeva (2010) argue that
this increases social justice, i.e. those who go to university enjoy the enhanced earnings
associated with having a graduate job.
This ‘massification’ of HE can be seen as an attempt by successive governments to meet the
demands of the competitive global economy (Tomlinson, 2008) where student knowledge and
potential are economic goods to be valued and exchanged in a new knowledge-based economy.
In the UK in the 1960s, approximately only 7 % of the population went to university (Pugsley,
2004) compared to 51% of 17-60 year olds in 2006 and 54% in 2015/2016 (DfE, 2017)
demonstrating that education for the masses is now a reality. UCAS (End of Cycle Report,
2016) also highlight that those from low income families are 80% more likely to go to
university than they were in 2006.
1.1.1. Tuition fees
With these changes came student fees, as the increase in student numbers could not be paid for
from government funding. The initial tuition fee, introduced in 1998, was £1,000 per year and
after eight years this was increased to £3,000 per year. Another six years later, in 2012,
universities were allowed to raise their fees once again to a maximum of £9,000 per year
(Wilkins, Shams & Huisman, 2012). The Coalition Government (2010-2015) led by the
Conservative David Cameron, encouraged students to ‘invest’ in their future by ‘obtaining’ a
degree. Despite much scepticism from the media and uncertainty by universities, from 2006
there has been an almost continuous increase in the numbers of applicants for university, from
330,520 in 2006 (UCAS, 2013) to 497,550 in 2015 (UCAS, 2017).
The number of students applying for university places did decrease in the years the tuition fee
increased, however figures produced by Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA 2014/15)
show an overall 8% decrease in student numbers from 2010 to 2015. The largest decrease was a
6% fall in student numbers between 2011/12 and 2012/13, which coincided with the
introduction of the increased tuition fees from £3000 to £9000 in 2012 (UCAS, 2013). Numbers
have seen a similar decrease again in 2017, when fees were not only increased again, but NHS
funding was removed from courses such as nursing (UCAS, 2017). Despite these decreases in
the years in which increases in tuition fees were introduced, however, student numbers have
grown overall by 3% between 2005/2006 and 2015/2016 (DfE).
1.1.2. Employability Agenda
Universities are under increasing pressure to produce employable graduates due to a strong
emphasis in government and labour market policy upon employability as a business-led agenda
(Tomlinson, 2010). The changing nature of work and employability in recent decades has seen a 2
shift to a knowledge-based economy and universities are seen as central to driving this change,
with graduates increasingly depicted as ‘knowledge workers’.
The emergence of an employability agenda in higher education is framed around the needs of
business, raising concerns about the erosion of higher education’s traditional liberal philosophy
and the increasing encroachment of a business-led agenda. The graduate attributes that are
required to develop employability in students is also a contested area, with even employability
itself being a contested concept. There are different ideas associated with the term ‘graduate
employability’ and what constitutes ‘employability’ is much debated in the literature (e.g.
Tomlinson & Holmes, 2016). Dominant approaches refer largely to ‘human capital’ and ‘skills
based’ approaches to graduate employability. The ‘human capital’ approach permeates
government narrative and is presented as a simple equation where students are encouraged to
see higher education as an investment which will mean more financial gain and higher wages
than non-graduates. This approach ignores features such as geographical location and access to
jobs, however. It also does not take account of other inequalities such as social class, gender,
and ethnicity. In relation to the skills based approach to employability, Tomlinson (2010) argues
that this is also too simplistic, as employability involves far more than the possession of the
generic skills listed by graduate employers as desirable, suggesting that it is more to do with the
individual graduate attributes. Dacre, Pool and Sewell (2007) offer a practical model of graduate
employability which presents a more developed approach, suggesting that any knowledge and
skills gained can only be unlocked through a process of reflection and through the development
of self-esteem and self-attribution. They emphasise that graduate employment relies more on the
graduate’s ability to navigate the labour market and self-manage their career. Furthermore, the
HEA have produced a Pedagogy for Employability (Pegg, Waldock, Hendy-Isaac, & Lawton,
2012) as a guide for practitioners in higher education, strengthening the view that employability
should be a key priority for institutions and that whilst the teaching of skills still features
strongly, so too does the ability of graduates to negotiate the job market.
1.2. Challenges in Higher Education
There is now a strong market culture in higher education, evidenced by the introduction of
tuition fees, interest-bearing student loans, the aggressive marketing of courses, the weight
given to university league tables, and by the explicit positioning of students as customers, not
least of all by the current Conservative government. The role of higher education is changing,
driven by a growing instrumentality from the government on its purpose. Boden and Nedeva
(2010) examine the ways in which neoliberalism has impacted upon universities. They suggest
that neoliberal states, such as the current UK context, have developed increasingly sophisticated
technologies of control over universities, i.e. funding streams and the strong emphasis on
measures of graduate employability. The increase in market competition between higher
3
education institutions has meant that students now have more choice over which institution to
go to. According to Morgan (2012) this has resulted in students being better informed and more
demanding, so providing a high quality student experience is imperative to an institution’s
success and survival.
As funding is a key driver, governments have followed these changes up over the years with
measures of accountability. Each year, institutions are asked to provide more and more statistics
on student outcomes as evidence of their worth. One such measure of accountability is the
student satisfaction rating in the form of The National Student Survey (NSS) for English
universities. This is an annual student survey for final year students run by the funding body the
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), which asks students to rate their
experiences. In HEFCE’s words:
The National Student Survey (NSS) gathers students’ opinions on the quality of their
courses. The purpose of this is to contribute to public accountability, help inform the
choices of prospective students and provide data that assists institutions in enhancing
the student experience (HEFCE, 2018).
From the 27 core questions on the 2017 NSS, six are relevant to main focus of this research, the
personal tutor (PT) role. Three of these (questions 12, 13 & 14) ask about academic support and
whether the student is satisfied in terms of contact, advice and guidance. Question 21 asks
whether the student feels part of the learning community, 24 asks whether the student feels
valued, and 27 asks about overall satisfaction..
Also relevant to this thesis and the changing higher education context is the Teaching
Excellence Framework (TEF), which was introduced by the Government as a trial in 2016 and
added to existing national quality requirements (DfE, 2016). It is described by HEFCE as a
scheme for recognising excellent teaching and provides information to help students choose
where to study. The results published in June 2017 placed universities in one category from
Bronze through to the highest award of Gold. Although the award is said to be voluntary, the
government has indicated that universities who have a TEF award will be able to increase their
tuition fees in line with their award. Both the NSS and the TEF reinforce a business model in
higher education and encourage competition among universities, placing the student experience
at the centre. Currently, the institutional contributions for the TEF are at the overall
department/faculty level but there are indications from HEFCE that this will move towards
more individual tutor measures of teaching excellence (DfE, 2016).
Mynott (2016) offers a helpful conceptual framework to contextualise the role and impact of the
personal tutor, which demonstrates the links between changes on the different levels of context.
4
She suggests three levels to the context, ranging from policy introduction to practice
implementation at the macro, meso, and micro-levels. At the macro-level is the wider context of
policy change and initiatives introduced by the Government; at the meso-level the university
responds to these with changes to their own strategies and polices. Finally, at the micro-level,
the policies are then enacted in practice. Changes in government policies at the macro-level
have placed a greater emphasis on the student experience and student support. The 2011 White
Paper (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills), for example, made clear the overarching
importance for institutions to focus on the student experience. The 2015 Green Paper followed
up on teaching excellence, with a clear link between effective student support and positive
degree outcomes. The subsequent 2016 White Paper further embedded student support as a key
priority for all higher education institutions. At the meso-level the university then has to respond
to the new policy demands; in relation to student support, this might mean an update to their PT
policy. The PT will then deliver this directly to the student at the micro-level. The relationship
between policy introduction and implementation can be seen as both a top-down and bottom-up
process whereby one has the potential to impact the other.
Another key challenge for institutions comes from the government’s widening participation
agenda, which has resulted in a more diverse student body. Morgan (2012) outlines that student
diversity derives from changing demographics, and changes in study mode and entry
qualifications. Differences in the student population can include students from lower socio-
economic backgrounds with fewer resources, who may also be the first in their family to go to
university. Mature students, students with disabilities, and students from different cultural
backgrounds may also be sources of diversity in the student population. Students today have
more complex lives and may have competing demands and priorities on their time (McInnes,
2001, p. 4) with more students having to supplement their loans with paid work to fund their
studies (Morgan, 2012). This diversity may contribute to a different kind of student body and
changing study patterns which diverges from the traditional view of students and may not be
fully recognised by universities. Morgan (2012) emphasises the necessity for HE providers to
understand the nature of the student body to be able to improve the student experience, as this
can be a source of discrepancy between students and tutors’ expectations.
1.3. Impact of the changing Higher Education context
The impact of the changing context of higher education will now be explored, specifically in
relation to the impact on academic staff, the relationship between student and tutor, and student
expectations. These aspects have been identified in the literature as key concerns and factors
which can impact directly on the student experience.
1.3.1. Impact of the changing Higher Education context on academic staff
5
As universities struggle to compete in an ever more marketised world, this has a trickledown
effect on tutors. Tutors are now more accountable in terms of time spent on activities and are
more target driven and outcome focused (McCulloch, 2009). The Research Excellence
Framework (REF, 2014) is a more research-led agenda and in the next version of the REF in
2021, the first since the Stern Review (2016), HEFCE has confirmed that all academic with
‘significant responsibility for research’ will be required to submit at least one research output to
the REF 2021 (HEFCE, 2017). The pressure of the REF may mean that tutors may be less
inclined to interact with students outside of class. In addition, students attending large research
universities experience a large student-staff ratio, which may further limit the opportunity for
direct interaction between tutors and students (McFarlane, 2016). There is currently no
individual incentive or reward for being a good teacher and developing relationships with
students, compared to the individual measurements, accountability, and ultimate accolades
associated with research publication. Arguably the newly introduced Teaching Excellence
Framework (TEF, 2016) is designed to be an incentive for teaching excellence. It is expected
that this will move from being an institutional submission of excellence to departmental/faculty
level in the next few years, thus making individuals more accountable for quality provision in
their teaching roles. It is possible that this will result in a shift towards more equality in
recognition between research and teaching; however at this point this is mere speculation.
1.3.2. Impact of the changing Higher Education context on student-tutor relationships
In terms of how students fit within this context, one of the key debates is how students are
positioned and referred to in relation to their relationship with tutors and the institution and this
has implications in terms of structuring perceptions and actions (Kuhn, 1996). The dominant
metaphor for this relationship which has developed since the 1970s, is that of ‘student as
consumer’, a term that originates in the marketplace (Palfreyman & Warner, 1998). The use of a
metaphor implies a way of thinking and seeing that influences how something is understood
(Morgan, 2007). The ‘student as consumer’ model implies the university acts as a provider of
products and services (in the higher education context this might be programmes of study and
support) of which the student acts as a consumer. This model comes from a business-led
agenda, where higher education has been marketised to reflect the state’s interest in higher
education as a driver of economic development. This interest has changed the landscape of
higher education in that it has been made available to more of the population, with a degree
qualification being positioned as an imperative to competition in the current market. Coupled
with this was the government’s move to students making a much higher contribution towards
their tuition fees (as detailed above). The ‘student as consumer model’ can also be seen to have
evolved from the broader context in which the consumer society has developed and how this has
contributed to the co-modification of higher education (Kaye, Bickel, & Birtwistle, 2006).
6
A key issue with positioning the student as consumer is that it shifts perceptions of the
educational experience to a product rather than a process. It also presents a risk in terms of the
shift in the purpose of university from liberal goals traditionally associated with higher
education towards more instrumental and career-oriented goals. Student expectations of the
curriculum may become associated more with high employer relevance (McCulloch, 2009), as
outlined earlier, in relation to the shift towards an employability agenda in HEIs. Another
impact of this may be that students become more passive and expect everything to be given to
them, rather than taking responsibility for their learning, as well as a shift towards more
instrumentalism.
This positioning of students can been seen in The Higher Education White Paper (2011) which
includes comments and recommendations on the financing of students and positions them as
consumers as they are the ones with the financial power to make choices. The then Coalition
Government encouraged HEIs to introduce new courses to offer increased value for money and
suggested institutions increase diversity in choice of provision and the sector. Here, the
government explicitly linked increased student choice to increased financial power and suggests
that more diversity is a way to increase value for money. This consumer approach to students is
clearly linked to the further marketisation of universities and competition between providers.
Positioning the student as a consumer of goods also encourages a more individualistic approach
to learning, which promotes the individual at the expense of community (McMillan & Cheney,
1996). It may therefore implicitly suggest that competition, rather than co-operation, is the way
to get on in the real world. This has implications for student integration in university life, both
in terms of academic and social aspects, which may affect the individual student’s sense of
belonging and overall student experience. There may also be negative consequences of this for
society and for the individual in terms of social fragmentation and a decline in social capital
(McCulloch, 2009).
The ‘student as consumer’ model could be seen to have some positive effects, however,
particularly in terms of driving the quality of provision. Universities have had to examine what
they do and make improvements due to increased accountability to the state and competition
from other institutions. Moreover, the balance of power shifts from the power base at the
institutional level to the individual student level, strengthening students’ rights.
Another implication for these changes may include increased tutor anxiety due to rising
competition across HEIs and increased pressure in the role from different agendas (e.g. research
and employability) which may increase and result in removing the more challenging work of
student support from the tutor role. Pressure may also come from the students and institution to
raise marks and outcomes due to raised anxiety and expectations around productivity and
7
success. This may also lead students to express concern and dissatisfaction if they do not
understand the work straight away and are presented with work that is challenging, placing
tutors under more pressure to bend to student expectations in a clear move towards
instrumentality. How a relationship is viewed and constructed has implications in terms of what
we expect. Defining the relationship students have with the institution as early as possible in
that relationship can therefore serve to establish the nature and expectations of that relationship.
In addition to these challenges in student-faculty interaction, the quality of the student-tutor
relationship should not be presumed, which presents an area for further exploration and
research.
1.4. Key issues
A key issue and concern for universities is the quality of the student experience, as universities
are now accountable through student satisfaction measures such as the NSS and compete with
other universities in the hope of attracting prospective students. More and more factors are
being added each year by the government to the overall measures of the student experience (e.g.
graduate employability statistics). According to Morgan (2012), the ‘student experience’
encompasses all aspects of student life, i.e. social, welfare and support, with the academic
aspects as central. The importance of a high quality student experience has also been
highlighted in research, for example it has been found to improve retention rates and aid with
student progression (Jones, 2010). As it can be the deciding factor in an institution’s ability to
attract prospective students, universities need to provide a high quality experience. This is
challenging in an environment where institutions are experiencing increased student numbers
but also pressure from reduced government funding and constrained resources, however
(Morgan, 2012). Furthermore, student expectations may be changing due to the aforementioned
marketisation of higher education and the explicit positioning of students as consumers. This in
turn may impact on students’ experiences of university; specifically it may change the nature
and expectations of the relationships between students and tutors, and students and the
institution. All of these factors need to be taken into account in relation to their impact on the
student experience.
1.5. Impact of the changing Higher Education context on student expectations
This next section will explore the impact of the changing higher education context on student
expectations and provide support for the importance of research in this area.
1.5.1. Sources of expectations
Students’ expectations of higher education can be informed by factors such as their background
and previous educational experiences. By their very nature, students may vary in many respects 8
such as demographic factors, e.g. age, gender, race, and socioeconomic background. They may
also differ in terms of their previous educational experiences and the route they have taken into
higher education. Some may have taken the more traditional route of A-Levels, whereas others
may have come through less traditional routes, such as a college course or as mature students
through an access course. Individual factors such as personality, motivations, aspirations
(Mancuso et al., 2010) and a first-year student’s abilities (Kuh, Gonyea, & Williams, 2005) can
also be reasons for differences between students. Other sources of differing expectations of
university may come from external sources, such as from hearing about other people’s
experiences (family, peers, tutors), viewing socio-cultural images from, for example, media
representations and university marketing (this may come in many forms such as direct
advertising, open days, contact with tutors, and representations of Higher Education whilst in
Further Education).
These differences could be sources of varying expectations. These expectations may impact the
students’ future experiences and their interpretations of and responses to these experiences.
Students could, for example, have expectations of university based on their previous college
experiences in terms of levels of support; this may in turn influence the student to expect the
same level at university (e.g. Bates & Kaye, 2014). If there is a difference in terms of what the
student expects and receives, the student may become dissatisfied and respond in different
ways. Upcraft, Gardner and Barefoot (2005) indicated that students who found the first year less
academically challenging than expected experienced disappointment and this resulted in a
reduction of effort in their studies.
1.5.2. Changes in student expectations
The changing context of Higher Education through the massification of university and the
increases to tuition fees have changed the relationship between the student and the institution.
With this inevitably comes changing attitudes and expectations (McCulloch, 2009). The shift in
terms of fees has meant a shift in perceptions and expectations of degrees and outcomes,
particularly in relation to employability. Government rhetoric sets students up to expect that if
they simply ‘invest’ in their higher education they should expect higher wages and better
financial prospects than non-graduates. Morgan (2012) believed student expectations would
increase in response to the increase in student fees and associated debt increase when the fees
were raised from £3000 to £9000 per year. Specifically, he speculated that students would
expect an increase in the quality of the student experience and an increase in their perceived
value of their degree in the employment market. A significant motivation and expectation for
many students is that their degree will greatly enhance their employment prospects (Bates &
Kaye, 2014).
9
As outlined students are paying more for their degrees and this brings with it a growing
consumer culture in HE where students are expecting and demanding a high quality service
from their institutions in terms of both facilities and support (Jones, 2010). This may also mean
a shift in responsibilities, driven by the economic exchange and outcome-focused students.
There has perhaps been a shift in students’ concerns about the outcome of the degree and they
may feel under increased pressure to get a good degree, followed by a well-paid job as
justification for the cost of the degree (Moore, McNeil & Halliday, 2012). Together with the
increases in tuition fees, Morgan (2012) suggests that as the concept of students being
customers becomes embedded in university culture, there will also be an increase in student
complaints if institutions fail to deliver an excellent quality student experience.
1.5.3. Importance of student expectations
The importance of understanding student expectations is emphasised by Kuh, Gonyea, and
Williams (2005) as they state that expectations can form the basis of an implicit contract
between the student and the institution. An example of this may be that the student chooses the
university they feel will offer more in terms of educational gain and personal career advantage.
If the experience fails to live up to expectations, however, this contract may be damaged or
broken. Not meeting expectations may cause the student to feel disappointed, which may in turn
impact on a student’s level of engagement and satisfaction (Mancuso et al., 2010). This adds an
affective component to the cognition/behaviour link in that the impact of unmet expectations
has an emotional dimension.
Further support for a focus on study expectations comes from Olsen et al. (1999). They outline
two main theories on expectations. Firstly, they suggest that expectations can serve as sense-
making or interpretive schema for filtering experiences to determine what is or is not an
appropriate and meaningful activity. The second theory suggests that expectations can act as a
stimulus or deterrent to behaviour. Both of these suggest a link between cognitions that form the
expectations and the outcome behaviour. In the student context, student expectations may be
used to help them make sense of their learning experiences and can also influence their levels of
engagement through influencing their attitudes.
The changing patterns discussed here provide some explanation and may contribute to an
understanding of a more complex student body with more complex needs. This may also
contribute to increased pressures on the delivery of HE where there are increased expectations
on students and staff in the context of competing demands from a more diverse student body.
With more complex needs and changing expectations, the role of the institution to support the
student and enhance their student experience becomes more difficult. The challenges are even
greater due to growing evidence (e.g. Morgan, 2012) which acknowledges the need to take a
10
more holistic and personalised approach to each student which acknowledges their life
experiences, study experiences, and future plans. It is not realistic to expect the student to
separate their personal and university life, as the two are entwined and one can impact on the
other.
It seems then that a priority for institutions is to develop a better understanding of student
expectations and the sources and impact of these expectations. Institutions should not presume
to know what their students want or need (Gidman, 2001). For example Gallagher and Allen
(2000) investigated student expectations at the start of the first year and compared these to the
actual experiences reported in the follow up survey at the end of the first year. Survey results
indicated that where gaps existed between student expectations of support and their experiences,
students felt let down and confused. A gap or mismatch between what the students expected and
what the institution provided has clear implications for the institution in terms of the student
experience.
1.6. Personal tutoring in Higher Education
This section will explore some of the ways universities have responded to the challenges and
changes previously discussed, focusing on the provision of student support through a personal
tutor (PT). One of the ways in which universities can respond to improve the student experience
is by the provision of effective student support. The way in which the PT role functions can
differ between institutions, but typically students are allocated a PT at the start of Year 1 and the
support offered can be either or both personal and academic. The following section provides an
overview of the importance of personal tutoring in the current higher education context and look
at some of the issues faced by tutors and institutions. It will then provide support for the impact
of personal tutoring on student expectations and experiences of higher education, especially in
terms of the relationships students have with the institution. This provides a justification for the
choice to focus this thesis on the personal tutor role.
1.6.1. Importance of the personal tutor role
The personal tutor plays a key role in the student experience at university (Thomas, 2006) and
has been described as an ‘anchor’ for support systems within the institution and provides a
consistent presence through some of the challenges of the first year at university (Owen, 2002).
Grant (2006) states that personal tutoring originates from the need to provide support for young
people living away from home for the first time when starting university. The role is also seen
to embody the student’s relationship with the university (Gidman, 2001) and is described as the
human face of the institution (Wootton, 2006). The transition to HE can be problematic,
particularly for those students who may be first in the family, community or social network to
11
go to university. Quinn et al. (2005) propose that this can result in ‘academic culture shock’.
Students can often feel like outsiders and a sense of not belonging and this can be due to
unfamiliar teaching methods and unapproachable staff (Thomas, 2012). If they are able to
engage with peers, academics and other staff at their institutions, however, this can help to
foster a sense of belonging, which in turn promotes retention and students reaching their
potential (Thomas & May, 2011). The PT role seems ideally suited to supporting students
through the early stages of the transition and has been found to be crucial in building a sense of
belonging and improving retention (Thomas, 2006). The complex needs of a new student body
may mean that the PT can also provide a gateway to other support services (Ody & Carey,
2013). Ody and Carey emphasise that success in higher education depends on a partnership
between the student and the institution and this has the potential to be fostered through a
student-PT relationship. The relationship a student has with their PT has also been linked to
many successful student outcomes. It has been found to increase self-concept and motivation
(Cokley, 2000), increase student satisfaction through feeling connected (Palmer, O’Cane, &
Owens, 2009), and forms the basis for future learning (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014).
Much of the research around student support focuses on the first year student experience.
Brinkworth et al. (2009) highlight the difficulties around the transition to university. They
suggest that a successful transition to university is not just about academic ability, but it also
depends on whether students can quickly adjust to the new learning environment. According to
Bates and Kaye (2014), students seemed prepared for more independent learning at university,
particularly among students who came through the A-Level route. What may be problematic
here is that there seems little recognition in the literature on how this occurs or a clear definition
of what ‘independent’ means.
Students reported feeling uncertain about what to expect at university (Thomas, 2006) and
needing help with social and academic integration (Brinkworth et al., 2009). Yorke et al. (2008)
identify the first year as the most important in determining student success, particularly for
those students who are underprepared. They emphasise the need for programmes to include
regular contact with staff to provide some consistency and continuity of support. The research
outlined here suggests that student support needs to be at the right time and according to the
student’s individual needs. Furthermore, the PT has the potential to help student through some
of these challenges of the first year.
Personal tutoring as a system of support operates broadly in higher education institutions in
different forms. These differences can depend on numerous factors, for example the institutional
approach to personal tutoring. In some universities, the PT may offer only academic support,
whereas others offer both academic and pastoral support through the personal tutor system
(Aynsley-Smith & Marr, 2006). More recently, universities are adopting a hybrid approach
12
which combines different models in attempts to meet changing student support needs
(Stevenson, 2009). In addition to PT support within the department, support may also be offered
through central support services, for example.
Por and Barriball (2008) state that personal tutors have wide ranging responsibilities and that
this can lead to role confusion and ambiguity. This is particularly true in the context of widening
participation, which brings with it students with potentially complex support needs, further
contributing to the contested nature of personal tutoring (Watts, 2011). Riddell and Bates (2010)
interviewed personal tutors, who expressed concern that there was not enough time to address
students’ support needs and issues due to the increase in students with complex differences
relating to both their personal situations and learning contexts. They felt that this time restriction
had the biggest impact on vulnerable students’ needs not being met. Owen (2002) suggests the
timetabling of PT hours to ensure PT availability and suggests that regular contact is likely to
generate better relationships between students and staff.
One of the key issues identified in the research, which can be a barrier to providing effective
student support, is that academic staff may not feel capable or confident in dealing with
complex student issues (McFarlane, 2016). Academic staff can often lack confidence in their
ability to offer support, which could be particularly true for supporting students suffering with
mental health difficulties (Smith, 2008). Providing tutors with training and support would mean
that tutors would be better equipped to deal with the diversity of student demands and issues.
McFarlane (2016) outlines PTs’ views on what they feel would work best. They stated that
rather than the typically offered one-off course at the start of their academic position, the
training actually needed should be dynamic and on-going. This approach would help in a
number of ways, as it would develop their confidence and capabilities, whilst also supporting
them through the emotional demands of being exposed to distressing student circumstances.
Given the importance of the personal tutor role and differing expectations and experiences of
personal tutoring found in previous research, it seems there is a need for further exploration.
The literature review highlights the need for a focus on students’ views, as much of the existing
research tends to focus on tutors’ perceptions of personal tutoring and research from the student
perspective is scant.
A possible way to study student perceptions is through the application of the psychological
contract (PC). In support of this, Koskina (2013) suggests that the PC is capable of shedding
new light on the nature of student expectations in higher education. O’Toole and Prince’s
(2015) findings support its usefulness as a lens through which to examine perceptions of the
relationship between students and universities.
13
1.7. The psychological contract
The psychological contract is of interest in many research areas, predominantly in
organisational relations and psychology, due to the possibilities it offers in understanding how
the employment relationship functions beyond those features which are explicitly articulated
(Rousseau, 1995). This section will provide a brief overview of the usefulness of the
psychological contract in exploring relationships, thereby providing a rationale for its use as a
framework to understand the personal tutor-student relationship (for a full review of the PC
literature see Chapter 3).
The PC has been used widely to explore the nature of exchange in relationships, predominantly
between employers and employees in a work context. Earlier research on the PC emphasised
beliefs and expectations of the relationship (e.g. Schein, 1965), however this changed to beliefs
about promises and obligations after Rousseau’s (1989) reconceptualisation. ‘Promises’ are now
the preferred term when defining the PC in research, as this is more clearly contractual, making
it easier to measure empirically than expectations, which are believed to have a more general
meaning (Conway & Briner, 2005). Rousseau (1989; 1995) defined the PC as the individual
beliefs that are shaped by the organisation, as well as the terms of the exchange between
individuals and their organisation. Although the PC is held by the individual, it can also be
shaped by the organisation. The PC is thought to develop from actual or implied promises made
by organisational agents during the recruitment and socialisation process, so it contains both
explicit and implicit aspects (Rousseau, 2001). The PC develops through a series of reciprocal
exchanges and interactions so that interdependency develops in reaching desired outcomes.
These exchanges generate perceptions of obligations and rules of exchange and if both parties
comply with these rules, this leads to a trusting relationship over time (O’Toole & Prince,
2015).
There are two main areas of research focus; the contents of the PC and what happens when the
PC is breached (Conway & Briner, 2005) Promises made by the organisation constitute the
contents of the PC (Rousseau, 1995) and need to be fair and fulfilled in a reciprocal and
ongoing way if both parties are to feel satisfied with the relationship. Although there is no
consensus in the research on the contents (i.e. promises) of the PC, they are generally
categorised into transactional and relational aspects. Transactional contracts are explicit and
tend to relate to economic exchanges, while relational contracts are implicit, socio-emotional,
and value-based aspects (Morrison & Rousseau, 1997).
The PC is used by organisations as a framework for understanding employee attitudes and
behaviours towards their work (Conway & Briner, 2005). It is also used to manage and
negotiate the terms of the exchange relationship, so that a more balanced PC can be developed
14
whereby employees feel that their organisation adequately fulfils the obligations they perceive
are due (Cassar, Buttigieg, & Briner, 2013). Employees are likely then to reciprocate with
favourable attitudes and behaviours, e.g. improved job performance. A balanced PC has also
been found to improve employee well-being and job satisfaction (Coyle-Shapiro & Conway,
2005).
When employees perceive the employer has not fulfilled their obligations, however, this
constitutes a breach of the PC (Rousseau, 1989). This can be accompanied by strong emotions
such as anger, which can impact negatively on employee attitudes and behaviour (e.g. reduced
performance, poor behaviour and considering leaving, according to Robinson & Rousseau
(1994)). These responses serve to rebalance the PC for the individual and reduce the level of
negative emotion (De Vos et al., 2003).
Individuals have been found to respond differently to breach. This can come from individual
differences, as well as the employee’s view of the perceived cause of the breach (Cassar et al.,
2013). Due to the implicit and subjective nature of the contract, individuals can perceive a
breach regardless of whether there was one (Montes & Zweig, 2009). This subjectivity may
contribute to most employees’ experience of a breach of PC in their employment relationship
(Turnley & Feldman, 2000).
1.7.1. The utility of the psychological contract in a Higher Education context
Although the psychological contract has predominantly been used in organisational contexts to
understand employee-employer relationships, the concept has been extended into other contexts,
e.g. education settings (Kolb, Rubin, & McIntyre, 1984). O’Toole and Prince (2015) highlight
that research using the PC in a higher education context is scant, particularly from the student
perspective. A potential issue here might be that the PC has derived from the employer–
employee relationship, which might be significantly different from other kinds of relationships
such as those involved in a higher education context.
The first to extend the PC construct into a HE context were Charlton, Barrow and Hornby-
Atkinson (2007). They suggested the potential of the PC to offer insights into the implicit
agreement and expectations of the contractual relationships between students and lecturers
about the nature of their exchange. They also identified the PC as a significant predictor of
retention in higher education. Extending these findings further in research for the HEA, Hornby-
Atkinson et al. (2008) explored the difference between PCs of students and their tutors. Gaps
were revealed between the expectations of staff and students in terms of lecturer availability and
the amount of paid work students felt they could engage in. There were also discrepancies in
15
expectations of becoming an independent learner at university, with students expecting a higher
level of support than tutors seemed prepared for.
Bordia, Hobman, Restubog, and Bordia (2010) studied the PC in one specific relationship in
HE, that of student and research supervisor. They found that students had expectations of
equality and emotional support and the effort they put in was expected to be matched by the
supervisor. They looked at the effects of a breach of contract and found that students who
experienced higher levels of breach experienced less psychological well-being and project
satisfaction.
More recently, Koskina (2013) explored the nature of the content of the PC (i.e. perceptions of
promises made) and found that for students in higher education, the contract consisted of
transactional, relational, and ideological aspects. From the student perspective, they were
obliged to pay for the degree, attend lectures, and submit work on time (transactional) and in
return tutors should provide support and be available (transactional), show they care (relational)
and be genuine in their endeavours (ideological). An important step by Koskina was the
identification of three parties in the relationship: the student, tutor, and the university, in which
the tutor is the agent of the university.
These findings suggest that the PC could be a useful tool for exploring student perceptions and
expectations in HE. More research is needed, however, as so few studies have been conducted
and these have been limited due to their narrow focus either on specific areas of the contents or
breach. In addition, HE has undergone significant changes in recent years, not least of all the
increases in student fees. It therefore seems reasonable to suggest that the student PC has also
changed and needs further examination.
1.8. The specific research context
The institution where this research was based, Edge Hill University (EHU), operates a hybrid
approach which combines a traditional pastoral model with a curriculum approach to personal
tutoring. Stevenson (2009) highlights that more universities are offering personal tutoring using
a mix of approaches in an attempt to meet student changing needs. At EHU, students are
allocated a PT in their first week at university, who then serves as a central point of support. In
line with a pastoral model, students go to their personal tutor with any problems and the
personal tutor will signpost the student to other appropriate forms of support such as student
services (e.g. for academic issues) and counselling (e.g. for personal problems). In addition,
using a version of the curriculum model, each student has to meet with their PT three times in
the first year as part of a skills-based module requirement.
16
The current policy on personal tutoring at EHU was developed in 2010 following an internal
institutional audit and is underpinned by research. It is outlined as providing:
...a well-planned, monitored and evaluated Personal Tutor system which impacts upon
students’ sense of belonging, cohort identity, personal development and academic
success. It is expected that students will participate in planned engagements with tutors
as part of their taking responsibility for their own learning (EHU, 2018).
Prior to 2010, the institution also operated a pastoral system, but it was less explicit in terms of
the minimum expectations of the role compared to the current policy. The other major change
was the shift to emphasising the shared responsibility of both student and PT in the relationship.
Although the personal tutor policy is produced at the institutional level, even with these
changes, how this works in practice depends on the department, as “...Each department/area will
produce documentation on their local implementation of the Personal Tutor system”. The
university requires that the PT role expectations should be communicated to students via the
programme handbook and this is given to students in their first week at university. The policy
states that “It is required that: a) the system of personal tutoring and the role of the personal
tutor will be clearly defined, for students, in the student programme handbook”.
1.8.1. Research rationale
In light of the current context and the changing landscape of higher education and competing
demands, understanding the nature of students’ relationship with the university is essential.
Given the current higher education focus on the student experience, institutions also need to
understand how students’ expectations are perceived and understood and how they impact on
the student. This will enable universities to respond effectively in terms of what support is
provided. One way to further understand students’ experiences and expectations (of the personal
tutor and of higher education more broadly), is through an exploration of students’ experiences
of the student-personal tutor relationship.
The use of inductive qualitative methods in this study offers the potential to provide new
insights which could be used to develop theory. Using a case study approach allows for deeper
exploration of a unique and situated example and the study of a single phenomenon may
provide an instance of a broader phenomenon and therefore could be used to understand similar
cases (Bryman, 2015).
17
Two focus sessions were conducted, one in 2010 (see Chapter 5) and one in 2016 (see Chapter
6) with two different groups of students at the end of their first year at university. Through a
qualitative comparison of the analysis from the two focus groups, this research will aim to
explore and understand student perceptions of expectations and experiences of the role of the
personal tutor at two different time points (pre- and post- tuition fees increase). From this it will
provide further understanding about the nature of the personal tutor-student relationship in a
changing higher education context as experienced by first year undergraduates. A more in-depth
interview study will then be conducted in Chapter 7 to follow up the findings from the focus
group sessions and to explore individual students’ experiences of their PT. The utility of the PC
as a framework for understanding that relationship will then be considered in Chapter 8.
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) will be used to interpret the data produced by
the focus sessions and interviews. This is a flexible method which will allow for new insights
and the exploration of lived experiences. It will be used to explore the nature of the interactions
in the student-personal tutor relationship (Willig & Rogers, 2013) and has the potential to
uncover how students make sense of their experiences and give them meaning (Smith, Flowers
& Larkin, 2009). IPA was also chosen because it allows for exploration of experiences at the
individual level and also the convergences and divergences within the group, to allow for more
general claims about the experience of personal tutoring (Smith, 2008).
1.8.2. This research
The overall aim of this thesis is to explore the experience of personal tutoring in higher
education from the student perspective. It will address the gaps in the research in a number of
ways:
i) It will explore expectations and experiences of personal tutoring in a changing
higher education context
ii) It will explore the student perspective
iii) It will ascertain the usefulness of the Psychological Contract in providing a
framework for understanding the relationship between student to personal tutor and
shedding new light on the nature of student expectations.
Specific research questions:
1. What are the origins, nature and impact of student expectations of their personal tutor?
2. What is the nature of the student-personal tutor relationship?
3. How does the relationship between student and personal tutor develop?
4. What are the outcomes associated with the PT-student relationship?
5. Does psychological contract theory have anything to offer in addressing questions 1-4?18
1.9. Overall
This chapter has identified some of the more generic challenges and changes within the higher
education context. It has also outlined some perspectives on understanding student expectations
and the nature of the relationships students have with their institutions. It has provided a
rationale for the focus of this thesis by outlining the importance of the personal tutor role and
how the psychological contract can be used to understand the relationship the student has with
their personal tutor. The next chapter will provide a literature review of the research on and
around personal tutoring in higher education.
19
Chapter 2 Personal Tutoring Literature Review
2.0. Chapter overview
The previous chapter outlined the background for this thesis and the higher education context.
This chapter will consider the research on personal tutoring in relation to the current higher
education context in the UK. It will come from the perspective that the personal tutor role has
something to offer in terms of responding to the current challenges faced in higher education,
such as increasing student/staff ratio, competing demands on staff time, and changing student
expectations. It will start by outlining the development of the personal tutor role in higher
education. Drawing on relevant research, it will explore different models and approaches to
personal tutoring, whilst also highlighting some of the challenges for both personal tutors and
institutions in ensuring the system is effective and appropriate in supporting contemporary
student needs.
2.1. Background to personal tutoring
Personal tutoring systems are widely used in UK higher education institutions (Mynott, 2016)
and has a longstanding tradition of supporting students (Grant, 2006). The Personal Tutor (PT)
role is, however, often ill-defined and lacks focus in its objectives (McFarlane, 2016). Despite
this, the role has been linked to many positive outcomes and is viewed as central in providing
student support and contributing to the overall student experience (Thomas, 2006). Positive
outcomes include an increase in academic ability, which contributes to successful transition
from school/college to university (Brinkworth et al., 2009), higher academic self-concept and
motivation (Cokley, 2000), and improved retention (Thomas, 2006).
Research interest in the PT role developed from major changes in higher education in the 1990s,
focusing on how universities responded to these changes with regard to student support. In
1992, John Major’s Conservative government granted university charters to a number of former
polytechnics and colleges of higher education and in doing so provided opportunities for higher
education to a wider population. Increasing student numbers brought increasing student
diversity, placing institutions and existing systems of support under strain (Stephenson &
Yorke, 2013) and this led to a surge in interest from researchers to investigate how existing
systems coped with the changes.
In response to increases in student numbers, the quality of personal tutoring in higher education
in the UK was questioned and reviewed by the Higher Education Quality Council (1994). It
identified a number of issues, including a system under strain and struggling to cope. They also
20
found that there were huge variations in provision and that the personal tutor role was often not
fully acknowledged by the institution. From this review, a framework for guidance and learner
support in higher education was produced, which stated that it should be learner-centred,
confidential, impartial, equitable, and accessible.
Further changes in higher education came after the Dearing Report (1997) which recommended
an increase in student numbers to meet the needs of a developing economy. The Government
response was to introduce a widening participation agenda, leading to the ‘massification’ of
higher education. This resulted in a more diverse student body with accompanying needs which
existing support systems struggled to cope with. Thomas and Hixenbaugh (2006) emphasised
the growing necessity for effective personal tutoring to meet individual student support needs.
The next major impact on higher education came with changes to funding mechanisms and
increases to student fees. Fees of up to £1000 per annum for undergraduate courses were
introduced by cross-party agreement in 1998 by Tony Blair’s Labour Government. These
increased again in 2006 following the Higher Education Act 2004, which allowed universities to
charge up to £3000. The most significant increase, to £9000 per year, came after the Browne
Review in 2010 when the Conservative Government agreed the increase. This was then
implemented by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government in 2012 (Palfreyman
& Tapper, 2016). In 2017, yearly tuition fees were increased again to £9250 by the current
Conservative Government. The impact of these increases is a source of much interest and debate
in both research and the media. Tensions surrounded the increasing view of students as
‘consumers’ of higher education. This increasing marketisation of higher education and changes
to funding mechanisms have meant a growing focus for institutions on the student experience,
specifically transition, retention, and support (Mynott, 2016). The PT can be seen to play a key
role in all of these factors.
2.2. Personal tutoring models and approaches to student support
In the next section, the role of the PT will be explored together with its definitions, moving on
to an overview of institutional approaches to the provision of personal tutoring.
Defining the role of the PT has been identified as a challenge for anyone interested in the role.
As early as 1993, Wheeler and Birtle suggested the importance of the role, defining the PT as an
‘anchor’ for the university support systems, providing academic help, reducing student anxiety,
and incorporating concern for the welfare of students. They believe that all students would
benefit from having a PT, claiming it can enhance the student experience. Traditionally the role
is pastoral and is said to have originated from prior to 1970 when universities acted in loco
parentis for students under twenty one (Grant, 2006). Despite the changes to the higher
21
education context outlined above, since then, the pastoral model predominates (Mynott, 2016).
Wheeler and Birtle (1993) describe the PT as an academic member of staff whose functions
include monitoring progress, personal development, confidant, and a student representative who
provides a link between the student and the institution. Along similar lines but more recently,
Thomas (2006) outlines the role of PT as providing, “...information about higher education
processes, procedures and expectations, academic feedback and development; personal welfare
support; a relationship with the institution and a sense of belonging” (p. 22). Ody and Carey
(2013) describes personal tutoring as typically providing front-line academic support for
students. He goes on to state that the PT should provide gateway access to wider academic
support within the institution and act as a conduit between the student, the curriculum, and the
pastoral support available. Gidman (2001) suggests that PT role expectations are all-
encompassing and include teaching, counselling, and support, but acknowledges a lack of clear
guidance for PTs. Riddell and Bates (2010) reported on what PTs felt the benefits of the
relationship were for the student. They felt the meetings created a safe environment in which
they could offer critical feedback, thus developing student resilience and contributing to future
employability. In this sense resilience relates to an individual’s ability to adapt and cope with
the demands of the current jobs market (Rossier, Ginevra, Bollmann, & Nota, 2017).
In terms of institutional approaches, Earwaker (1992) is influential in PT literature for his
identification of PT models. Any research after this point on personal tutoring is not complete
without reference to this seminal work. He argued for an educational model, based in academic
departments, in which support is provided by academic personal tutors. Three broad approaches
to support systems were indicated by Earwaker (1992) as pastoral, professional, and curriculum
models.
The pastoral model traditionally offers guidance on personal and moral issues as well as
academic support. A specific member of staff is assigned to each student and given the
responsibility of providing pastoral care and guidance throughout their course. The professional
model operates on the basis that the member of staff acts only as a point of referral and would
‘sign-post’ the students to appropriate services within the institution. These are usually trained
members of staff who are appointed for this role, such as the Personal Training Unit at the
Cardiff School of Management (Levy, Nicholls, Marchant, & Polman, 2009). In the third
model, the emphasis is on the curriculum itself, whereby support and information about the
operation of the university, and the allocation of a personal tutor, are incorporated into an
accredited module. McFarlane (2016) outlined that personal tutoring in this approach is usually
timetabled and attendance is a requirement for both PTs and students. Stevenson (2009)
reported on a pilot of this approach at the University of Westminster.
22
In the curriculum model of personal tutoring, learning skills, information about the operation of
the university, the operation of Personal Development Planning and the allocation of a personal
tutor etc. are all incorporated within an accredited course/programme/module. The aim of the
curriculum model is to show students what the institution expects of them, to help them towards
a better understanding of their own learning processes, and to encourage them to help
themselves. In the curriculum approach, helping students is seen as a normal part of the course,
rather than an add-on for which time needs to be found. Owen (2002) interviewed students and
found there was much support for incorporating personal tutoring in academic teaching, as they
felt that seeing their personal tutor in a small group teaching context helped them to build their
relationship. This integrated approach makes development central to the learning experience,
rather than other approaches which are remedial (positive and proactive, compared to
negative/reactive). A curriculum system relies on the student seeking out the personal tutor,
which may pose a problem for students who may be hesitant in asking for support. This was the
case in Thomas (2006), where non-traditional students were most affected. In Hixenbaugh,
Pearson and Williams (2006) students stated that they would prefer a more structured and
proactive approach, where personal tutors arrange regular meetings with the tutees.
The approach a university takes to student support has implications for how students are viewed
and positioned. Underpinning each model is a conceptual framework which Myers (2013)
suggests is derived from its own context and history and this shapes the ways in which students
are constructed. She posits the concept of need as underlying approaches to student support and
this positions the student as vulnerable and in need of protection by university staff. The choice
of support model has underlying assumptions and this shapes the way student autonomy is
valued. Accessing support is either, “...normalised or pathologised, conveying messages to
students about their capabilities” (Myers, 2013, p. 592). Implicit in the pastoral model are
assumptions that students are vulnerable and in need of care by university staff. This deficit
approach to student support positions students as lacking in capability; this seems at odds with
the general mission of higher education to develop independent learners and has implications
for how students see themselves.
The pastoral approach also relies on students making contact when there is an issue or need. The
inference here is that students should know at what point to ask for help, but also that the system
is reactive and problem based. This again has negative undertones in terms of positioning the
student as problematic, in need and demanding of help. Alternative models such as the
curriculum model normalise student support; it is provided without being asked for. The
message here is that the university recognises that students will need help and provides a clear
solution-focused structure to facilitate this. It seems some universities recognise this and have
moved towards introducing a formal structure for personal tutoring, for example, the University
of Westminster (Stevenson, 2009). Jacklin and Le Riche (2009) asked students what they found 23
more or less helpful in their learning and felt this meant they could identify what they felt
helped them achieve as well as what resources they made use of. They felt this helped them to
take a proactive approach rather than constructing a ‘need’ for support within deficit discourses.
Whilst Earwaker (1992) has been influential in developing models of support specific to
personal tutoring, Tait (2004) has influenced the development of concepts of support more
generally. He describes pastoral support, similar to Earwaker’s model, as support framed around
caring for those in need. The Social Democratic model of support is described as an approach
which privileges and cares for the victims of a capitalist society, while the Patriarchal Model
frames support as caring for disadvantages inferiors. He also described two further models,
which he argues relate more to the current higher education context. The Community Model
involves self-help and helping each other, and the Business Model concerns the delivery of
customer services to the student consumer.
2.2.1. Institutional Approaches
A review of a number of systems of personal tutoring in HE suggests that different schemes and
approaches have been introduced in response to the changing context and challenges to student
support in higher education and these will be outlined next.
In response to growing student numbers at the University of Hertfordshire Business School,
Bunce (2006) developed and introduced a ‘One stop shop’ approach which is based on
Earwaker’s (1992) professional model. This replaced the traditional personal tutoring system
and offered a student support and guidance office with full-time members of staff whose only
role was student support. Explorations of staff perceptions and experiences of this approach,
using in-depth interviews, suggested that a problem-driven student support system which does
not provide integrated pastoral care for students was limited. Staff felt that this approach did not
adequately support students at times of crisis, particularly when the issues are of a more
personal nature. This is further supported by research on student perceptions at the University of
Westminster, where a similar professional model was adopted and support was offered
centrally. Students reported that they wanted a more proactive and structured approach to
personal tutoring, in which they were able to develop a relationship with a specific tutor
(Hixenbaugh, et al., 2006). Developing a relationship with a PT is particularly important given
their role in enhancing academic relations, student retention, and overall satisfaction (Hartwell
& Farbrother, 2006; Thomas, 2006).
An alternative to the academic and pastoral support system was developed and introduced at
Manchester Metropolitan University in an attempt to meet the needs of a large and diverse
student population. Academic support was offered by a personal tutor and Student Support
24
Officers were located within faculties (Aynsley-Smith & Marr, 2006). They suggest that this
model bridges the gap between academic support offered locally by personal tutors and
centrally by specialist student services. Grant (2006) also supports this approach and argues for
a stronger relationship between the two, suggesting that this would strengthen and improve the
links between different levels and types of support. It would also address some of the issues of
personal tutors feeling overburdened by maximising the use of institutional resources.
A curriculum model of personal tutoring was introduced at Bournemouth University. Hartwell
and Farbrother (2006) reported on the project, the stated aims of which were to enhance the first
year experience and improve student progression and retention. The new induction program
started prior to entry and extended into the first year. They suggest that this offers students a
sense of security and a feeling that the university cares about their well-being. Wheeler and
Birtle (1993) support a curriculum model approach and suggest embedding the PT role into
personal development planning (PDP). This would seem a good fit with the general aim of this
kind of module, which is to develop students and the role of the PT. Wheeler and Birtle (1993)
posit that PTs should facilitate the personal development of their tutees, monitor their progress,
provide a link between their tutees and the university authorities, and be a confidant for their
students. More recently, Smith (2008) suggests that embedding personal tutoring into PDP
would be effective in exposing students to their personal tutor and potentially building a
relationship and trust. She specifies that staff would need expertise in PDP to be effective,
however, as without this the tutor may lack confidence in their teaching and ability to build
rapport and respect with students. This would clearly be counterproductive if trying to build a
relationship. Lee and Robinson (2006) suggest a more flexible and dynamic approach to student
support, one which offers the student choice. They developed an integrated and holistic system
at Southampton Solent University in response to research. The study suggested that their
students wanted to manage their support network by understanding how to access the services
that would meet their needs and to choose the most appropriate person to support them at that
time. They suggest that this can be achieved by delivering an effective network of student
support involving academic and support staff working together.
An issue with much of the research published on personal tutoring approaches in institutions is
that it is largely based on action research methods. This type of research usually ends with
institutions proposing to implement the new approach and take up recommendations from the
findings (e.g. Lee and Robinson, 2006). It is therefore difficult to evaluate these studies due to
the lack of follow up studies after the implementation to determine the outcomes and
effectiveness of the new approaches. Moreover, it is difficult to evaluate which approach works
best and in what context and make generalizations from this. Many institutions are trying out
different approaches in an attempt to cope with the shifting nature and demands of the higher
education context due to the growing support in the research for the PT’s impact on student 25
outcomes. This is supported by a review of all of the post-1992 North West University websites,
including EHU.
Three universities are currently using the professional approach, where student support is
outside of the department and in a ‘Wellbeing’ support centre (Hope in Liverpool, LJMU, and
UCLAN), two are using the traditional pastoral model (EHU and Salford), two operate a
combined pastoral and curriculum approach, and only the University of Bolton offers a
combined pastoral and professional approach. An interesting finding from the University
League Tables (2018) is that Hope in Liverpool University has risen 24 places to one of the
highest student satisfaction scores in the country (4.39) and they offer a professional approach
only to student support. One might assume from this that a professional approach is better as
this approach produces higher student satisfaction, however there are a number of other factors
that may confound this outcome. When comparing Hope’s figures to other North West
Universities, Hope has relatively low undergraduate numbers (a third of EHU numbers and the
lowest of the 8), low entry requirements (304), and its research quality rating is at the lower end
(2.21). The degree completion rate is also the lowest of the eight at 78.8%. It is possible to
speculate that any of these factors could contribute and combine to impact student satisfaction.
2.3. Importance of the Personal Tutor role for first year students
There is much support in the literature for the focus of research to be on the first year student
experience. The transition into university and adjustment to a new learning environment have
been identified as key challenges for students (Brinkworth et al., 2009) as students often feel
unprepared. Taking on findings from Wheeler and Birtle (1993), Owen (2002) suggests that the
PT should form a sound base through the transition into university. The PT has been found to
have a facilitative effect of on both academic and social integration (Barefoot, 2000) and can
support students through the process of becoming engaged and inducted into university life
(Thomas & Hixenbaugh, 2006). Yorke et al. (2008) identify the first year as the most important
in determining student success, particularly for those students who are uncertain about what to
expect at university. Regular contact with staff, together with consistency and continuity of
support, can also help students through some of the challenges of first year (Yorke et al., 2008).
Feeling connected to the institution and their learning experiences is key to success (Thomas &
Hixenbaugh, 2006). Brinkworth et al. (2009) highlight the need for students to be able to
quickly adjust to the new learning environment where they are expected to be more autonomous
and take more individual responsibility for their learning. The personal tutor is ideally situated
to provide timely support and identify ‘at risk’ students at an early stage, thus has the potential
to directly increase retention rates (Thomas, 2006). Upcraft et al. (2005) state that inadequate
attention is given to enhancing student learning in the first year and that academic success rates
are low as a consequence. Thomas (2006) argues that personal tutoring can enhance the student
26
learning experience, with Stephenson (2009) suggesting that this can be achieved in the context
of a PT meeting by enabling the students to make connections between different learning
experiences. The importance of the personal tutoring role should place it at the centre of the
student learning experience (Wootton, 2006). Grant (2006) states that PTs are uniquely
positioned to identify a student having difficulties at an early stage in their degree and offer
appropriate support.
Stress experienced in the first year is much higher than stress experienced prior to university
(Krieg, 2013). This has been attributed to the notion that student expectations of higher
education do not match their actual experiences. First year students have unclear expectations
on entering higher education and high levels of anxiety and uncertainty associated with this
(Brinkworth et al., 2009). Brinkworth et al. (2009) go on to state that students did say they
expected university to be different, but still expected similar levels of support to what they had
experienced in their previous educational context, with 80% of the students expecting ready
access to tutors. Upcraft et al. (2005) identified that students found the first year less
academically challenging than expected and this could result in feeling disappointed and
reducing their effort in relation to their studies. The educational route students take into higher
education is also a source of differing expectations in relation to levels of support, with Bates
and Kaye (2014) finding that those students who had taken the A-Level route had lower
expectations of support. Students felt that this was the case because their A-Level tutors had
prepared them for more independence. In contrast to this, Quinn et al. (2005) found that A-
Level students felt underprepared for the academic challenges of their degree and can
experience an ‘academic culture shock’ from the shift to a higher level of learning. In a large
scale study of over 1500 students, Thomas (2006) reported that 62% of students had considered
leaving due to not understanding the differences between learning at school and learning at
university. Students who attend a preparatory course prior to starting university tend to have
more realistic expectations of university than those who did not (Bennett, Kottasz, &
Nocciolino, 2007).
Bryne et al. (2012) highlight the challenge for educators to facilitate students with differing
expectations to achieve common learning outcomes. A source of dissatisfaction for students was
when experiences of PT support did not match their expectations. Mancuso et al. (2010)
discovered that this can lead to withdrawal or disengagement from any future attempts to
interact (Mancuso et al., 2010). This offers strong support for the need to prepare students with
an explicit articulation of expectations regarding the role of the PT, or the relationship may
suffer (Ross, Head, King, Perry, & Smith, 2014).
In the context of a highly competitive higher education sector, a degree education is marketed as
available and achievable by all with the consequence of a more diverse student body with
27
complex needs. Factors which may relate to first year transition and outcomes include socio-
economic variables, psychological variables, pre-university variables, course variables, and
academic variables, as well as characteristics related to institutional and extra-university factors
which may affect the decision to leave university (Georg, 2009).
In trying to explore the influence of socio-economic factors, Georg (2009) refers to Bourdieu’s
(1986) Habitus theory. This theory has been very influential in the Social Sciences and is a way
to provide insights on the impact of class in different contexts. Habitus refers to the idea that
institutions have their own set of social and cultural practices and ways of doing things
(Thomas, 2006). Bourdieu suggests that students from upper classes enjoy a competitive
advantage over students from lower classes because they have more knowledge and
understanding of social and cultural practices in the higher education context. He refers to this
knowledge as ‘cultural capital’ and suggests that these students are more likely to successfully
integrate into the institutional context and adapt to practices as they have internalised more
cultural capital due to their background and class which can be operationalised when entering
higher education. These students therefore have a better habitual fit between their culture of
origin and the university subject culture. This has been linked to reduced drop-out rates and
increased success at university (Tinto, 1975). Students from a lower income background, in
addition to the academic challenges, also have to adjust and integrate into the new cultural
context and social systems of the university and are therefore at a disadvantage compared to
upper class students. This is not the case for all students from lower income background
however, as those students with previous academic experience and a family background in
higher education (and therefore more cultural capital) have more realistic expectations, which
contribute to successful adjustment and integration into university life (Krieg, 2013).
Georg (2009) collated survey data from the Konstanz Student Survey across all 279 German
universities and found that 95% of the variance in drop-out factors could be attributed to the
individual level. Drop-out factors included early consideration of change of subject, low
achievement motivation, overall stress of student life, and time allocated for classes. The effect
of social origin on the tendency to drop out had a weaker effect than expected and seems to
matter less than in the UK higher education context (Thomas, 2006). This may be due to
differences between the UK and German cultural contexts, a discussion which is beyond the
scope of this research.
In terms of psychological explanations, factors such as cognitive abilities and motivational
aspects have been found to make a difference in whether a student persists (e.g. Gerdes &
Mallinckrodt, 1994, in Georg, 2009). Individual attributes such as intellectual competency and
working style were identified by Tinto as factors which also relate to student drop-out (1975).
Any consideration of student outcomes in the first year must also consider the institutional
28
characteristics of the subject area, such as the transparency of assessments, regulations, and the
quality of teaching and advice, as these can impact directly on the student experience (Georg,
2009). Expectations of success and the subjective value of the degree can predict academic
performance and staying at university. This is influenced by the student’s academic self-concept
(Ethington, 1990, in Krieg, 2013). Previous educational experiences can also influence first year
expectations and outcomes due to difference in academic practices and levels of support, which
contribute to the student’s ability to adapt to university. Students who experienced a high level
of personal and academic support at college are likely to struggle with the level of expected
independence at university (Krieg, 2013).
Actually making the decision to drop out may come after much deliberation and time, as it is
potentially a life altering event and comes at a high cost. Georg (2009) suggests that from the
perspective of action theory, there is only a moderate relationship between attitudes toward an
action and the initiation of this action itself. In fact Thomas (2006) highlighted that up to 42%
of the students in her study had considered leaving university, but this translated to only 8%
who actually withdrew. This may be due to many factors combining to influence the decision
over time, making it difficult to empirically measure the effect of any one specific factor. The
suggestion here is that actual withdrawal from university may not be the only point to consider,
as the decision is influenced by many factors and can develop over time and through different
experiences. The implication is that students may consider withdrawal long before they
withdraw or may not actually withdraw and continue to be unhappy throughout the degree. Any
research on the student experience therefore needs to account for this. Dissatisfaction with the
course on some level may lead to withdrawal behaviours such as students developing less
motivation, consequently spending less time in classes leading to poorer student outcomes
(Georg, 2009). There is no one simple explanation for students’ reasons for wanting to leave,
rather a complex interplay between institutional conditions, individual decisions and
characteristics. Differences between students as outlined above are likely to be a source of
differing expectations of HE. This indicates some of the complexities of the student experience
(Ramsden, 2008) and the diversity in relation to student support needs (Thomas, 2006).
Bates and Kaye (2014) explored student expectations through a series of focus groups and
found that many students who came through the A-Level route did not expect a high level of
support prior to university, as their A-Level tutors had prepared them to become ‘independent
learners’. Bryne et al. (2012) highlight the challenge for educators to facilitate students with
differing expectations to achieve the desired common learning outcomes. Differences between
what the student expects and receives in terms of support have been found to link to feelings of
dissatisfaction, which may in turn lead to withdrawal or disengagement from any future
attempts by the PT to interact (Mancuso et al., 2010). Given the socio-cultural and economic
29
pressures on current undergraduates the need for effective student support has never been
greater.
2.4. Personal Tutor-Student relationship
There is much support in the literature for the positive effects of developing a relationship
between PT and student. Student-faculty interaction bears significant implications for positive
student outcomes, suggesting that increasing student-faculty interaction could address some of
the challenges in the first year (Upcraft et al., 2005). According to students, a supportive
relationship increases their self-concept and motivations, compared to those with negative
experiences (Cokley, 2000). Malik (2000) identified the importance for students of the
interactional and relational aspects in the support they receive at university. The most effective
forms of support that all students identified, irrespective of student characteristics, tended to
have a personal or inter‐personal dimension. Through developing a relationship with their PT,
students can develop more of a sense of belonging at university. This has been found to increase
student satisfaction through connectedness (Palmer, O’Kane, & Owens, 2009) and the student-
tutor relationship is seen as a precondition for learning (Hagenhauer & Volet, 2014).
Malik (2000) identified the most common issues university students needed to talk to someone
about. These included work expectations, stress, workloads, personal issues, and reassurance of
capability. Sources of support identified in order of importance to students were friends, family,
university tutors and support staff, suggesting that the PT plays a significant but not exclusive
role in supporting students.
The quality of the relationships between academic staff and students is a key influence on
student retention (Thomas, 2002). What constitutes ‘quality’ in the context of the relationship is
an area of concern for some, however. Hangenaeur and Volet (2015) state that any assumptions
that more interactions lead to better quality should be avoided, as not all interactions are
positive or lead to positive outcomes. The quality of the relationship has more to do with
genuine feelings of connectedness than the amount of time spent (Stephen et al., 2008). That
said, investigations into the frequency of interactions conclude that the more out-of-classroom
interactions, the better the quality of the relationship (Dobransky & Frymier, 2004). This could
be due to out-of-classroom interactions allowing for more one-to-one personal encounters which
contribute to the developing relationship. Moreover, any interactions need to be both sustained
and meaningful to be effective (Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005).
As the relationship develops, getting the balance right between care and dependency is a
concern for some tutors. Hanegnauer and Volet (2015) suggest that this relates to uncertainty
around what ‘care’ means in an adult-adult relationship in higher education and also the degree
30
of expected dependency or independence. There is an assumption of independence at university,
but this may conflict with expectations of tutor support, particularly in relation to first year
integration into university life. Furthermore Holmes, Rupen, Ross and Shapera (1999) discuss
the risks associated with allowing a relationship to become too close due to the unequal power
distribution between tutor and student. They suggest tutors need to be mindful of boundaries in
the relationship and avoid being seen as a friend or being too informal. PTs wanted students to
take responsibility for their learning as relationships were seen as two-way. Developing a
relationship with students is essential, as PTs saw themselves as lynchpins and lifelines for
students and key to them developing confidence and self-efficacy (Riddell & Bates, 2010).
The relationship between student and tutor is described by Hagenauer and Volet (2014) as
having two separate dimensions, the affective and the supportive. ‘Affective’ elements concern
the bond that is built between the student and tutor, which then forms a secure and positive
relationship. The ‘supportive’ dimension is described as the support which needs to be provided
through the relationship for the student to be successful at university. The supportive elements
are seen as the markers of the quality of the relationship. Positive interpersonal relationships
between students and tutors are described as including features such as respect, connectedness,
and care by Komarraju, Musulin and Bhattacharya (2010) and as supportive, comfortable, safe,
and enjoyable by Anderson and Carta-Falsa (2002). Having someone who cares is important to
students; they see this as adding value to the degree experience (Stephen, O’Connell, & Hall,
2008). The opposite is also true as Bates and Kaye (2014) found a link between perceptions of
‘not caring’ and detrimental effects on the student experience, which in turn has implications for
the institution through measures of student satisfaction (e.g. the NSS).
Expectations and understandings of the relationship have been found to have some context
dependency. Sander, Stevenson, King and Coates (2000), for example, found that psychology
students rated the importance of personal relationships with tutors more highly than business
students. The teaching context can also influence the relationship, as opportunities to interact
may be less in more formal teaching contexts, such as lecture rooms (Hagenauer and Volet,
2014). Kim and Sax (2009) found that student differences in background may present
challenges in terms of barriers to interaction with faculty. They highlighted that institutions
need to do more to understand how and why these differences occur, for example how lower-
class and first-generation students experience faculty contact differently (Kim & Sax, 2009).
Riddell and Bates (2010) explored the relationship from the perspective of the personal tutor. In
a series of interviews and surveys with 24 PTs, PTs expressed concern that in their current
pastoral system students did not have to engage in the relationship and could either sidestep
meetings or attend the meetings but not engage. Effectively, it became just a ‘tick box exercise’.
This meant, according to the PTs interviewed, that there was too much reliance on the
31
individual tutor as to whether there was engagement in the role. They felt this impacted on
issues not being addressed and vulnerable students not being supported. In the context of
widening participation, PTs felt that this was made worse by increased student numbers with a
greater complexity of both personal and learning needs. From their findings, Riddell and Bates
(2010) felt a proactive approach would work better, as time could be given to developing more
positive relationships and holistic approaches to student support.
Riddell and Bates (2010) acknowledge that the specific relationship does not always work due
to clashes in personalities or different teaching styles, so there should be an opt-out clause if the
relationship is not effective. It should be ok for either party to express if the relationship is not
working for them.
Although sparse, a number of studies have looked at the experience of personal tutoring from
the student perspective, for example Hartwell and Farbrother (2006). The focus sessions and
interviews revealed mixed experiences with positive comments relating to valuing the
relationship they had with their personal tutor and the advice they received. Negative comments
related to lack of structure in their meetings, lack of availability, and the desire for more
academic support in relation to specific aspects of the course.
Exploring personal tutoring from the student perspective, Earwaker (1992) highlighted that
students had a number of issues with their experiences, specifically that the provision was both
unclear and inadequate. A lack of consistency in staff availability was also an issue for students.
Owen (2002) explored student experiences at a North Western University, which operates a
curriculum model. This study suggested that there was ‘no common experience’ of a personal
tutor. He identified a difference between what students expected from a personal tutor and what
was delivered and referred to this as a gap in expectations. Students experienced uncertainty in
what they could legitimately ask of a personal tutor. This seems hardly surprising given that the
exact role of the personal tutor is often not specified within institutions (Thomas, 2006) and the
wide range of PT responsibilities which can lead to role confusion and ambiguity (Por &
Barriball, 2008). Beggs et al. (2004) reported more student satisfaction with their personal tutor
meetings when they were given clear guidelines on what should be discussed at each meeting.
They felt that the guidelines added some clarity to what the meetings were for and acted as a
starting point for further discussions. It could be suggested from this that a clear structure and
guidelines are useful at the start of the relationship to provide a framework for the meeting.
Docan-Morgan and Manusov (2009) identified turning points in the student-tutor relationship
which can have long-term implications for the relationship, for example help in a crisis,
discussions regarding future careers, and self-disclosures.
32
A barrier to interactions can be the perception that the personal tutor is too busy with other
students and research. Stephen, O’Connell and Hall (2008) found that because of this, students
were too afraid to approach their PT and ask for support. Students also experienced uncertainty
in their perceptions of whether their PT seemed interested in helping them; this was associated
with the risk of getting a poor response back from the PT (Jaasma & Koper, 1999). Whether
there would be any benefit from the interactions also comes into the decision making process.
The context of the interaction was also found to influence the relationship, as a lack of space
was found to be a barrier to positive interactions. Developing a positive relationship was found
to be difficult where interactions were infrequent (Jaasma & Koper, 1999).
Given the potential of the PT-student relationship to affect both student and university
outcomes, Hagenhauer and Volet (2014) suggest that a key objective for research would be a
greater focus on student-faculty interactions. They suggest a specific focus on how the
relationship develops and the quality of the interactions. It is important to also explore the
consequences of interactions, as this can affect both students and tutors and has the potential to
impact the quality of teaching and learning in higher education (Trigwell & Shale, 2004).
Hagnehauer and Volet (2014) suggest exploring real life interactions to find out more about
how the student-tutor relationship develops.
2.5. Challenges to the Personal Tutor role
The main challenges for the traditional pastoral model of personal tutoring are around
increasing student numbers and increasing student diversity. As detailed above, students are not
one homogenous group. PTs in Riddell and Bates’ (2010) study felt that this diversity had led to
an increase in students with complex differences, relating both to their personal situations and
learning contexts. More students are having to work part-time to support themselves through
university, for example, placing them at more risk of stress due to a lack of time to study
(McFarlane, 2016). Watts (2011) states that given the socio-cultural and economic pressures on
current undergraduates, the need for effective student support has never been greater. Meeting
the needs of individual students has become more difficult, however, and PTs expressed
concern at the lack of time they had to support their tutees. They felt this led to a ‘fire-fighting’
approach where most of their time was given to ‘problem students’ at the expense of others’
academic needs. This is supported by Mynott (2016), who identified the invisibility of work
outside of timetabled meetings, for example a lot of time and effort was spent chasing up
students who did not engage with the PT support offered or turn up for meetings.
Concerns were expressed that the needs of vulnerable students in particular were not being
supported. This provides support for a curriculum approach as a way to overcome this lack of
equity of support for students. In addition Owen (2002) found that timetabling PT hours into the
33
curriculum generates better relationships between students and staff. Thomas (2006) an ‘opt-
out’ approach whereby support is the norm rather than an ‘opt-in’ approach where students have
to choose and act.
Tutors are time pressured and have many competing demands on their time such as research,
administration, teaching and learning, and student support (Por & Barriball, 2008). In addition
to this are the changing trends in higher education, which alter according to the universities’
requirement to compete with other institutions. In the current context, an example of this is the
employability agenda, whereby universities are under pressure to increase their activities linked
to student employability (Tomlinson, 2017). The omnipresent Research Excellence Framework
(REF) means that staff are mandated to produce research and performance is measured
accordingly. Research is accorded a high status in higher education and although the
universities market themselves on the success of their student experiences, student support is
not afforded equal status (Tomlinson, 2017). The impact of this is that tutors are under
increasing pressure to research and publish and this may reduce time available for student
interaction. More worryingly, tutors may be less inclined to interact with students outside of
class given this pressure. A further consequence of this might be that it is down to the individual
tutor to care, driven by their conscience to interact, whilst also juggling research and students
(McCulloch, 2009). This has the unfair consequence of placing those tutors who are more
student focused under more time pressure and more institutional pressure.
Despite a multitude of evidence supporting the usefulness of the PT, the PT system is not
flourishing in higher education and Vinson et al. (2010) suggest that a contributing factor is that
staff are unwilling to participate. They speculate that reasons for this may be that they do not
see pastoral support as being part of their role, as well as being under pressure to produce
research (Wingate, 2007).
Whilst some universities have a suggested timeframe for personal tutors to meet with their
tutees (e.g. twice per semester) the Researcher could find no evidence that systems were
monitored at the case study university. Furthermore, PTs did not appear to be accountable for
this, nor were any checks conducted on the quality of provision. The content of the meetings
seems dependent on the individual tutor. Related to this is the nature of the provision. Students
need clarity and consistency to help with the adjustment to university; however one of the issues
highlighted in the PT research is that practices are far from consistent and can actually
contribute to students’ uncertainty during the transition.
The quality of the experience is generally reliant on individual tutors, who may or may not have
the necessary skills to be an effective personal tutor. One of the key issues identified in the
research, which could be a barrier to providing effect student support, is that academic staff may
34
not feel capable when dealing with complex student issues. Academic staff can often lack
confidence in their ability to offer support and this can be particularly true for students suffering
with mental health difficulties (Smith, 2008). Tutor concerns include a lack of confidence,
worries over boundaries, and high workload (McFarlane, 2016). Another concern expressed by
McFarlane is that PTs are often exposed to emotionally distressing circumstances faced by
students, which PTs may not have the confidence to deal with. Wootton (2006) highlights the
need to develop professional standards and competencies for the PT role. Providing tutors with
training and support would mean that tutors would be better equipped to deal with the diversity
of student demands and issues. Race (2010) also highlights the lack of PT training as a cause for
concern. It is not just an issue around training needs, however; as a lot of the research suggests,
it is more complex than that.
Concerns were also expressed about the emotional consequences of supporting students with
complex needs as they may not have the necessary skills or experiences to deal with distressing
situations (McFarlane, 2016). The research points to a large increase in students with mental
health difficulties being identified. The PTs interviewed by McFarlane (2016) say that on-going
support and developmental meetings would help them to develop confidence in setting
boundaries whilst also supporting students emotionally.
2.6. Current challenges
Much of the research conducted around the student experience and student support is action
research which aims to improve practice rather than to produce knowledge (Gray, 2004). The
main issue with this is that there is no follow up research to evaluate whether the new methods
were successful. Research methods of enquiry into personal tutoring have tended to use
interviews with both students and tutors to examine the personal tutor system (e.g. Owen, 2002;
Bunce, 2006). Much of this is anecdotal, however, and sometimes confidential to those
involved, making it difficult to evaluate. Much of what has been done has tended to focus on
tutors’ perceptions of personal tutoring and recent research from the student perspective is
sparse. Any changes made by institutions to their support systems seem to have had more to do
with the economics of the institution and the beliefs of those with decision making powers,
rather than being based on any solid empirical foundations. This may account for the lack of
consistent approaches across institutions.
A variety of global measures have been utilised to explore and explain the student experience by
focussing on student satisfaction e.g. the National Student Survey (NSS). The results have been
used to provide evidence for the changes made to existing systems of student support. Such
measures are useful on some levels, as they provide quantitative overviews of student views at
the end of their degree in third year. They are also useful in identifying changing trends and the
35
results are used as a marketing tool with which to compare and promote the university’s positive
results. They are limited in a number of respects, however. The NSS in particular relies on
students’ retrospective views of their degree. As such, they often fail to capture early
experiences or the dynamic nature of the student experience through each year. The 2017
version of the NSS contains 27 items relating to the student experience and answers are based
on a Likert Scale. Effectively, responses lack richness or depth and in no way provide a holistic
view of the student experience.
As highlighted by Kahu (2013) there is a need for future research to focus on narrower
populations, including single institutions, as broad generalisations of the student experience do
not capture the diversity of the student experience. An appropriate research methods approach
to capture the dynamic process of the student experience would be the use of in-depth
qualitative methodologies.
The literature reviewed here suggests the need for further research into personal tutoring, as it is
the student’s relationship with the tutor that embodies their relationship with the institution
(Wellin, 2009). This therefore suggests that it has the scope to go beyond that specific
relationship to have potential consequences for the institution. The value of personal tutoring
has been established, as has the need for further research from the student perspective,
particularly in the first year of university.
Evidence from previous research and Bourdieu’s theory (1986) provides support for the
influence of socio-economic factors on retention and student outcomes in the first year. It could
therefore be suggested that any support provided should take account of the influence of
different factors on a student’s starting point. Without effective support through the transition to
university and help with adjustment and integration, some students will struggle. According to
Ody and Carey (2013) a well-structured support and development framework should be
provided for students through the different transition points throughout their programme of
studies. This should include:
Induction to the programme and level of study
Expectation setting
Skills audit
Advice on how to handle problems
Making the transition to an independent learner
Understanding assessment criteria
Interpreting feedback
Advice on module choices
Avoiding malpractice
36
Preparing for placement and undertaking research.
The models and approaches presented earlier in this chapter (e.g. Earwaker, 1992; Tait, 2004)
provide helpful ways in which to consider the nature of student support in institutions. As
indicated by Tait, institutions need to consider their approach to student support in terms of
what implicit assumptions are made and conveyed about students. The provision of support can
construct students as either incapable or capable. The pastoral model could, for example, be
seen to take a deficit approach and construct students as in need of control and protection, and
when they ask for help they are seen as demanding consumers. The curriculum model assumes
help will be needed, however, and provides this proactively and within a clear framework.
Whatever approach to personal tutoring is taken, the key point here is that this can have
consequences for both the PT and the student in terms of expectations and realities of the
relationship. This highlights one of the main issues to be addressed within this research.
2.7. Overview of main findings
i) There is a lack of any consistent approach across institutions.
ii) A lack of clarity in the role contributes towards student uncertainty during the first
year transition.
iii) There is growing recognition of the importance of the PT on student and
institutional outcomes.
iv) There remains a lack of equity between research and student support as there is
more value and accountability in relation to research in institutions.
v) The relationship between PT and student is valued by both parties and linked to
many positive student outcomes.
vi) PTs often lack confidence in the role and this can contribute to the mixed quality in
provision.
vii) The nature of student support has implications and consequences relating to the
implicit and sometimes mixed message this conveys in the way it constructs
students.
viii) Research has tended to focus on the tutor perspective, using interview methods. It
often lacks any follow up evaluation or empirical foundations (see Appendix I for
an application of the findings in this chapter to a case study example).
This research will address a number of the key findings and gaps in the research, contributing
further to the sparse research on personal tutoring from the student perspective. It will explore a
number of key areas, specifically how students experience personal tutoring, what value they
place on the relationship, where their expectations of the role come from, and how this
compares to the reality. It will also explore the impact of the PT relationship on students and the
37
consequences and implications of this. The findings from this study will feed into the EHU
context; specifically it will review the effectiveness of the approaches to PT in the context of the
Psychology Department. From this, it will then make recommendations on how the role can be
improved.
This chapter has provided a literature review of personal tutoring research as one of the main
research areas in this thesis. The next chapter will provide a literature review of the other main
research area, the psychological contract.
38
Chapter 3 Psychological Contract Literature Review
3.0. Chapter overview
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the research on the psychological contract,
detailing the origins and current understandings of the concept in different contexts. There will
be an exploration and analysis of the literature followed by an insight into various conceptual
issues and how these issues pose problems for research. It will then move on to review the
research in different organisational contexts and discuss whether the psychological contract has
anything to offer in terms of understanding the relationship between a student and their personal
tutor in a Higher Education context.
3.1. Overview of the Psychological Contract
The Psychological Contract (PC) is a conceptual framework. In general terms, it is widely
accepted in the research as the perception of two parties regarding a reciprocal exchange
relationship (Rousseau, 1995). It has predominantly been used in a work context to explore
employer-employee relationships and research into its use in other contexts is limited. Prior to
Rousseau’s (1989) reconceptualisation, the PC was concerned more with the beliefs and
expectations of both parties in an exchange relationship. The concept was redefined as a
subjective level phenomenon (Rousseau, 1989). Later, it was defined as the beliefs employees
hold about the terms of their relationship with their employer (Rousseau, 1995) and deals with
the perceptions individuals have regarding promises and reciprocal obligations with the
organisation (Ho, Rousseau & Levesque, 2006). Conway and Briner (2005) emphasise that
expectations and obligations are included in the PC only when accompanied by a belief that a
promise has been made.
The PC can be used to explain behaviour by exploring the extent to which the employee
believes that the employer has kept the promises they perceived were made to them and the
consequences of broken promises. The relationship is based on each party exchanging
something they provide for something the other party provides. If promises are kept, this results
in satisfaction with the relationship and a desire to stay in the relationship. If promises are
broken, however, this can elicit negative emotions and a desire to withdraw from the
relationship. The PC can be used to explore the nature of the relationship, not just the
consequences as with other approaches (e.g. equity and justice). Behaviour can also be
understood by exploring the nature of the exchanges in the relationship and is seen as an active,
dynamic and ongoing process (Conway & Briner, 2005).
Some parts of the exchange are explicit and agreed, whereas others are implicit understandings
of promises made to each other (Bordia, Hobman, Restubog, & Bordia, 2010). Due to its 39
implicit nature, individuals may not be aware of each other’s PC (Robinson & Morrison, 2000)
increasing the likelihood of a breach of contract when one party in the relationship perceives
that the other has not kept to their side of the bargain. Breaches in contract have been found to
lead to detrimental effects and can impact on performance outcomes, e.g. reduced effort in job
performance (Restobog, Bordia, & Tang, 2006). Using an iceberg analogy as a way to
conceptualise the nature of the PC, the implicit aspects of the PC are underwater, unseen and
therefore unknown, but still influencing the relationship. Above the water are the explicit and
seen aspects of the contract that are known by both parties.
Conway and Briner (2005) in their review of the literature identified a key challenge in the
research. This is that the PC has been conceptualised in a number of significantly different ways
and each researcher has defined the concept differently, with little explicit consideration of
competing views of the construct. The result is that the PC had been used in different ways to
research different phenomenon and researchers have accepted the concept without challenging
it. They state that researchers faced a challenge in clearly identifying what it is (the content) and
how it works (the process).
The history and development of the PC can be considered in terms of two major periods, prior
to and since Rousseau’s seminal reconceptualisation in 1989. Up to this point there was limited
empirical development, with contributions coming from various disciplines but mainly from an
employer-employee organisational context. Key theorists and research will be included in each
of the following sections, together with a discussion of the impact of these on the development
of the PC.
3.2. Theoretical origins of the Psychological Contract construct pre-Rousseau’s (1989)
reconceptualisation
The theoretical development of the PC up to Rousseau’s (1989) seminal reconceptualisation
will now be explored and this will include research which has influenced current understandings
of the concept.
Barnard (1938) is credited with the earliest influence on the development and understanding of
the PC. Exchanges within an employment relationship were explored and from this Barnard
proposed the ‘equilibrium theory’. This theory concerns what is given by each party in an
employment relationship to the other (employee-employer). It suggests that for the organisation
to elicit the continued participation of its members, any contributions offered by the employer
must be equal to or greater than the employees’ contribution.
Building on Barnard’s Equilibrium Theory, March and Simon (1958) detailed more about the
nature of the exchange. They proposed an Inducement-Contribution model, which takes the 40
notion of the exchange of contributions further by detailing the nature of the exchange. They
were the first to suggest that the exchanges in the contract include not only explicit but also
implicit aspects and that the employee agrees to both by joining an institution. They further
suggested that these written and unwritten contractual obligations between the organisation and
employee can influence employees’ behaviour in relation to an employee’s decision to
participate in the organisation. According to March and Simon, if an organisation is to remain
solvent, then contributions from employees need to exceed any inducement offered by the
employers. The continued participation of employees depends, however, on their perception of
inducements by employers as being equal to or exceeding their own contribution. This suggests
a reality whereby the organisation has to be in profit to succeed in terms of the balance between
inducements and contributions. For this to work though, they must also create a perception for
employees that they are the ones in profit.
Around the same time as March and Simon, Menninger (1958) provided a major contribution to
the development of the PC. Instead of an employer-employee organisation context, Menninger
explored the PC in a psychotherapeutic context and studied the nature of the psychotherapist-
patient psychological contract. He also introduced the idea that the PC is involved in a range of
interpersonal exchanges. In addition to tangibles such as money and goods being exchanged,
Menninger believed that the contractual relationship involves the exchange of intangibles such
as trust and respect. In terms of the relationship between patient and psychotherapist, the
contract and behaviour of both parties is sometimes influenced in contradictory ways by
conscious and unconscious processes. In any exchange, the reciprocal satisfaction of the parties’
needs is required if the contractual relationship is to be continued. Furthermore, the patient must
remain dependent on the therapist’s services in some way. A major contribution to the future
study of the PC comes from Menninger’s distinction between what is exchanged (i.e. the
content) and how it is exchanged (i.e. the process).
Credit for introducing the term ‘psychological contract’ is given to both Argyris (1960) and
Levinson, Price, Munden, Mandl, and Solley (1962). Argyris was first to apply the PC to a
workplace. His research built on previous understanding of an exchange relationship with
implicit understandings between employees and employer (in this case the foreman). Interviews
with both parties suggested these understandings arose from a particular leadership style and
resulted in shared norms which were the drivers of behaviour. Employees were found to
maintain optimal production if the foreman adhered to the norms of the employee’s informal
culture and did not behave in a way that violated these cultural norms. Argyris proposed that
these cultural norms were the driving factor behind the formation of the psychological work
contract and influenced the predispositions of employees. He also acknowledged that these
predispositions were nonetheless shaped by the workplace. This suggests that cultural norms are
created in an organisation over time and are imbued with implicit understandings which all 41
parties should adhere to for the relationship to work. This is also suggestive that the influence of
individual differences needs further examination, however.
Similar to more recent understandings (e.g. Rousseau, 1989; 1995), Argyris suggested a
reciprocal nature to the exchange, whereby the PC involved actual mutual agreement of what
each party was obliged to do in order to maintain the contract. This allowed for the expression
and gratification of each other’s needs; if employees feel that management is respecting their
right to develop, in return, employees will respect the right of the organisation to evolve.
Interestingly, Argyris observed that both parties on occasion chose to ignore the other’s
unacceptable behaviour in order to maintain a successful ongoing relationship. They were
mostly uninterested in how the other went about their work as long as they performed and
upheld their side of the contract. The PC was seen as an important concept in organisational
research, but was not given any detailed analysis or empirical investigation, and no clear
definition was given at this time.
Levinson et al. (1962) further expanded the concept of the PC and built on Menninger’s (1958)
understanding the influence of both conscious and unconscious processes and identified
expectations as key components of the PC. Investigating the effects of work experience on
mental health, they interviewed 874 employees and noted that expectations were mostly implicit
yet seemed to have an obligatory quality and could influence the behaviour of both parties
towards each other. Levinson et al. (1962) further defined the PC as “a series of mutual
expectations of which the parties to the relationship may not themselves be dimly aware but
which nonetheless govern their relationship to each other” (p.21). Expectations are described as
being ‘mutual’ in the sense that each side of the PC tacitly agrees to the other side’s
expectations. Levinson et al.’s idea of the PC can be summarised as implicit agreement to what
the other party expects of them and is obliged to do.
The expectations of both the individual employee and the company were conceived of as
‘components’ of the PC. This is similar to Argyris in the sense that that there are two sides to
the contract; both Argyris and Levinson et al. believed that there were unconscious and
conscious influences on behaviour deriving from both implicit and explicit agreement in terms
of what constitutes the contract. Argyris was more concerned with what was agreed when
joining the place of work, whereas Levinson et al. saw the contract as constantly evolving and
changing in the work context according to the actions and behaviours of each party. Similar to
Menninger, Levinson et al. suggested that the PC is involved in a range of interpersonal
exchanges (1962).
Levinson et al. (1962) also detailed more about the nature and origin of employee expectations.
Unconscious expectations were thought to frequently pre-date the current relationship and
42
organisation. These included expectations concerning psychological issues such as nurturance,
which may only be revealed indirectly. Conscious expectations were more explicit in nature and
included those to do with job performance, skills, social relations, job security, and economic
rewards. The company’s expectations would derive from the history of the company and
business environment and can be inferred from its business operations, its values, and its
policies and practices. Levinson et al. (1962) diverged from previous research, as they
recognised the dynamic nature of PCs and viewed the contract as evolving over time through
the changing needs of both parties and through reciprocal interactions. An important
contribution to future research was the acknowledgment that PCs can exist between people in
the organisation and were described as “collateral agreements that have a bearing on the person-
organisation relationship” (p. 38).
Schein (1965) was pivotal in the early development and thinking of the PC concept and refers to
both Argyris (1960) and Levinson et al. (1962) in his original discussion of the PC construct. As
with previous research mentioned here, he emphasised two sides to the contract and the implicit
aspects which can influence behaviour (e.g. Argyris, 1960) He also built on Levinson et al.’s
(1962) discussion of a series of mutual expectations between each member of the organisation
and others in the organisation. Importantly, in terms of more contemporary uses of the PC (e.g.
Conway & Briner, 2005) Schein highlights that the PC can be used to understand and manage
behaviour in organisations. Similar to Levinson et al. (1962), he states that in order to maintain
a workable PC, it is interactive, changeable, and is renegotiated over time as both parties’ needs
change.
Schein also proposed that the PC has two levels, individual and organisational. Individual
expectations are forged from the employee’s inner needs and from other sources (e.g. other
employees, traditions, norms, and past experiences). He defined the PC as “ Mutual
expectations which not only cover how much work is to be performed for how much pay but
also involves the whole pattern of rights, privileges and obligation between workers and the
organisation” (Schein, 1965, p. 11). According to Roehling (1997), Schein’s definition of the
PC was used as a key reference until Rousseau redefined the terms in 1989.
Similar to Schein, Kotter’s version of the PC (1973) incorporates expectations of both the
employee and employer. Unlike earlier conceptualisations that defined the PC as involving
agreed-upon expectations, Kotter allows for incongruent employee-employer expectations
within the PC. The notion of ‘matched’ expectations was described by Kotter, meaning that
both parties should agree regarding a given expectation. He defined the PC as “...an implicit
contract between an individual and his organization which specifies what each expect to give
and receive from each other in their relationship” (p. 92). To explore the idea of ‘matching
expectations’ further, Kotter used questionnaires with new employees, their supervisors, and
43
senior managers to measure the extent to which expectations were either matched or
mismatched. According to Kotter, PCs made up of mostly matches in expectations were related
to greater job satisfaction and productivity. He emphasised that the matching of expectations
was as important as mismatches - anything that gave employees either more or less than
expected were both problematic. An employee may expect time off in lieu of extra work carried
out, for example; however, the employer may view the extra work as time given freely through
commitment. Such a mismatch would create an incongruent expectation. Kotter used the
findings from the questionnaires to conduct a workshop in which misunderstandings and
misperceptions identified through mismatches in expectations were discussed and resolved. This
demonstrated an important step forward in the development of the PC through its practical
application.
The research detailed so far has made key contributions to the development of the PC. All these
studies have explored the nature of exchange in organisational relationships, the influences in
these exchanges, and their impact. Early iterations of the PC emphasised the necessity for equity
in contributions to ensure continued participation by employees and recognised the influence of
implicit as well as explicit factors influenced by unconscious aspects. Later work identified the
interactive and dynamic nature of the contract and emphasised expectations, which have an
obligatory quality and can influence behaviour. Kotter (1973) moved this understanding further
by discovering that mismatches in expectations within the PC can be identified and managed.
Also identified in the earlier work is that the contract can exist at the individual as well as the
organisational level and that the PC can be used in different contexts.
4.3. The Psychological Contract post-Rousseau’s (1989) reconceptualisation
The nature of social exchanges in the PC was seen as being more value-based prior to
Rousseau’s reconceptualisation (e.g. Argyris, 1960). Since then, most studies have cited and
drawn on the ideas presented in Rousseau’s (1989) paper. Early definitions emphasised beliefs
and expectations (Kotter, 1973; Levinson et al. 1962; Schein, 1965), whereas more recent
definitions have stressed beliefs about promises and obligations (Herriot & Pemberton 1997;
Morrison & Robinson 1997; Rousseau, 1989; 1995). Conway and Briner (2005) acknowledged
that ‘promises’ have become the preferred term when defining the psychological contract,
because these are seen as being more clearly contractual, whereas expectations and obligations
have a more general meaning. Rousseau’s (1989, p. 123) definition is most widely accepted in
the research and considers the PC to be:
An individual’s belief regarding the terms and conditions of the reciprocal exchange
agreement between that focal person and another party. The psychological contract
emerged when one party believes that a promise of future returns has been made, a
44
contribution has been given and thus, an obligation has been created to provide future
benefits.
These obligations constitute the terms of the PC in the relationship (Rousseau, 1989; 1995;
2001; 2011; 2012). Rather than ‘expectations’, which are more general beliefs, ‘obligations’ are
seen as more contractual. A breach of ‘obligations’ is thus more serious than a failure to meet
expectations (Robinson, 1996). The crucial and defining features of Rousseau’s (1989)
construct are perceived promises, obligations, and reciprocity. Here, beliefs and perceptions are
seen as promises that are a special case of expectations (Rousseau, 1995); whilst obligations
imply that a promise has been made (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Rousseau and McLean
Parks (1993) observed that as obligations are also a form of expectation and not all expectations
held by a person are always promissory or entail a belief in mutuality or reciprocity, the contract
must be seen as a belief about a reciprocal exchange that is mutually understood.
Rousseau’s (1989) definition entails two key conceptualisations. One is that the psychological
contract exists at the individual level (Rousseau, 1998, p.137), and, because it involves beliefs,
is a subjective phenomenon that exists in the ‘eye of the beholder’. This means that perceptions
would differ between individuals depending on their belief systems (Rousseau, 1995). The
second conceptualisation is that individual beliefs involve sets of ‘reciprocal obligations’ to
which both the individual and the other party are believed to have committed themselves
(Rousseau 1998, p. 668). This means an individual believes that an agreement exists because
some sort of promise has been made and considerations are offered in exchange. This view is
supported by the studies of Robinson, Kraatz, and Rousseau (1994) and Tekleab and Taylor
(2003). Guest (2007) argues that obligations in the psychological contract range from those that
are clear and explicitly stated to others that are more informal and implicit. ‘Explicit promises’
are usually close to components of a formal written contract or explicit verbal contract, whilst
‘implicit promises’ are concerned with each party’s perception of what the other party owes
them over and above that which could be specified in the explicit contract.
Given that the PC is an exchange relationship between employer and employee, this raises
questions as to how to compare expectations on the organisational and individual levels.
Organisations cannot be considered as a uniform set of expectations (Schalk & Freese, 1993);
rather a collection of diverse and differing expectations of many individuals (Anderson &
Schalk, 1998). Through Rousseau’s (1989) reconceptualization, a more narrow definition of the
PC as an individual subjective level concept was proposed so that the PC was redefined as an
individual’s belief about mutual obligations. This shifted the perspective from a bilateral
relationship between two parties at different levels (the organisation and the individual) to the
unilateral, singular level of the individual. At this subjective level it is an intra-individual
perspective, which concerns individuals’ perceptions of the obligations of mutual obligations
45
between employer and employee (Freese & Schalk, 2008). Rousseau (1995) further observed
that individual beliefs about perceived promises in an organisational context are likely to be
reinforced by two actors: principals (individuals or organisations that make contracts with
others) and agents (individuals acting on behalf of principals). Individuals then interpret actions
by the agent as actions by the organisation itself (Conway & Briner, 2005). Obligations are seen
as a commitment to future action, however due to the subjective nature of the contract,
individuals may think they have agreed to the same terms but in reality they could be very
different.
Rousseau (1989) suggested that the PC is formed by the individual’s perceptions of their own
and the organisation’s behaviour in terms of explicit verbal or written promises or implicit
promises arising from “...repeated or consistent patterns of observable behaviour by parties to
the contract, ‘...rather than some deeper level motives such as needs” (p. 121). Here, promises
have been positioned as a central feature that distinguishes the PC from more general
expectations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Ho et al., 2006). Compared to previous
conceptualisations emphasising unconscious needs-driven expectations, Rousseau’s approach to
the psychological contract as ‘observable promises’ made it quantifiable and readily
researchable through straightforward research methods, such as questionnaire surveys.
Rousseau’s research meant a fundamental shift in understanding the meaning and functioning of
the PC and how it can be empirically investigated and measured. Guest and Conway (2004)
argue that the PC construct was broadened to include core elements in the relationship of
fairness and trust, with less of a focus on promises made and more on the delivery.
O’Toole and Prince (2015) explain that the PC draws from Blau’s (1964) social exchange
theory which states that individuals will establish and maintain a relationship if they perceive it
to be mutually beneficial. The concept also draws from Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity (1960)
whereby promises made give rise to obligations, creating a compulsion in the individual to
respond and reciprocate (Rousseau, 1995). Individuals will therefore enter into a relationship
and then expect benefits to be exchanged irrespective of other norms of obligations in that
context (Zafirovski, 2005). The PC develops through a series of reciprocal exchanges and
interactions so that interdependency develops in reaching desired outcomes. These exchanges
generate perceptions of obligations and rules of exchange with which both parties in a
relationship must comply. This fosters a trusting relationship over time (O’Toole & Prince,
2015). Based on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), the greater the failure of the
organisation to fulfil its obligations to the employee, the more the employee is likely to lower
their perceived obligations to the organisation (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2002). The other side
of this is that individuals who believe they are valued and respected are likely to reciprocate
with trust and emotional engagement in social exchanges. Along these lines, Coyle-Shapiro and
Conway (2005) found that when an organisation demonstrates care and support for employees 46
by fulfilling their obligations to them, employees are likely to reciprocate with favourable
attitudes and behaviours, e.g. improved job performance.
Critics of the PC concept (e.g. Guest, 1998) call for more research to clarify concepts and
whether it can explain outcomes such as commitment any better than met expectations. Conway
and Briner (2005) also suggest a conceptual overlap between breach and justice. These two
different conceptualisations of the concept have led to confusion and misunderstanding in the
literature on the PC. Anderson and Schalk (1998) highlight this confusion by suggesting that the
terms ‘expectations’, ‘promises’, and ‘obligations’ tend to be used interchangeably in the PC
literature. Montes and Zweig (2009) suggest that the study of employment relations would
benefit from integrating the study of promises, expectations, outcomes, perceptual tendencies,
and contextual factors. Despite these criticisms, however, much of the research continues to
draws from Rousseau’s (1989; 1995) definition and maintains the focus on the more contractual
component of promises in the PC.
3.4. Antecedents of the PC
Research on the antecedents of the PC has demonstrated that promises can derive from a variety
of both implicit and explicit sources, such as organisational agents (e.g. managers, recruiters,
interviewers) through experience and action (e.g. training and encouragement and praise) and
persuasive communication (e.g. advertisements and marketing) (Shore & Tetrick, 1994).
Organisations provide structural signals such as formal compensation systems and benefits,
performance reviews, company paraphernalia (handbooks, organisational literature), mission
statements, and formal written work contracts which all play a key role in the creation of the
employee’s PC (Rousseau, 1995).
Observations of behaviour and how others are treated in the organisational context act as social
cues to inform employees of their own PC. Through these observations and from direct
experiences a ‘schema’ is created. This is described as a mental model which serves to organise
experiences and also govern automatic processes. This mental representation, once developed,
is stable, enduring, and resistant to change (Rousseau, 1995), highlighting the importance and
impact of early experience in its formation. It can be explained as a dynamic mental model of
the subjective beliefs concerning the rights and responsibilities of an exchange agreement
between an individual and an organisation (O’Toole & Prince, 2015).
The alternative view states that rather than involving shared expectations that are driven by
needs that pre-date the relationship, the PC is said to involve subjectively perceived promises
shaped by the individual’s interaction with the employer (Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1994).
3.5. Contents of the PC47
The implicit and explicit promises within an exchange relationship (i.e. the deal) are said to
constitute the contents of the psychological contract (Conway & Briner, 2005). Promises need
not be written down, but can be inferred from situations which signal intent (Bal et al.,
2008).These contents refer broadly to the promises an individual believes have been made to
another party and what the individual believes the other party has promised in return. The
number of items that make up these contents is potentially vast, since they may relate to
anything and everything the interested parties have promised to exchange. As Kotter (1973)
highlighted, the psychological contract could have literally thousands of items, although the
individual could consciously think of only a few. The focus of much of the current research on
the PC is concerned with the contents and structure of the PC and the effects of breach on
employee attitudes and behaviour. The contents of the PC are the promises made by the
organisation (Rousseau, 1995), which need to be fair and fulfilled in an ongoing way for both
parties to feel satisfied with the relationship. In general, there is limited knowledge on what the
contents of the PC are, how they are formed, and how they affect various outcomes.
There is general agreement that the nature of the PC concept is multidimensional (Robinson,
1996; Rousseau, 1995). At the broadest level the PC’s contents (i.e. promises) are categorised
into transactional and relational obligations (Rousseau, 1995) and these are described as being
conceptually distinct in much of the research (e.g. Morrison & Robinson, 1997). ‘Transactional
contracts’ have been described as an economic exchange which is driven by extrinsic motives
(Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993) and characterised by a close-ended timeframe and exchange
of economic resources (Rousseau, 1995). They comprise specific obligations of narrow and
materialistic scope that the individual has promised to deliver in return for monetary reward
(Rousseau, 1990). ‘Relational contracts’ have been described as an emotional engagement that
is influenced by intrinsic factors (Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993) and characterised by an
open-ended timeframe (Rousseau, 1995). They are seen as being more subjective in nature and
are believed to encompass factors such as commitment, loyalty, trust, opportunity for input, and
sense of belonging (Maguire, 2002).
‘Transactional aspects’ relate to explicit rights, obligations, conditions of work and economic
rewards, whereas the relational refers to implicit and social and emotionally based aspects. In
situations where both parties have a shared understanding regarding their relational obligations,
this can strengthen the relationship further and is of mutual benefit (Dabos & Rousseau, 2013).
Relational contracts are more likely to develop with agents of the organisation and this
promotes a sense of security (Montes & Irving, 2008) and commitment to the organisation
(Rousseau, 2011). Within a more relational contract, individuals have more tolerance for breach
and may be more willing to make external attributions about the causes (Ng & Feldeman, 2009).
This is supported by Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory, which asserts that the exchange of
social (e.g. gratitude, respect, love, and support) and material (e.g. economic) resources is a 48
fundamental element in social relationships. This theory stresses that social exchange rests on
the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), meaning that what an individual receives from
another party will be returned in kind.
Although the transactional and relational elements of the psychological contract may appear to
be at opposing ends of the spectrum, there is evidence to suggest that they are not mutually
exclusive. The employment relationship may thus consist of both elements that interact and
impact upon each other (Rousseau, 1990). Rousseau (2000) developed the Psychological
Contract Inventory (PCI) which was designed to measure items in the PC. It incorporated
transactional and relational dimensions and introduced a third type of contract, a ‘balanced’
contract which combines both transactional and relational dimensions and presents a long-term
relational emphasis with features of transactional contingencies (Conway & Briner, 2005). The
job being challenging might, for example, be an intrinsic and relational component, whereas the
pay for the job would fall in the transactional dimension (Kickul & Lester, 2001). The PCI
scales developed by Rousseau measured the transactional, relational and balanced contents in
the PC and suggested that these vary on five dimensions, i.e. tangibility, duration, performance,
time frame, stability, scope. A problem with such research measures, however, is that it is
impossible to include everything in the PC (i.e. content) so measures instead describe features
of the PC to supposedly make it easier to compare across contexts. As stated, most research
supports the distinction between relational and transactional items, but the items found in each
dimension depend strongly on the context (Conway & Briner, 2005). A large scale survey by
Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler (2000) with Local Authority employees revealed a third factor in
addition to transactional and relational factors, which was labelled as ‘training obligations’. This
was seen to be conceptually distinct from other factors. Herriot and Pemberton (1997) outline
stages in the PC development and refer to this as ‘psychological contracting’. The stages of
informing, negotiating, monitoring, and renegotiating suggest more of a process, through which
the terms of the contract are identified and mutually agreed. From here, each party monitors
their own and the other’s contributions so that a negotiation of terms can take place if necessary.
They suggest that this is likely to lead to more trust developing in the relationship and less
likelihood of breach occurring.
3.6. PC breach
The PC is held by the individual but is shaped by the organisation through perceptions of
interactions. It is also adapted throughout the duration of the relationship to take account of the
extent to which each party fulfils (or fails to fulfil) the perceived promises and obligations
(Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Each party acts according to reciprocal norms in that
relationship and will therefore have expectations that the other party will reciprocate such
actions, creating mutual obligations over time. If one party does not reciprocate as expected, this
49
creates an imbalance between contributions (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). With any changes
to the relationship, the individual is motivated to try and make sense of this and will interpret
the changes in relation to how they impact on the individual themselves (De Vos, Buyens, &
Schalk, 2003). Distinctions have also been made between actual and perceived breaches,
although it may be difficult to establish which the case is for individuals due to the implicit and
subjective nature of the PC (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). Rousseau (1995) suggests that both
psychological and social processes underlie the making, maintaining, breaking and changing of
PCs in organisations. This implies that the PC is not fixed, but is a process which can be
impacted by changing experiences and the individual’s interpretations of these.
Rousseau (1989) proposed the idea of ‘violations’, which produced a more intense response
than unmet expectations. In this response, anger lingers and has the effect of changing the other
party’s view of their relationship. This key idea of ‘violation’ provided researchers with a
relatively simple mechanism which could be used to help understand and research relationships
between the psychological contract and outcomes such as changes in attitudes and behaviours.
Concepts of breach and violation are distinct but are sometimes treated as interchangeable,
which makes the clarity and comparison of research outcomes challenging. Morrison and
Robinson (1997) suggest that ‘breach’ refers to the cognisance that the organisation has failed to
fulfil its obligation (i.e. the causes of breach) whereas feelings of ‘violation’ refer to the
outcomes of breach (i.e. the effects). Most research studies refer generally to ‘breach’, however;
this is likely to confound the identification of cause and effect.
According to Morrison and Robinson (1997, p. 230) perceiving a PC breach, “...represents a
cognitive assessment of contract fulfilment that is based on an employee’s perception of what
each party has promised and provided to the other”. A breach of contract can occur if an
individual believes that promises in the contract are unmet and unfilled and the other party has
failed in their obligations (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Conway and Briner (2005) highlight
that research findings are limited around the factors leading to breach, how the PC affects
behaviour, or how often breach occurs. Regardless of whether promises were in fact made, the
individual can still perceive a breach (Montes & Zweig, 2009). This may explain why the
research indicates most employees will experience a breach of their PC at some point in their
employment relationship (e.g. 55% according to Robinson & Rousseau, 1994, and 81%
according to Turnley & Feldman, 2000).
Cassar and Briner (2011) provide an overview of breach as a multi-dimensional construct which
incorporates different components, including delay, magnitude, type/form, inequity, and
reciprocal imbalance. Breach can occur when one party experiences a delay in the provision of
perceived obligations (delay) or that what is received is less than expected (magnitude). A
difference in the type/form of provision of obligation is when one party feel they have received
50
something different than expected. Inequity is experienced when what was received was less
than expected and reciprocal-imbalance is the experience of one party feeling they have
contributed more than they are getting in the exchange. These difference components of breach
influence what causal attributions are made and also how breaches are responded to.
3.6.1. Outcomes of breach
In their meta-analysis of 51 PC studies, Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski and Bravo (2007) suggest
that breach affects emotional reactions in individuals, which then influences positive or negative
evaluations and in turn behavioural and attitudinal responses. Strong emotions can be elicited by
the perception of breach and unfairness in the contract and range from, for example, distrust,
anger, betrayal, disappointment, psychological distress, frustration, to outrage (e.g. Rousseau,
1989). The individual may also change their behaviours towards the organisation in response to
a perceived breach, for example reduced performance, poor behaviour, considering leaving the
organisation (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). Increases in neglect behaviours and decreases in
levels of loyalty to the organisation (Turnley & Feldman, 1999) may also ensue. Other
responses have included a lowering of trust, job satisfaction and commitment to the organisation
(Taylor & Tekleab, 2004). Furthermore, PC breach is negatively related to citizenship
behaviour, which incorporates loyalty and commitment (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000). These
responses have the desired effect of re-balancing the PC and diminishing negative emotions (De
Vos et al., 2003) and can serve as motivation to adapt, modify or leave the relationship (Schalk
& Freese, 1997). The implicit and subjective nature of the PC suggests that the organisation or
agent may not be aware a breach has occurred, but it will nonetheless have a negative impact on
emotions, attitudes and behaviour (Rouseeau, 1995).
Rousseau (1995) expanded on categories of behavioural breach response, defining these as Exit,
Voice, Loyalty, and Neglect. She suggests these differ in terms of whether they have a
destructive or constructive intention and they serve as catalysts to adapt, adjust or abandon the
relationship (Schalk & Freese, 1997). In an Exit response, individuals decide to voluntarily
leave the organisation without engaging in any communication or confrontation. Voice
responses are divided into sub-categories of Considerate Voice, whereby individuals would
makes attempts to resolve the breach together with the other party, and Aggressive Voice, when
individuals would be vocal in their concerns and express these openly without consideration of
the impact on the other party. In this case, individuals may also use any power they have to
attempt to resolve the breach by any other means. A more passive response is found in a Loyalty
response, whereby the individual would accept the breach situation, believing there is no need
to act as it will be resolved by itself without the need for any intervention or action. When
individuals opt for a Neglect response, they neglect their duties with the intention of causing
detriment to the other party. Exit, Neglect, and Aggressive Voice are destructive responses in
51
that they aim for a negative impact on the relationship, whereas Considerate Voice and Loyalty
response behaviours are constructive and aim to maintain and mend the relationship.
Considerate Voice is also positively correlated with satisfaction (Morrison & Robinson, 1997).
It is worth noting here that there is no straightforward response to breach and a more complex
process is acknowledged by Rousseau (1995). Exit from an organisation may not be possible,
for example, as it would depend on the alternatives available.
Individual reactions to breach are influenced by the attributions concerning the causes of breach
suggesting the importance of considering the attribution process (Arnold, 1996). If
organisational actions are interpreted as unjust, for instance, then individuals are more likely to
resent and blame the organisation (Turley & Feldman, 1999). Morrison and Robinson (1997)
outline 3 main causal attributions as reneging, disruption, and incongruence. In the case of
reneging on the PC, breach attributions are made at the organisational level and actions are
viewed as intentional and the organisation’s fault. Cassar, Buttigieg and Briner (2013) explain
that reneging may be experienced when explicit promises are not kept, which constitutes an
actual breach. They suggest that attributions made at this level are more likely to result in exit
(e.g. leave the organisation or the relationship) and neglect responses (e.g. anti-social and
deviant behaviours). In the case of reneging, it becomes crucial for the organisations to establish
mechanisms for voicing concerns and facilitating communication between both parties, such as
one-to-one meetings between an employee and employer (e.g. coach, manager). In disruption,
the breach occurs at the organisational level but is attributed to factors beyond the
organisation’s control, so is not perceived as being the organisation’s fault. In this case
employees are more likely to associate and sympathise with the organisation’s difficulties and
are more likely to remain loyal. Where external attributions are made, this tends to reduce
uncertainties and anxieties associated with the breach (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). A
perceived breach, or incongruence, may be experienced when the other party fails to fulfil
assumed obligations on their side of the contract and this is given an internal cause. Here,
breach may be attributed to a lack of attention and care, so is seen as unjustified and the
individual is blamed. Incongruence resulting from the other party not being aware of the
qualifying conditions is more likely to be seen as a misunderstanding and result in a considerate
voice response in an attempt to re-establish mutuality. This moderates the effects of breach.
Breach attributed to intentional and voluntary causes, on the other hand, is likely to cause an
employee to experience intense attitudinal and behavioural reactions towards their employer
(Rousseau & McLean Parks, 1993) and act in ways that will restore balance in the relationship
(e.g. neglect response, destructive voice).
The attribution process derives from different intentions and outcomes. External attributions are
more likely to result in destructive outcomes, whereas internal attributions are more likely to
result in constructive outcomes such as a considerate voice response in an attempt to re-52
establish mutuality and repair the damage caused by breach. The point here is that different
perceptions of the form of breach seem to affect causal attributions and these in turn can lead to
different outcomes depending on whether the breach is seen as voluntary or not. Although
strong emotions can result from any perception of breach, the level of emotion and response to
breach differs based on whether an internal or external attribution is made. It is important to also
note that whether the breach is perceived or actual, the outcomes may be similar (Cassar et al.,
2013).
Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood and Bolino (2002) found that employees are more likely to attribute
breach to reneging, whereas employers are more likely to make disruption attributions. This
may be due to individual circumstances that mean there is no choice and they have to stay in the
job (e.g. lack of alternatives, financial reasons) therefore making an external attribution would
make it more likely for the employee to maintain and stay in the relationship. As identified in
the literature (e.g. Cassar et al., 2013) there is the need to more fully understand the subjective
nature of the attribution process and the links between these and the outcomes.
Whether the contract has more transactional or relational aspects underlies the strength and
nature of the PC and has implications for the longevity of the relationship. Where obligations
which are defined strictly and in economic terms, the PC is transactional in nature and is viewed
as having a short-term instrumental purpose. With a PC defined openly and broadly within a
socially satisfying exchange, on the other hand, the individual takes a long-term orientation to
the relationship (Conway & Briner, 2005). Moreover, individuals with a more relational
contract may have more tolerance for breach; they may be more willing to overlook minor
breaches and make external attributions for their causes (Ng & Feldman, 2009). The level of
trust an individual has in their organisation can impact on the reaction to breach and how an
event is interpreted (Robinson, 1996). Individuals with low trust will respond less favourably
than those with high trust and are more likely to remember the breach, whereas high trust
individuals would be more likely to overlook the breach or give it less importance. Perceptions
of kindness in the other party and respect for authority have also been found to attenuate the
negative effects of breach (Taylor & Tekleab, 2004). An external attribution is also more likely
to be made when the quality of the relationship is better (Rousseau, 2001).
Individual differences have also been found to influence response to breach. Research has
looked at the effect of personality differences (Raja, Johns & Ntalianis, 2004) Locus of Control
(Rotter, 1966) and the impact of age (Rousseau, 2001). So far, studies on the effect of
personality on perceptions of breach have been limited, however. Personality dimensions of
extraversion, neuroticism and conscientiousness were related to contract type and the nature of
perceived breaches and emotional responses (Raja et al., 2004). High neuroticism was
associated with more sensitivity to equity and reported more transactional contracts, while high
53
conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion were correlated with more relational
contracts (Argarwal, 2011). Neuroticism and external locus of control were both positively
related to breach, while conscientiousness was negatively related. Argarwal explains that
neurotic individuals tend to lack trust, so may be more inclined to see breach more easily. Jafri
(2014) found that more agreeable and conscientious individuals were less likely to perceive
breach than those with higher extraversion and neuroticism. They suggest using personality in
the hiring process, as certain personality types are more likely to perceive breach and have a
more transactional focus. Agarwal (2011) offers further support for the link between agreeable
individuals and less reported breaches and suggests that they are also more compliant and place
more value on developing long-term close relationships (Raja et al., 2004). Moreover, alongside
extraverted and conscientious individuals, they are more likely to form relational contracts
(Argarwal, 2011). The research on personality does support links with the type of PC and
responses to breach, although the evidence is a little mixed in places.
Rotter (1966) established that individuals can be categorised on the basis of a tendency to
attribute blame to internal or external causes. When experiencing an event such as not getting an
expected pay rise, individuals with an internal locus of control may attribute this to themselves
and conclude they have not put enough effort in. Those with an external locus of control may
blame the organisation for not providing enough training and support. This suggests that the
same event will be interpreted differently based on an individual’s locus of control.
A number of studies have found that age moderates the effect of breach and there are less
incidences of breach in older people (e.g. Ng & Feldman, 2009). This may suggest that the PC
becomes more stable over time, there is more effective resistance to minor breaches, and
individuals are less affected emotionally (Rousseau, 2001). This can be explained not only in
terms of emotional regulation, but also by having more experience to draw on to rationalise any
breach experiences. Lockenhoff and Carstenson (2004) support this link and state that older
people in general have better emotional regulation skills than younger people. It can also be
explained by the findings from Ng and Feldman (2009) suggesting that contract malleability
becomes greater with age so that older individuals are able to tolerate more minor deviations
from the PC. This tempers the intensity and negativity of reactions to PC breach. Those with
less malleability tended to be younger and were more likely to view the breach as intentional
and personal. Contract malleability is therefore a factor which could moderate the relationship
between breach severity and negative employee reactions. It is also related to age. In relation to
Rousseau’s (1995) response dimensions of Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect, Ng and Feldman
found that older people prefer stability, so would be less likely to leave the relationship, would
be more willing to voice concerns to improve the situation, are more likely to be passive and
adopt a loyal response as they have more patience and optimism that it will improve, and would
be less inclined to damage the well-being of the organisation through neglect behaviours as they 54
would hope for equity to be regained in the long term. Age, personality and locus of control are
individual factors which have all been found to influence responses to breach and offer further
support for the idiosyncratic nature of the PC.
Critiques of research conducted on breach state that studies tend to assume a linear relationship
between perceptions of breach and attitude or behavioural intentions (e.g. Schalk & Roe, 2007).
Rigotti (2009) outlines the idea of thresholds, either for the perception of breach or for reactions
to breach. This implies that a certain level of breach has to be reached before a change in
attitude and this occurs through an accumulation of breach experiences. The notion of a
‘triggering event’ is also identified, so rather than a build-up of experiences, one single
experience of sufficient magnitude can trigger a response. Ultimately, how the experience of
breach plays out and whether the contract is broken or endures is also shaped by the
relationship’s history, the interactions between the parties, and the after-effects of the breach
(Rousseau, 1995). The focus of research has been on breach and its consequences and Guest and
Conway (2004) suggest the need for research to focus more on how the PC can be used
positively to promote wellbeing and whether it can be used to understand behaviour when the
PC has not been broken.
Guest and Conway (2004) highlight key points from the research and state that when an
employee has a positive psychological contract, it will lead to greater employee commitment
and satisfaction. When the employee feels the contract has been fulfilled by the organisation,
the employee in turn will be loyal to the organisation (DeCuyper, Van der Heijden & De Witte,
2011). The overall state of the contract will be reflected in the extent to which the employer
believes that the employer will deliver on the agreed ‘deal’ and how fair and trusted the
employer is (Ho et al., 2006). Employer management practices can have a major influence on
the employee’s psychological contract (Guest & Conway, 2004). Knowing about the different
factors which can influence responses to breach, for example thresholds and trigger events
(Rigotti, 2009), age, personality, trust and respect for authority (as discussed here), is helpful in
understanding individual reactions to breach.
3.6.2. Managing the PC
Another key area in the research which has had much appeal in an organisational context is the
idea that the PC can be managed. Due to the multifaceted nature of the PC and lack of agreed
definition, there is confusion as to what exactly is being managed. As with general research on
the PC, the focus has been on managing the content (i.e. the promises) and outcomes (i.e.
breach) with practical recommendations being made from findings on how this can be done.
These mostly concern managing the subjective understandings of the PC by making the terms
less subjective so as to reduce misunderstanding between parties. In relation to managing the
55
content, this might include making decisions as to what promises should be made, how the
contents can be manage during changes to the PC, and how the PC can be negotiated and
renegotiated. Suggestions to manage breaches might include monitoring contributions from both
parties to prevent a breach from occurring, and designing strategies to deal with breach when is
does occur (Conway & Briner, 2005). A key assumption around managing the PC is that
making implicit aspects of the contract explicit is likely to reduce any misunderstandings and in
turn reduce the likelihood of breach (e.g. Herriot & Pemberton, 1997). Mechanisms to facilitate
this might include providing explicit job details, regular meetings and interactions between both
parties. Ng and Feldman (2009) also suggest regularly updating the set of mutual obligations
and providing explanations and justifications for change should help to revise the PC with
minimum likelihood of a breach occurring.
One of the challenges of managing PCs is how to identify the implicit aspects of the PC. By
their very nature, these are for the most part unknown to the contract holders, making them
difficult to manage. There is scope here to suggest the usefulness of more qualitative methods,
such as Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (used in this study) due to its inductive
capacity to reveal more implicit understandings in a given sample (Jones, 2010). It is possible
that the findings may reveal common areas of misunderstanding in that context. This could form
the basis of future discussion and negotiation in practice, whilst also allowing for new insights
and subject understandings. Conway and Briner (2005) caution that making every aspect of the
PC explicit may undermine and weaken the give-and-take relational nature of the exchange
relationship by making it more formal and contractual, however. It is also possible that any
attempts to ‘manage’ the PC, rather than being viewed positively, may be seen as a form of
managerial control and this may serve to undermine the relationship further. This is
underpinned by the belief that more relational contracts result in better outcomes such as higher
commitment and satisfaction with the relationship, thus make it less likely that individuals will
leave (Rousseau, 2000).
3.7. Methodological challenges
Much of the research has come from the organisational and management sectors, which tend to
favour quantitative measures, typically cross-sectional questionnaire surveys. Rousseau
developed a psychometric tool to measure the content of the PC, known as The Psychological
Contract Inventory (PCI, 2000) and this is well used and well recognised in the research. This
measure is similar to others in use, aiming to gather employees’ perceptions of the terms of the
specific promises their organisation has made to them and the promises the employee has made
to the organisation. From this, researchers then create an overall score for each employee by
calculating an average for the set of items. Raja et al. (2004) further utilised the Psychological
Contract Type, which is an 18-item measure designed to assess the transactional or relational
56
components in the PC. Results revealed a clear two-factor solution and demonstrated good
reliability (.72 for transactional items and .79 for relational items). A critical criteria-based
review of psychological contract measures has also shown this to be amongst some of the
stronger measuring tools (Freese & Schalk, 2008).
Breach is the most widely studied aspect of the PC, mainly through cross-sectional methods
which are only capable of showing associations between perceptions of breach and outcomes
(mainly attitudes and to a lesser extent behaviours). These are not capable of establishing cause
and effect, however. Robinson and Morrison (2000) developed a measure of Psychological
Contract breach and violation which views breach as an overall estimate of employer-kept
promises. Items are measured on a five-point rating scale used to assess perceived breach of
contract and this has the advantage of being easy to administer and use. The main disadvantages
of the measure are that it is unlikely that it will include all items of importance to individuals or
capture the nature of interactions in the exchange.
Further criticisms are that cross-sectional methods do not capture the PC over time and that
quantitative methods lack in depth or new insights. As the PC is now recognised in terms of a
process and is idiosyncratic in nature, these methods seem at odds with the subjective nature of
the PC (Conway & Briner, 2005). These measures are also limited as they may not contain the
most important or relevant items and may miss individual concerns. They may also fail to
capture the dynamic and interactive nature of the PC, as data is collected at one time point and
relies on remembered events, thus findings may be arbitrary. Attempts to examine dimensions
or types of PC have had limited success and little is known about the different factors, what they
are, which are the most important, and how they influence contents. There is some limited
evidence of the impact of content on outcomes such as behaviours, but conclusions are not clear
(Freese & Schalk, 2008). Findings from empirical papers seem to describe events but lack in
any explanatory potential or depth of understanding, for example, how breach occurs, why it
occurs, and under what circumstances. One of the issues identified by Ten Brink (2004) is that
measures and features of the PC (i.e. relational /transactional) may not be transferrable across
time and contexts. Rousseau (1990) states that any measure should reflect the organisational
culture, sector, social and economic situation. Previous approaches to PC would suggest there is
a need for more qualitative research methods to capture the subjective nature of individual
concerns and that would be more capable of exploring social phenomena in context.
3.8. Using the PC in a Higher Education context
Although much has been written about the psychological contract in organisational contexts,
few have been conducted in other contexts, e.g. educational settings. It has been argued that the
concept generalises to a variety of relationships, including those between psychotherapist and
57
patient (Menninger, 1958) husband and wife (Dunahee & Wangler, 1974) landlord and tenant
(Radford & Larwood, 1982), and student and teacher (Kolb et al., 1984). One of the issues here
may be that existing definitions (Rousseau 1989) and conceptualisations of the transactional and
relational (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003), of the PC have derived from the employer–
employee relationship, which might be significantly different from other kinds of relationships -
those involved in universities, for example. O’Toole and Prince (2015) state that there is little
research using the PC in a higher education context, particularly from a student perspective.
Following Rousseau’s (1995) extension of the contract to include agents of the organisation as a
third party in the relationship, it became possible to study the PC within a specific relationship.
Developing a relationship with agents of the organisation was found to develop a more
relational contract, indicated by feelings of security and loyalty (Montes & Irving, 2008) and
contributed to a stronger commitment to the organisation (Rousseau, 2011). In a higher
education context, McCulloch (2009) identified three key actors involved in the relationship, the
student, academics, and the administrators, all with different agendas and different levels of
power. In terms of the PC, Koskina (2013) extended this to mean students’ beliefs about the
contract between the three parties, the institution, tutors and themselves.
Investigating the PC between the managers in HEIs and academic staff in a post-1992 university
climate, Bathmaker (1999) used conversational analysis and identified differences in
interpretations of work contracts. It was argued that more reciprocity between parties was
needed and that managers should address the differences in perceptions relating to work agenda.
This introduced the idea that action could be taken in this context to narrow the differences in
perceptions of the PC and that the contract should be more reciprocal between parties.
Charlton, Barrow and Hornby-Atkinson (2007) were first to explore the applicability of the
psychological contract in higher education. They found out more about the nature of exchange
relationships between students and lecturers in HE in the process of education (e.g. the degree’s
contribution to future earning potential). The study revealed the implicit and tacitly held
agreement and expectations of the contractual relationships between students and lecturers. It
also identified the PC as a significant predictor of retention in higher education. Building on
these initial findings, Hornby-Atkinson et al. (2008) conducted a HEA-funded study designed to
explore the differences in psychological contracts between 1st year undergraduate students and
their tutors. In a mixed methods approach, both the questionnaire responses from students and
tutors and the students’ reflections were analysed. These were then used to identify and explore
differences in expectations, with a view to designing an intervention to bridge the gap and
enhance practice. Tutors’ responses varied in the extent to which they felt responsible for
ensuring students’ understanding of the course. Variations also occurred in terms of how much
they felt they should take account of students’ personal circumstances in setting timetables and
58
deadlines. Such variations, they suggest, may mean that students are receiving mixed messages
about the institution’s expectations of them. The questionnaires also revealed significant gaps in
PCs between tutors and students in terms of lecturer availability, the amount of academic
support received, the amount of help they had relating to future careers, and the amount of paid
work students should engage in. In each case the students expected more than the tutors. Both
the qualitative and quantitative findings suggested that students had unrealistic expectations
about some aspects of higher education. Interestingly, students recognised the need to become
independent learners, but seemed unclear how to achieve this and experienced some confusion
and ambivalence about the process of learning in higher education.
Hornby-Atkinson et al.’s (2008) study suggested that the psychological contract could offer
insights about students’ expectations and beliefs around the promises and obligations they feel
the university has made to them and where they perceived it to be failing them. From the
findings, they proposed an intervention whereby explicit discussions could be held between
tutors and students within a Personal Development module at the start of the course and at the
end, focused on making as many aspects of the degree as explicit as possible. Specific
discussions were planned around the gaps identified between tutors and students. Unfortunately
no further funding was received from the HEA, so there was no follow up study to gauge its
success.
Concerning the nature of the PC between postgraduate students and academics in a UK business
school, Koskina (2013) interviewed students about the concepts and relationships they attached
to the psychological contract. The contract, in a higher education context, was identified as
being between three parties, the institution, tutors and themselves. The contract concerned
beliefs around promises made and explored perceptions of obligations and expectations of
students. Students felt they were the main contract holder in relation to other parties
Koskina (2013) defines the relationship students have with the university in terms of an
‘exchange relationship’ where both parties have certain obligations to fulfil to the other.
Students have to pay fees, attend lectures, submit work on time, for example, and in return
tutors provide learning materials, deliver lectures, and mark assignments. Transactional,
relational and ideological expectations formed the basis of the perceived reciprocal exchange
between students, their tutors, and their learning institution. The ideological aspect related to
existing interrelated features of transactional and relational aspects in terms of what students felt
the relationship should be like. Tutors were seen as vital in establishing the PC and in terms of
meaning-making of experiences and shapers of the PC over time. They were also viewed as
being accountable for meeting students’ expectations of university; however students did
recognise that they were also subject to external forces from the institution.
59
Similarly to the current research, Bordia, Hobman, Restubog, and Bordia (2010) explored a
specific relationship, that of student and dissertation supervisor. The study with 129 students
reported lower levels of psychological well-being and project satisfaction in students who
experienced higher levels of PC breach in the student-advisor relationship. The findings also
revealed that when students put more effort into the relationship, the more they expected in
return. This is consistent with social exchange theory, which posits that contributions should
have an equivalency. Bordia et al. (2010) also looked at the effect of conscientiousness and
found that for students with higher levels of conscientiousness the effect of breach was stronger.
According to this study, highly conscientious students put more effort into their work and will
therefore expect more in return. They did in fact experience higher levels of breach when they
did not perceive that their effort was matched.
The potential for a greater power imbalance in an educational context compared to a work
environment was also identified by Bordia et al. (2010). This was thought to be related to
students being more vulnerable to negative consequences of breach because of relative
differences in social backgrounds, experiences, power, and expertise. This kind of imbalance in
relationships has been found to affect willingness to share information regarding personal
preferences (Rousseau, 2003) so would make it less likely for a relational PC to develop. These
factors are also likely to influence shared understandings due to different frames of reference.
They suggest this as an important reason for more research to develop a better understanding of
student PCs in an academic setting.
3.9. Overview
Further to the findings from the literature, which identified a methodological weakness in using
quantitative methods with what is essentially an individual subjective belief of a mainly implicit
PC, Study 4 uses interviews with students to allow for new insights and a more inductive
approach. Interviews also have the potential to elaborate on how individuals understand their
PC, in this case to capture the social phenomenon of fee paying students in the current higher
education context. Although subjective, an individual’s PC is grounded in the social reality of
others with whom they believe they have reciprocal obligations and share a common
understanding of the nature of those obligations (Rousseau, 2003).
Study 4 also addresses a number of the key findings and gaps identified in the literature review,
contributing further to the sparse research on the use of the PC in a higher education,
specifically the PC of students with their PT. Further to this literature review, Study 4 follows
on from Study 3 using the same interview data and will re-examine the texts and findings
through a PC theory lens. The aim of Study 4 will be to discover whether a PC framework has
anything further to offer in understanding the student experience of personal tutoring. It will
60
explore a number of key areas from the perspective of the student; the origin of the contents of
the PC, the content and nature of the contract, and occurrences of breach and fulfilment and
their consequences. The findings from Study 4 will add to the findings from previous studies in
this thesis, making suggestions and recommendations for how this knowledge could be used to
improve PT practice in the context of the Psychology Department at EHU.
Further to and derived from the literature review in Chapter 2 on personal tutoring and this
chapter’s review of the psychological contract, the next chapter will provide an overview of the
methodological considerations and decisions made in this research.
Chapter 4 Methodology
The previous chapters provided an overview of the higher education context and reviewed the
literature on the two main research areas in this thesis; personal tutoring in higher education and
the psychological contract. This chapter outlines some of the methodological considerations,
challenges and decision made in this research.
4.0. Methodological considerations
Considering methodologies is more than just a simple decision-making exercise. It requires
reflection on how the world is viewed and understood and should consider the basic
philosophical assumptions the researcher brings to the study, as these can influence the practice
of research (Creswell, 2007).
61
As the Researcher in this thesis I considered both positivist and interpretivist paradigms in
relation to my own world view and which approach best suited the aims of the research.
Paradigmatic components included considering the ontological and epistemological
assumptions embedded in these paradigms and this is reflected in the methods and
methodological choices (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). As suggested by Scotland (2012)
I considered my view on the nature and basis of reality and positioned myself according to my
perceptions of this (i.e. ontology) and from this considered how knowledge can be created
acquired and communicated (i.e. epistemology). This then led to methodological considerations
and the choice of appropriate methods (Hitchcock & Hughes, 1995).
This research adopts an interpretive paradigm, whereby reality is viewed as being subjective
and individually constructed (the ontological assumption in the research) through the use of
language and interaction within the social world (Creswell, 2007). The ontological position
taken in this research is one of relativism (Guba & Lincoln, 1994) whereby individuals can only
be understood by their relationship to the world around them (Cohen et al., 2007). I
acknowledge that meaning is constructed through interactions and the same phenomenon will
be constructed and given different meanings by different people (Crotty, 1998). I sought to
understand the phenomena from the viewpoint of the participant through the interactions and
individual constructs which were elicited and understood (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). It is also
acknowledged that as the researcher I was part of the construction process and that this would
influence the interview in terms of the construction of meaning and this is considered in the
analysis. I also tried to retain and present the complexities of the interactions rather than reduce
and present these simplistically and used rich, thick description to uncover meaning (Cohen et
al., 2007).
Consistent with an interpretive paradigm, the research questions were broad and exploratory in
nature and aimed to find out more about the nature of the students’ expectations and their
relationships with their Personal Tutors (PT). A further aim was to provide new insights using
inductive approaches. Qualitative approaches were therefore appropriate, specifically using case
study, focus groups and semi-structured interviews to collect the data and Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to analyse the texts. As the research was exploratory in
nature and did not aim to generalize from the findings, this also supported the use of qualitative
methods of enquiry. These approaches supported my research interest in the lived experiences
of participants and the way in which individuals construct meaning and their version of social
reality through language use. Using Psychological Contract Theory as an additional lens
through which to view the students’ experiences, the IPA added to the richness of the
interpretations through its focus on eliciting the implicit aspects of the relationship contract
between a student and their personal tutor.
62
4.1. Methodology
This section will explore the various methodological rationales for the choice of methods and
analysis made in the four studies in this thesis. The findings from the first focus group were
used to inform the questions and understandings for the second focus group. The findings from
this were then used to inform the interview approach and questions. The semi-structured
interview then explored students’ relationships with their personal tutors more fully. An overall
interpretation of the phenomena was formed from a detailed analysis of the interviews.
Qualitative methods are needed in this context to understand the phenomenology of how
students construct meaning and make sense of a complex and sometimes contradictory
environment (Fredricks, Blumenfeld & Paris, 2004).
4.1.1. Case Study rationale
A case study is a unique and situated example which allows for a deeper insight and exploration
of understanding of ideas than would be possible using abstract ideas. It can be used to provide
an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under examination and allows for the
development of theory which can help researchers to understand other similar cases, phenomena
or situations (Robson, 2002). Hitchcock and Hughes (1995) suggest that they are particularly
useful when the researcher has little control over events, as is the case with the system of
personal tutoring being determined at the organisational level. Of relevance to this study are its
concern with a rich and vivid description of events relevant to the case and how it can be used to
blend a description of events with the analysis of them. In keeping with Stake (2003) this case
study will strive to portray the realities of the situation by producing rich, thick description of
the lived experience of a situation.
The case study is Edge Hill University which is in the North West of England and is the
university where I am currently employed as a Lecturer. After each study, the exploratory and
evaluative nature of this case study will be used to inform further aspects of the study. Stake
(2003) argues that whilst single case studies are often considered as a poor representation of a
population, they are preferred when there is an attempt to modify existing theoretical notions.
Drawing on Thomas’ (2011) identification of types, this study is both intrinsic (undertaken in
order to understand the case) and instrumental (examining a case in order to gain insight into an
issue or a theory). Silverman (2006) suggested that a case study is an instance of a broader
phenomenon and though generalizability was not important, the single case study design has
enabled the development of naturalistic generalisations, especially in relation to the meaning
that participants attached to the psychological contract. This approach can offer a more holistic
understanding of subjective experiences and I hope that this approach will provide in-depth,
multi-faceted detail into the phenomenon of the experience of personal tutoring. Willig and
63
Rogers (2013) support the use of case studies, as they facilitate hermeneutic analysis. Case
study is thus an appropriate method for the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis used in
this study.
In education case study research, Merriam (1988) observed that when emphasis is placed on
how to tackle qualitative issues, the researcher should select the sample from which they can
learn the most. Data were thus collected from a purposive sample using a specific case study.
4.1.2. Focus group rationale
An advantage of using a focus group is that it allows for multiple voices to be heard. This brings
with it a challenge in interpreting the interactional complexities, however, in terms of staying
true to the phenomenological aspects of the proposed analysis i.e. interpretive
phenomenological analysis (IPA). Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009) suggest that the enabling
of personal and experiential accounts depends on a number of factors, such as the skill of the
facilitator, the topic under discussion, and the personalities and characteristics of the
participants. As the facilitator in this research I have experience as a researcher and also have in
the PT role.
The aim of this study was to find out about the different experiences and expectations of
students, therefore a focus group was an appropriate method to achieve this. The participants in
the first focus group were a very diverse sample in terms of their degree subjects studied. They
were also previously unknown to each other. As the number of factors influencing the student
experiences and expectations of their personal tutoring are potentially vast, it was decided in the
second focus group to use a more homogenous sample in an attempt to limit some aspects of
external variability affecting students’ experiences of personal tutoring. Participants in the
second study were all 1st year Psychology students and they all shared similar characteristics as
they were all from the same course, all knew each other, and had shared the same seminar
groups since the beginning of the academic year. Because of this, they were all confident in
expressing their views in front of the others (see Appendix A for participant information and
coding). A fairly socially homogenous sample such as this allows for a more detailed
examination of the psychological variability within the group, by analysing the pattern of
convergence and divergence which arises (Smith et al., 2009). Open questions were used and
were exploratory in nature, which is compatible with the inductive approach of IPA (e.g. How
have you experienced personal tutoring since you have been at uni?) (see Appendix B for
questions used).
4.1.3. Interview rationale
64
The qualitative interview attempts to understand the world from someone else’s point of view
and uncover their lived world prior to any scientific explanations. Kvale (2009) describes the
interview as an ‘inter-view’, where two people converse about a mutual interest and share their
views. The qualitative research interviewer is in a privileged position in being able to produce
knowledge derived from the participant’s interpersonally negotiated social world. Knowledge is
constructed and interchanged through conversational interaction and there is an interdependence
of human interaction and knowledge. Kvale (2009) states that the purpose of the interview is to
obtain “...descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of
the described phenomena” (p. 3).
One-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted in Study 3 to explore and elicit student
perceptions and experiences of personal tutoring using questions derived from the findings from
Study 1 and Study 2, as well as the literature on personal tutoring. Questions in the interview
aimed to explore the relationship and expectations of the student to their personal tutor more
fully (e.g. How important do you think that relationship is with the personal tutor?) (see
Appendix E for the Interview Schedule). Six students were interviewed and each interview
lasted between 50 minutes and an hour. Semi-structured interviews were used to allow for
flexibility of responses so that any new lines of enquiry introduced by the participants were
followed to provide new insights. Willig and Rogers (2013) suggest that this going ‘off script’
requires the researcher to be confident and experienced in allowing the participant to answer in
their own way and negotiate any tensions around keeping to the main topics. The inductive
nature of using open questions can lead into unknown areas, but this may mean that findings can
challenge assumptions and generate new and unexpected knowledge.
Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) identified seven stages to the interview process, which were
followed in this study. The stages move from thematising and deciding the why of the interview
to the design process prior to the actual interview to how to conduct the actual interview, the
write-up, analysis, verification, and reporting. Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) describes the
interview as “…an interview with the purpose of obtaining descriptions of the life world of the
interview in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena” (p. 3).
Interviews from the qualitative phase of the study were audio-taped and transcribed, which
allowed for an authentic and precise record of the communication process. This was done soon
after the interview to facilitate as accurate a recall of events as possible (Flick, 2006). Further
aspects of the original events were captured such as intonation of speech (Howitt & Cramer,
2005). It is acknowledged that transcription inevitably omits aspects of the original and there is
the risk that the transcription is inadequate. As recommended by Silverman (2006) the original
tape and interviews were referred back to when the transcription appeared complete and another
researcher was consulted to triangulate the interpretation and write up, assessing its veracity.
65
The data analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted using interpretative
phenomenological analysis (IPA). The semi-structured interview approach fits well will IPA, as
it allows for the flexibility of the research to explore participants’ lived experiences. Of interest
is what is experienced and how it is experienced, both on a personal and social level, in terms of
constructions of meaning (Smith, 2008).
4.1.4. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis rationale and approach
The data analysis of the interviews was conducted using interpretative phenomenological
analysis (IPA) to explore the phenomena of personal tutoring through a psychological contract
lens. Patton (2002, p.136) states that IPA “…seeks to grasp and elucidate the meaning,
structure, and essence of the lived experience of a phenomenon for a person or group of
people”. Of interest was what is experienced and how it is experienced, both personally and
socially, in terms of constructions of meaning. The aim was to parse the account for both shared
themes and for distinctive voices and variations on these themes. Larkin, Watts and Clifton
(2006) caution against being satisfied with a first order analysis which just summarises
representative voices without developing further to an interpretative or conceptual level. They
suggest that IPA has been oversimplified and its potential undermined in previous research
because of this. The aim then is to “... properly explore, understand and communicate the
experiences and viewpoints offered by participants” (Larkin et al., 2006, p. 103).
The analysis explored what the participants’ experiences meant to them and how they
understood their experiences through exploring their perceptions, beliefs, remembered events,
feelings, judgements, evaluations, and behaviours (Larkin et al., 2006). By taking this inductive
approach, IPA explored participants’ perceptions of their own lived experience to provide a
rich, holistic perspective and deep and meaningful insights, which can be drawn on in practice
to inform thinking. The process involved exploring, describing, interpreting, and situating the
means by which participants make sense of their experiences (Smith et al., 2009).
Connections were made from detailed idiographic analysis of the findings to the extant
psychological research and in doing so demonstrated how it can shed light on and link to
existing nomothetic approaches. These meanings in turn illuminated the embodied, cognitive-
affective, and existential domains of psychology. The analysis started with a detailed
examination of each case before moving on to more general claims. At this point it is useful to
acknowledge that any claims made from the findings are limited to the groups studied, but some
extension can be considered through theoretical generalizability (Smith et al., 2009).
A ‘double hermeneutic’ approach is used in IPA, so as the researcher tries to make sense of the
participant, who is also trying to make sense of their experience (Smith & Osborn, 2003). In the
66
focus groups, the participants are involved in actively trying to make sense of each other’s
experiences, adding another layer of meaning-making and interpretation. Using the idea of a
‘hermeneutic circle’, the researcher categorises the data according to the relationship between
the whole and its parts. This approach is circulatory in nature and suggests that to understand
one you need to understand the other in an iterative and non-linear style of thinking (Smith et
al., 2009).
4.1.5. Psychological contract rationale
The focus of much psychological contract (PC) research and theory is on two main areas; first,
the content of the relationship in terms of promises and obligations, and second, breaches of the
PC. Research approaches are predominantly quantitative (Conway & Briner, 2005). Conway
and Briner (2005) argue that quantitative methods are not well suited to two key aspects of the
PC in that it occupies the subjective level of experience and that it is a dynamic and ongoing
process. They suggest that qualitative approaches would be better suited. Along these lines, they
conducted a diary study which captured individual accounts of their experiences on an ongoing
basis (Conway & Briner, 2002). They further suggest the compatibility of phenomenological
approaches with the PC, as it can be used in sense-making and interpretation in relationships.
The use of PC theory with IPA is novel and has no precedent in the research, but further support
comes from its usage in different contexts and in higher education to understand relationships
and the nature of exchange between two parties (Koskina, 2013). The IPA revealed that students
undergo a sense-making process in relation to negative experiences. PC theory has proven
useful for exploring the process of attributing causes and consequences of negative experiences
relating to breach between two parties (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). It has the potential to shed
more light on these aspects and provide a framework for responses.
From previous research in other contexts (e.g. Rousseau, 1995), it also has the potential to
uncover what students perceive to be the basis of the contractual obligations in the relationship,
from both implicit and explicit sources, which is compatible with IPA’s interpretive focus in
this respect. It is hoped that PC theory will elicit specific understandings relating to issues in the
relationship resulting from broken promises and the consequences on emotions, attitudes, and
behaviours.
4.2. The data collection process
4.2.1. Research context
The studies were all conducted at a medium-size post-1992 university in the North West of
England. Edge Hill University was chosen as this is where I currently work. As an institution,
Edge Hill has a good reputation for being student focused and it was awarded the national 67
Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Gold award for “Its consistently outstanding teaching,
learning and outcomes for its students”. It was voted Best student experience in the North West
by the Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey (2016). It also received third place
in the What Uni? Student Choice Awards for Student Support in 2017. The university was
ranked above the national average (4.24 out of 5) for overall student satisfaction in the 2017
National Student Survey (NSS).
Throughout the research, the case study institution has operated a pastoral model of personal
tutoring which offers both personal and academic support through an assigned member of staff
for each student. In September 2010, after an institutional audit, a new Personal Tutor policy
was introduced. The main differences between the previous and current policy are that the
current policy more clearly outlines the expectations of the personal tutor role and positions
both parties as having a shared responsibility in the relationship. For both policies, how the role
is operationalised is down to the separate Departments and Faculties to decide, but the current
policy does state an expected minimum of four meetings in the first year and two in subsequent
years. This means that there is a standard minimum expectation for all students, but there can be
much variability in how this works in practice in departments and whether it is integrated with
other forms of support. In Studies 2 and 3, participants were drawn from the Psychology
Department and their practice at that time included some aspects of a curriculum approach so
that students were required to meet with their PT 3 times in the first year as part of a module
requirement (these 3 meetings formed part of the 4 specified in the PT policy).
4.2.2. Participants
Study 1, Focus Group - Participants were 13 self-selected first year undergraduate students
from the same university. A university-wide email asking for volunteers was sent to all faculties
and volunteers responded via email. No incentives were offered. This was a diverse group of
students in terms of degree subjects studied, with 8 students from the Faculty of Arts and
Sciences, 3 from the Faculty of Education, and 2 from the Faculty of Health. Participants ranged
in age from 18 to 35 and there were 2 males and 11 females. Participants were previously
unknown to the researcher, but were all made aware that the researcher was a lecturer in another
department (see Appendix A for participant information and coding).
Study 2, Focus Group - Participants in the second focus group were 11 self-selected first year
undergraduate psychology students from the same university. Participants in the first study were
from different departments and faculties and the researcher felt that this contributed to the wide
variability in the findings. Smith et al. (2009) suggest that research should aim for a reasonably
homogenous sample to allow for examination of convergence and divergence, so a decision was
made to study students from one department only in the second focus group (i.e. Psychology).
68
As previously mentioned, the homogeneity of the group will allow for a more detailed
exploration of the psychological variability in the sample. A request for volunteers was sent out
via the department’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) and participants responded directly
via email to the researcher. No incentives were offered. Participants were all known to each
other as they were from the same year group. Participants were previously unknown to the
researcher but were all made aware that the researcher was a lecturer in another department (see
Appendix A for participant information and coding).
Study 3, Interviews - Students from the Psychology Department were invited via an
announcement on the department’s VLE to participate in an hour long interview at their
convenience, to explore their experiences of personal tutoring in Study 3. No incentives were
offered and six participants volunteered, all female, ages ranged from 19 to 49 (3 were younger
students aged 18-20, and 3 were mature students, aged 30-50). Participants were previously
unknown to the researcher, but were all made aware that the researcher was a lecturer in another
department (see Appendix A for participant information and coding).
Study 4, Application of psychological contract theory - Psychological contract theory was
applied to the data analyses produced in Study 3 (see Appendix A for participant information
and coding).
4.2.3. Procedure
Study 1, Focus Group - Data collection was undertaken using a focus group which took place
during the working day in a relaxed environment on campus and lasted 90 minutes. I conducted
detailed preparation prior to the session to ensure its smooth running and questions were
informed by relevant literature on personal tutoring and the student experience in higher
education. Open questions were used in the focus session and were exploratory in nature,
consistent with IPA’s inductive approach (e.g. How have you experienced personal tutoring
since you have been at uni?). The questions acted as a broad framework for the discussion and
moved from general questions such as ‘What did you do before you came to university?’ which
acted as warm up questions and were useful in gaining some background context, to more
specific questions such as ‘What is your experience of personal tutoring at university?’. Notes
were taken by a second researcher and both researchers then wrote up concurrently to ensure the
accuracy and overall sense of the session and findings. The resulting text was then analysed
using IPA and themes identified and explored. The analysis started by attempting to immerse
myself in the participants’ world through reading and rereading the accounts and making notes
line by line about the quotes. These were then developed into fuller descriptions and key quotes
were identified that might indicate a theme. From these descriptions emergent themes were
69
identified and then clustered on the basis of similarity into cluster themes. From the cluster
themes overarching super-ordinate themes were identified.
Study 2, Focus Group - For the convenience of participants the focus group took place directly
after a seminar in which all of the participants were present, so there was no requirement to
move rooms. The session took place in March 2016 in a quiet room and lasted for 50 minutes.
The participants seated themselves evenly around a central table area on which the recorder was
placed and the Facilitator stood at one end. The session was facilitated by myself as an
experienced researcher and recorded in full. I explained the process and aims of the session; all
participants provided written consent, and were informed of their right to withdraw. Due to the
number of people participating, the limitations of confidentiality were explained and agreed and
participants were reassured that all data reporting would be anonymous. It was emphasised to
participants that everyone should respect and listen to each other’s views, taking turns to speak
and in this way everyone would have the opportunity to contribute and express their views. As
in the previous focus group, open questions were used and were exploratory in nature,
consistent with IPA’s inductive approach (e.g. How have you experienced personal tutoring
since you have been at uni?). Data was transcribed verbatim, including all non-verbal elements
such as pauses where possible, and then this was analysed according to the principles of IPA.
The resulting text was then analysed using IPA and themes identified and explored. The
analysis started immersing myself in the participants’ world through reading and rereading the
transcripts and making notes line by line about the quotes. These were then developed into
fuller descriptions and key quotes were identified that might indicate a theme. From these
descriptions emergent themes were identified and then clustered on the basis of similarity into
cluster themes. From the cluster themes overarching super-ordinate themes were identified.
Study 3, Interviews - Using a semi-structured interview approach, six students were interviewed
and interviews lasted between 45 and 56 minutes each. Kvale and Brinkmann’s (2009) approach
was followed in terms of using a building-up phase to establish rapport, then the main
interviews using the scheduled questions, followed by a cool-down phase to conclude the
interviews. All interviews took place in a meeting room specifically booked for this purpose so
as to minimise any chances of being interrupted. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed
verbatim and then analysed using IPA to identify a hierarchy of themes. The analysis started by
reading and rereading the transcripts and making notes line by line about the quotes. These were
then developed into descriptions and key quotes were identified that might indicate a theme.
From these descriptions emergent themes were identified and then clustered on the basis of
similarity into cluster themes. As with the focus groups, from the cluster themes overarching
super-ordinate themes were identified.
70
Study 4, Psychological contract theory application - The IPA findings from the interviews
were used as a basis for the application of PC theory. The overview of IPA themes from Study 3
was used as a starting point in Study 4 and then key PC theories were added to this list. Cross
references were then made for all participants in terms of whether any aspects of PC theory
could be applied. Added to this list were factors relating to individual difference identified in
the PC literature review (e.g. locus of control and age) (see Appendix J for the PC overview
list). From this list a more qualitative approach was taken, whereby key events were chosen on
the basis of the best fit between student experiences, where they had tried to make sense of
these (IPA) and whether PC theory was useful in explaining these experiences. These were
written up as examples and in the Analysis and Discussion section in Study 3, attempting to
maintain the richness of the data where possible.
4.3. Approaches to Data Analysis
4.3.1. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)
Data from the three studies was coded using the principles of IPA outlined by Smith et al.
(2009) with the aim of understanding the meaning of lived experiences from the perspective of
the individual. The analysis was inductive and no a priori concepts and themes were imposed
on the data. Each transcript was analysed separately to maintain its idiographic commitment
(Smith et al., 2009). Following initial case familiarisation where transcripts were read a number
of times and initial thoughts captured in notes, emergent themes were identified for each
transcript. These were subsequently clustered across all transcripts on the basis of similarity.
Any unique cases or differences were also captured, in keeping with IPA’s idiographic focus.
The cluster themes were then interrogated against all data to identify and resolve non-
confirmatory cases and finally super-ordinate themes were identified as overall representative
themes of the data.
The resultant IPA produced in Study 3 was then used in Study 4, whereby PC theory was
applied as a theoretical lens through which to interpret the IPA data. Conway and Briner (2005)
highlight that PC theory is essentially about making sense of a phenomenon and suggest that
forms of analysis which allow for subjective interpretations are thus a good fit. They outline the
limitations of more quantitative approaches, which tend to investigate different aspects of the
PC (e.g. breach) in a linear fashion which does not allow for the dynamic nature of the contract
to be exposed and explored (see Appendix C for Study 1 analyses, Appendix D for Study 2, and
F, G & H for Study 3 IPA analyses).
4.3.2. Trustworthiness of the data
71
Several strategies were used to increase the trustworthiness of the data and findings. The
validity of the findings was derived from the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the data, which
provided confidence in the findings as a measure of quality of the research. Specifically, I tried
to ensure both the transparency of the procedure and methodological rigor. Tay (2014) suggests
that increasing sample size is no guarantee of quality; instead the findings should aim to be
convincing in the context of the research. Further, data findings were triangulated with my
supervisors to allow for discussion of other viewpoints and interpretations. At this point it is
worth acknowledging that any interpretation will only ever be partial, as I recognise that both
the account presented by each participant and my interpretations are subjective, limited by
language, and socially constructed. I also acknowledge that the accounts are influenced by my
presence and are negotiated in the interview context by the responses, as essentially the
interview is an interaction.
The reliability of the findings comes from exploring the consistency of the data. I achieved this
through constant reflection and by continually checking and questioning the findings and
interpretation. Of much potential practical use in this study are the suggestions detailed by Miles
and Huberman (1994) on how to avoid potential biases that might invalidate interpretations.
They suggest specific tactics which include checking for representativeness, weighing the
evidence, checking the meaning of outliers, using extreme cases, following up on surprises,
looking for negative evidence, making ‘if-then’ tests, ruling out spurious relations, replicating a
finding, checking out rival explanations, and getting feedback from informants (p. 263).
Sufficient detail and information will be given on the procedure of the research in each study,
the stages in the analysis, and how the findings were derived to further ensure the reliability and
allow replication of the study if desired.
The research does not seek to generalise from the findings, therefore a large sample size was not
a priority. Instead, it supports Tay’s (2014) assertion that each research should be proposed,
evaluated, and justified on its own basis. Rather than quantity being a priority, I was more
concerned with the appropriateness and adequacy of the sample (O’Reilly & Parker, 2013). A
current debate around the quality of qualitative research concerns the criterion of data
saturation. Tay (2014) argues that there is confusion over what this means. The general view is
that data collection should continue until no new insights are found in the analysis, but the
researcher supports Tay’s viewpoint in that as participants are unique, no-one can be completely
sure that no new insights will emerge if more data is collected. Consistent with this view, the
methodological choices in this research in terms of sampling, data collection methods, and the
use of a phenomenological form of analysis support my ontological beliefs around the basis of
knowledge and the epistemology of how to find this out and how knowledge is constructed.
4.3.3. Ethics
72
Ethical considerations and deliberations occurred throughout the research process. Possible
ethical issues may derive from the nature of the research project itself, the context for the
research, procedures and methods of data collection, the participants, the nature of data
collected, and decisions made on what to do with the data (Cohen et al., 2007). Ethical
considerations related to the study were explored with reference to the BPS Code of Ethics and
Conduct Guidelines (2009). All institutional and BPS policies and procedures were followed
throughout the research process in accordance with the Departmental and Institutional
guidelines. This ensured that the highest standard of ethical sensitivity and professionalism was
maintained throughout. No risks to participants were anticipated.
4.3.3.1. Specific ethical considerations
For each of the studies (Focus Group 1, Focus Group 2, and Interviews) an information sheet
was given outlining the study to each participant, including my contact details if more
information or discussion was required. Signed consent was provided by the participants prior
to participating in the research. Participants were advised they could withdraw from the study at
any point without consequence by contacting me and they were advised they would have up to
four weeks to withdraw their data after participating. As I am also a tutor, I was also mindful
and sensitive throughout all stages of the study in terms of the balance of power in the
relationship with the participants. I recognise that this unbalanced relationship may cause
pressure to continue or to provide answers for fear of a negative reaction and attempted to
redress this balance by articulating and discussing these concerns with the participants prior to
the interview to ensure equity in the process. Wherever possible, I attempted to enable
participants to have a voice and reassure them that they would not be judged on their answers.
Participants were advised to take as much time as needed to answer the questions and not to feel
under pressure to answer. Throughout the process I recognised that the participants are
autonomous human beings and respected their rights to autonomy.
In order to keep data anonymous and confidential, participants were provided with a specific
memorable word (this allowed for cross–reference should they wish to withdraw), and a
participant number to protect their identity in the write-up. This information was only known to
myself. In the focus sessions all of the participants were asked to maintain confidentiality after
the session, but it was emphasised that this could not always be guaranteed due to the presence
of others.
I was also mindful that there may be other identifying information and details in the data, in
which case this was either removed or disguised. If in the case of any uncertainty as to what
should be included, I sought advice and guidance from my supervisors. Another potential issue
was the nature of IPA, as its interpretative nature means that the analysis goes beyond the data
73
to interpret and make sense of what the participants say. This may reveal insights the participant
may not be aware of themselves thus it was a dilemma whether or not to include such instances
or interpretations in the findings. Where this was ethically sensitive and easily identifiable, a
decision was made not to include this kind of data. Another consideration was whether to
discuss the findings with the participants, but it was felt that this may have unintended
emotional consequences as they may not be ready or willing to confront any new revelations. I
therefore decided that it would be unethical to impose these on participants as there may be
unintended consequences which would be beyond the scope of both the research and researcher.
Throughout the thesis, I always tried to maintain a balance between the needs of the research
endeavour and the “ethical respect for the integrity” of the participants (Kvale, 2009, p. 16).
Participant data was stored in locked storage cupboards and any electronic information
encrypted and kept on USB and PC software files in order to protect participant information and
ensure confidentiality. All identifying participant information will be destroyed following the
thesis completion. All participants were fully debriefed after participation in the study.
The first focus session was conducted and notes were taken throughout to capture some direct
quotes and make a record of interesting features from the sessions, e.g. who said what and any
interactions. The second focus group and interviews were voice recorded to allow fuller
engagement in the discussion without needing to make notes. Permission to record and
transcribe was gained from the participants. After each session, I checked and gained
permission that the participants were happy to include all of their responses in the analysis. At
this point participants were given the opportunity to say if they did not wish certain sections to
be included, but none of the participants requested any omissions.
Before the studies commenced, I explained that she would stop the tape recording at any point if
the participants requested or appeared to need a break. Throughout the study, I also monitored
the participants to check for signs of emotional upset or discomfort. The participants were given
the option to withdraw at any point without the need for justification. I also checked for any
signs of distress at the end of the session and spent some time with the participants after to
ensure there were no ill-effects from the study and that the participants felt comfortable with
what was said. Before leaving, I ensured that participants were restored back to their previous
emotional state prior to the session. The participants were offered contact details of appropriate
sources of support to follow this up if needed. Due to the specific nature of the study which
asked about students’ experiences of their personal tutor, it was possible that the participants
may have identified a personal or academic difficulty they were currently experiencing and felt
they were not receiving adequate support for. If this was felt to be the case, guidance was
available after the session as to who to contact and appropriate support services available from
me, as a PT at the same institution. General demographic information was obtained from the
74
participants (e.g. age) in order to contextualise their answers, which will also be given in an
anonymised form within the analysis and write-up.
4.3.3.2. General ethical considerations
According to Silverman (2009) few, if any studies are ethical; most make ethical decisions
based on reasoned judgements. Ethics often contradict or conflict with research and this can
create a tension between the two, which the researcher must negotiate. A major ethical dilemma
faced by researchers is the ‘cost/benefits ratio’ proposed by Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias
(1992, in Cohen et al., 2007) which requires the researcher to strike a balance between the
demands of pursuing their research and participants’ rights and values that may potentially be
threatened by the research. To strive towards such a balance in this study, constant analysis and
establishment of cost/risk and benefit will include both short and long term consequences.
An honest representation of self and qualifications and competencies will be conveyed by me to
all involved in the study. Values of honesty, accuracy, clarity, and fairness will be promoted in
all interactions, together with integrity in all professional endeavours. It is essential to be aware
of the problems that may result from dual or multiple relationships to avoid any conflicts of
interest whilst maintaining personal boundaries. This aspect becomes even more pertinent as I
conducted part of the research at my own institution. Cohen et al. (2007) suggest that self-
awareness together with a high level of sensitivity and integrity are key to negotiating
relationships.
The participants were not previously known to me; however the participants did know that I am
also a lecturer in another department prior to the interview, as they were informed of this on the
consent information. It was felt that it was important to provide some context to my interest and
to also avoid any deception. Unluer (2012) suggests that qualitative social researchers should
clarify the researcher’s role to make their research more credible. Kvale (2009) suggests that
there is an asymmetry in power between researcher and participant where the researcher holds
all of the information and has the power to respond and interpret the participants’ thoughts and
feelings. I was mindful throughout the interviews that my position as a lecturer in another
department may add to the power imbalance, so I endeavoured to make the participants feel in
control of the process by being explicit about this wherever possible.
In my ethical deliberations I also considered that participants would be discussing their
experiences of my colleagues working at the same university. These concerned the potential of
participants to reveal both negative and positive aspects of their experiences and what should be
my responsibilities concerning what to do with this information. Further to my reflections and
discussions with my supervisor it was agreed that my overall responsibility was to the
75
participants and their ethical rights. From this I emphasised my responsibility to the participants
to protect their right to anonymity and restated that any personal information disclosed would
remain confidential to me, thus ensuring that they felt fully in control of the information
disclosed. It was also agreed with my supervisor that I had a responsibility to pass on any
concerns to the Department and that this would take the form of general findings and
recommendations from the thesis. This was made this explicit to participants whilst also
reiterating my overall concern was for them and I checked with each participant to ensure they
were happy for this to happen.
4.3.3.3. Ethical processes
All University and British Psychological Society policies and procedures were followed
throughout the research process in accordance to the departmental and institutional guidelines,
to ensure the highest standard of ethical sensitivity and professionalism was maintained
throughout. No risks to participants were anticipated.
It is not expected that there will be any changes to the research; however if unexpected changes
occur, ethical amendments and approval will be sought immediately before any further research
is conducted.
4.4. The role of the researcher
The researcher’s role and integrity are crucial to the soundness of any ethical decisions made in
qualitative research. Morally responsible research behaviour involves the moral integrity of the
researcher and the sensitivity and commitment to moral issues and actions. Being familiar with
issues relating to values and ethical guidelines is essential and will also help to inform choices
that weigh ethical versus scientific concerns in a study (Kvale, 2009). This is especially
important given that the researcher is the main instrument for obtaining knowledge. The
integrity of the researcher is paramount in ethical deliberations and decisions and this comes
from a sound knowledge and experience base, and characteristics of honesty and fairness. My
own integrity comes from a number of sources; 10 years’ experience of being a personal tutor in
higher education, experience of conducting previous research interviews and focus sessions, a
commitment to the issues, and a sound knowledge and experience base. I also have a
background in voluntary counselling, suggesting I have the necessary personal characteristics
and skills (e.g. empathy), the ability to be sensitive towards moral issues, and specifically to act
ethically in relation to the participants.
4.4.1. Reflexivity
76
Qualitative researchers acknowledge that it is impossible to be free from personal bias and to be
completely objective. In acknowledging this, the goal of the researcher is to be sensitive to
one’s own prejudices and one’s subjectivity through developing reflexive objectivity (Kvale,
2009). Being reflexive in any actions and practices is a way to become more aware of these
factors. To develop a reflexive objectivity and an insight into practices, Kvale (2009) suggests
that the researcher writes about their thoughts, feelings and responses to what the participants
say when analysing the transcripts. I therefore adopted these strategies and this contributed
towards the analysis.
Maintaining a professional distance was also essential when interpreting the responses to ensure
some objectivity. I feel I was able maintain professional boundaries whilst also demonstrating
empathy towards the participants due to her previous experiences and well developed
communication skills. Whilst the researcher’s experience can be seen as an advantage in some
respects, this experience was used with caution. Willig and Rogers (2013) warn that having the
ability to build rapport may mean that the researcher can more easily get through the
participant’s defences and find themselves on the other side with uninvited access to the
person’s inner world. This access is facilitated by the skill of being able to build rapport, which
is the case for this research due to my previous interview experience and counselling training.
Moon (2004) describes inquiry as a process of self-conscious decision making and requires
thoughtful reflection. Throughout this thesis, I endeavoured to reflect and be self-conscious in
any decisions made and make links between my actions and beliefs. This was done by keeping a
diary throughout the duration of the thesis and taking time to reflect on actions, thoughts and
feelings (Moon, 2004), and to consider the impact these may have on the interview, analysis,
and interpretations. I also engaged in regular reflective conversations with my supervisors to
allow for other viewpoints and perspectives in relation to the analysis, but also to facilitate self-
reflection.
It is also worth noting that I was also a psychology tutor for 10 years. Willig and Rogers (2013)
see knowledge of psychology as an advantage at the data analysis stage as interpretation is
primarily a psychological activity. This meant that I could engage well with the analysis due to
the interpretive nature of IPA.
4.5. Overview
Given the contradictions and paucity in the literature on the personal tutor-student relationship,
particularly from the student perspective (see Chapter 2 for a detailed review) and the changing
Higher Education context (see Chapter 1 for an overview) this research aims to explore the
perceptions of personal tutoring from a student perspective using a case study approach. Two
77
focus group sessions are used to explore students’ personal experiences and perceptions of the
Personal Tutor, which take place pre- (2010) and post-tuition fee increase (2016). Themes from
the sessions will be identified using Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and related
to existing literature on the topic with the aim of developing a further understanding of the role
of the personal tutor. Interviews will then be conducted to explore in depth the personal tutor-
student relationship. PC theory will then be applied to the resulting IPA.
This chapter has provided an overview of the methodological considerations, methods used, and
approaches taken to the research. The next chapter is the first of four studies which form the
basis of thesis and is a report of a focus session conducted in 2010.
78
Chapter 5 Study 1 – Focus session 1
Exploring the Student Experience of Personal Tutoring in Higher Education
The previous chapter provided an overview of the methodological considerations and choices
made in this thesis. This chapter is the first of four studies in this research and is a report of a
focus session conducted in 2010.
5.0. Introduction and Higher Education Context
This study was conducted in 2010 and at that time there was little published material explicitly
about personal tutoring. Much of this was dated and did not reflect the contemporary higher
education context. An interest in researching the role of the personal tutor (PT) started to
develop following the 1992 changes by the government, which gave university status to
polytechnics and colleges with the effect of making higher education more available to the
masses. In response to the Dearing Report (1997) student numbers increased further to meet the
growing economy’s needs and with this came new fees regimes. Tuition fees of £1000 per
annum were introduced in 1998, which rose to £3000 in 2006. Traditional approaches to student
support and personal tutoring were challenged by researchers (e.g. Thomas, 2006).
Another major change in higher education occurred in 2008 with the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE, 2008) stating their intention to transfer £30 million from
retention initiatives to support the Government’s widening participation agenda. This agenda
was aimed particularly at raising participation rates in higher education institutes of students
from non-traditional backgrounds (HEFCE, 2008). This resulted in increasing student numbers,
greater student diversity, and competing demands on staff in relation to research. Students from
non-traditional backgrounds include, for example, those first in their family to go to university,
single parent families, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, different ethnicities,
and mature students. This move by the Government added to a more diverse student body,
which brought with it a greater complexity of needs that the current models of personal tutoring
struggled to meet. A growing interest in the PT role followed.
In the context of increasing workloads for higher education staff, personal tutors can often feel
unsupported, overburdened, and have difficulties setting boundaries and meeting student needs
(Ridley, 2006). Added to this was the decline in funding, which resulted in greater staff/student
ratios, making it more difficult for academic staff to get to know their tutees (Grant &
Woolfson, 2001). Wootton (2006) suggested the need to explore how existing personal tutor
systems function in institutions in this changing context to meet students’ changing needs and
expectations.
79
5.0.1. Personal Tutoring In Higher Education
Research into the role of the PT started to identify the benefits of the role for many student
outcomes. The role was linked to improved student retention, for example (Thomas, 2006);
enhanced student experience (Hixenbaugh, 2006), and providing students with a sense of
belonging at university (Palmer et al., 2009). The role is seen as having the greatest impact in
first year by supporting students through some of the challenges of the transition to university
(Upcraft et al., 2005) and the relationship can act as an ‘anchor’ through this turbulent time
(Owen, 2002). Developing a relationship with a PT was found to have a positive effect on
student motivation and self-concept (Cokley, 2000) and students valued the support they
received (Hartwell & Farbrother, 2006).
From a review of approaches to personal tutoring Earwaker (1992) identified three main models
used in higher education institutions (HEIs); the Pastoral, Professional and Curriculum
approaches. The pastoral approach was highlighted as the traditional approach adopted by the
majority of institutions and incorporates the provision of both personal and academic support by
an assigned academic within the department. In the curriculum approach, the PT role is
embedded within a module, typically PDP, and students see their PT regularly as part of the
course. The professional approach sees the outsourcing of support from the department to
trained professional whose only role in the institution is student support. (For a more detailed
overview of the models and approaches to personal tutoring see Chapter 2, Section 2.).
Although these models provide an outline of the main approaches, how the role works in
practice is not clearly defined and this is a source of confusion for both students and PTs alike
(Owen, 2002). The need for more consistency in the approach was outlined by Wootton (2006),
for example a clearer structure and a purpose for meetings. Hartwell and Farbrother (2006) also
found that students were negative around the lack of PT availability and wanted more academic
support in relation to aspects of their course.
Not knowing what to expect from the PT can cause confusion and anxiety for students (Owen,
2002). A difference between expectations and experiences, even if this is small, can still have a
meaningful impact on stress levels, particularly in an already vulnerable first year population
(Thomas, 2006). Feeling dissatisfied with the level of support received can have a powerful
impact, leading some students to withdraw or disengage from any future attempts to interact
(Mancuso et al., 2010).
Much of the research on personal tutoring has been in done with the aim of improving practice
in personal tutoring. Personal tutoring practice is based on tacit knowledge gained through
teaching experience and is commonly referred to in the literature as ‘intuition’. The importance
80
of evidence in shaping and enhancing practice is emphasised by Thomas and Pring (2004). They
also stress the importance of reconciling this knowledge with knowledge from research, as this
would form a more reliable and valid evidence base for practice.
Given the importance of the personal role and the demands of the Higher Education context
there is a need to investigate the student experience of personal tutoring in Higher Education
further. The research reviewed here suggests a gap exists in terms of understanding student
perceptions of their expectations and how these compare to their experiences with their personal
tutor. This study aims to address this by exploring this phenomenon qualitatively, seeking to
understand how students experience personal tutoring and make sense of this experience.
Participants will be first year students, who have been identified as the population most likely to
be affected by personal tutoring.
5.1. Method
5.1.1. Background context
During 2009-2010, the institution in this research undertook an internal audit of cross-faculty
approaches to personal tutoring. Initial meetings took place between October and November
2009, with a report produced for the Academic Quality and Standards Committee at the end of
January 2010. Gatekeeper access by the researcher was granted by the Head of Quality
Standards, who was guiding the process. The involvement of the researcher was initially as an
observer at meetings for the purpose of gaining theoretical and research related insights into the
processes associated with approaches to personal tutoring. This was primarily driven by the
researcher’s own interest in the topic and then snowballed to expand into involvement in the
focus sessions for the purpose of this research study.
5.1.2. Participants
13 self-selected undergraduate students attended the focus group meeting in response to an
email from their tutors asking for volunteers to participate in a focus group discussion regarding
their experiences of personal tutoring (students were all first year undergraduates and came
from the Faculties of Health (FoH, n=2), Education (FoE, n=3) and Arts and Sciences (FAS,
n=8). This was a diverse student group which included mature students (aged 18 to 35) and
students entering university directly from school and sixth form. It also included students
entering from the workplace and students entering from FE and other universities. There were
two males and 11 females (see Appendix A for participant information and coding).
5.1.3. Procedure
81
Data collection was undertaken using a focus group session of 90 minutes during the working
day, in a relaxed environment on campus. Detailed preparation was conducted by the researcher
prior to the session to ensure its smooth running. Questions were developed by the researcher
and informed by the literature germane to personal tutoring and the student experience in higher
education. The questions acted as a broad framework for the discussion and started with general
questions such as “What did you do before you came to university?” which acted as warm up
questions and were useful in gaining some background context. The framework then moved on
to more specific questions such as “What is your experience of personal tutoring at university?”.
(See Appendix B for a full list of questions used). Notes were taken by a second researcher and
written up collaboratively to ensure coherence around the accuracy and overall sense of the
session and findings. The resulting text was then analysed using IPA and themes identified and
explored.
5.1.4. Rationale for choice of methods
This study is a snapshot case study of a cross section of Edge Hill University students. This type
of case study is described by Tellis (1997, p. 7) as, “…. a detailed, objective study of one
research entity at one point in time”. It does not claim to be representative of the population, but
may be generalised to cases similar to the one studied.
5.1.4.1. Focus session
A focus session will be used to generate data for the case study and the session was aimed at
exploring the perceptions of the personal tutor based on students’ first-hand accounts and
experiences. The decision to use a focus group as an appropriate data collection method was
derived from Krueger (1994) who described the process as a carefully planned discussion
designed to elicit thoughts and feelings in a permissive and nonthreatening environment.
Wellington (2000, p. 125) suggests that group members can “Spark each other off” thus
providing a richer context and findings than may otherwise be obtained from individual
interviews. Focus groups are recognised as having a high face validity due to the credibility of
comments from the group members (Carey, 1994). Cronin (2008) described the focus session as
a facilitated group discussion. In this case the role of the facilitator was allocated to the
researcher for this study, as she has prior experience of conducting focus sessions and was able
to draw on the necessary communication skills to encourage expression of different opinions.
Kingry, Tiedje and Friedman (1990) suggest that this helps group members be more specific
with their responses and to explore underlying viewpoints.
5.1.4.2. Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis
82
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used in this study to explore the
phenomena of personal tutoring both on a personal and social level. This inductive method is
used to elucidate how people make sense and construction of meaning from their experiences
through their verbal accounts of those experiences (Smith et al., 2009). In addition to exploring
what individual experiences were like for each student, the analysis will explore the
convergences and divergences within the group, with the aim of moving towards more general
claims about the experience of personal tutoring. Smith (2008) emphasises the importance of
analysing the data from an ideographic level as well as exploring group patterns and dynamics
when using a focus group.
Following initial case familiarisation and comments, the data was coded and emergent themes
identified. Considerable time was given to retaining the idiographic focus on the individual
voice and at the same time making claims for the group. This iterative process involved
exploring the relationship between commonality and individuality. Emergent themes were
subsequently clustered on the basis of similarity into super-ordinate themes, as per the
framework offered by Smith (2008).
5.1.5. Ethical considerations
As with all research within the institution, the study was conducted with full adherence to the
guidance offered in the University’s Research Ethics Framework (REF) published in 2007. As
the researcher is a Psychologist, the ethical guidelines were also derived from the British
Psychological Society Guidelines (2009) on Conducting Research with Human Participants.
All potential stakeholders were clearly identified from the beginning of the focus sessions and
essentially their interests, rights, and responsibilities were considered with reference to the REF
and BPS codes. Throughout the research there was an awareness of the power relations (BPS,
2009) as a degree of power is gained over the individuals through the control of personal
information. It is therefore essential to be aware of and treat those involved respectfully so that
no abuse of power occurs (Herrera, 2003).
It is incumbent on the researcher in terms of privacy and confidentiality to keep and store
records appropriately. This ensures that no breaches of confidentiality or violation of trust occur
and that the integrity of the research is protected and preserved. The limits and extent of
maintaining confidentiality were made explicit by explaining these aspects to participants in
relation to the research. It is the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that confidentiality is
guaranteed (Kirkup and Carrigan, 2000). The privacy of involved individuals was considered in
terms of the sensitivity of the information given, the observed setting, and the dissemination of
83
information. The information provided by participants in terms of the responses has been
anonymised to protect their identity.
Prior to the session, the participants were briefed about the nature of the study and areas such as
confidentiality and anonymity were discussed. Informed consent was obtained freely from all,
ensuring ample opportunity to understand the nature, purpose, and anticipated consequences of
research participation (BPS, 2009). Informed consent is the right of every individual
participating in research and therefore not a matter that can be ignored or denied to the
individual (Behi & Nolan, 1995). A choice of whether to continue with their involvement in the
research was given to all participants after being informed of all the facts likely to influence
their decision. From the first contact, participants were made aware of their right to withdraw at
any stage from research participation. If required, participants who withdrew could request that
all related records be destroyed, thus protecting their rights to self-determination and freedom
(Silverman, 2006). Informed consent gives participants control over their participation and an
added degree of control over perceived risks (Herrera, 2003). From the first contact participants
they can decline to answer any questions. After the research was completed participants were
fully debriefed, to inform them of the nature of the research, and to provide an opportunity to
identify any unforeseen harm or discomfort, or misconceptions, and for any ongoing support to
be discussed and arranged as needed (Flick, 2006). There was no risk of harm, psychological or
other, from being involved in the focus session.
Through constant reflection and reference to relevant literature, awareness was maintained of
the problems that may result from dual or multiple relationships. This reflective process helped
to avoid any conflicts of interest whilst maintaining personal boundaries. This aspect became
even more pertinent as the researcher conducted the research at her own institution. Cohen et al.
(2007) suggest that self-awareness, together with a high level of sensitivity and integrity, are
key to negotiating relationships. Of particular relevance to this research is the suggestion by the
BPS to consult, where appropriate, concerning ethical issues such as conduct in relationships,
processes, resources and time management, and guidance for best practice. In this research
essential consultation on ethical questions and matters that required ethical scrutiny occurred
regularly and systematically during supervision meetings.
5.2. Analysis
(See Appendix C for focus session write-up and analysis)
Where quotes are included participants are numbered P1-13 and unless the participant is stated as male, she is female. The faculty the student is affiliated with is also stated; these are either from the Faculty of Health (FoH), Education (FoE), or Arts and Sciences (FAS) (See Appendix A for participant information and coding)
84
The following section will highlight findings from the Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis (IPA), in which student perceptions and actual experiences of personal tutoring in
higher education were explored. The analysis identified emergent themes, which were then
clustered across all themes on the basis of similarity. The super-ordinate themes that were
identified were: Expectations, Negative Experiences, Positive Experiences, and Student Choice.
These themes will form the subheadings in this section. In terms of the super-ordinate theme of
Expectations, cluster themes of Lack of Clarity in PT Role, PT Attributes and Degree
Dependent were found. Within the super-ordinate themes of Positive Experiences, cluster
themes were Relationships and Proactive. In Negative Experiences were cluster themes of Poor
first Experience, Poor Communication, and Lack of Genuine Care were identified. In the super-
ordinate theme of Student Choice, cluster themes of Who to go to for support, What support is
needed, When to meet, and Levels of Support were identified.
Expectations
Lack of clarity in the PT role
The students’ expectations of their personal tutor were not clear. Participants felt that these
needed to be made clear and explicit to both sides of the partnership at the earliest possible
opportunity, with some feeling that this should be communicated prior to the commencement of
the course. Most students had not received an explanation of the Personal Tutor role, or had the
opportunity to evaluate it. As a consequence, students were not sure what they could
legitimately ask of their tutor:
“...I didn’t really know what the meeting was supposed to be about...I think he just wanted to
see how I was getting on”.
One student felt that he had a clear understanding of what the PT was there for and this was
only for academic support (P8, FAS, Media, Male). Another commented that they did get some
information on the PT role but that it was lacking in anything personal, so this did not match
with her expectations of what the role should be. They said:
“I know we got a booklet when we started but you don’t look at it...it’s not very personal is it?”
(P12, FAS, Arts).
In terms of what the PT should be, P1 felt that the PT,
85
“…should be someone who can be an advocate for you and help you if you have any problems,
like financial problems” (FH, Male) and according to P3, “...the personal tutor should be there
to guide you so that you know you are going in the right direction...” (FAS, Arts).
PT attributes
It was felt by the majority of students that a PT should have certain traits and interpersonal skills
and that not every tutor could or should be a PT. They would like to be able to choose who to go
to:
“If I had a serious problem I’d want to choose the right person to go to, they would need to
[have the] right personality” (P8, FAS, Media). P9 (FoE) stated “…there’s some tutors you
wouldn’t go to”.
This also suggest that not all staff should be a PT. P1 (FoH, Male) held an extremely negative
view of academics, suggesting they lack the human qualities to be a PT:
“I wouldn’t speak to my personal tutor about anything personal because academics are cold-
hearted reptiles... totally lacking in any human qualities...the way they speak to you !...they live
in their own little worlds”.
In contrast to his belief that academics should not be personal tutors due to their cold
personalities, he went on to describes the qualities that a personal tutor should have:
“...should be empathetic, warm, bend over backwards, nice”. (P1, FoH, Male).
Another student felt that not all PTs are PTs through choice; it felt as though they had to be PTs
against their will:
“Personal tutors should want to do the role…I think sometimes it feels like they are being
forced to do it when they don’t want to” (P2, FoH).
A student from Education expressed that for her, the PTs had credibility in their role as they
have gone through the same training as their students. This led to a relationship based on trust
through shared experiences:
“We lean on them heavily because of the nature of the course...they have done what we have
done, walked the walk and therefore have credibility...we trust our tutors” (P6, FoE).
Positive experiences of personal tutoring
86
Relationships
There were many examples of effective personal tutoring relationships, which were seen as
supportive and enabling. Personal Tutors were perceived to be always there, going out of their
way to help, and were genuinely interested. For one student, his PT’s interest was demonstrated
by knowing their names and through the use of humour,
“…they knew us all by name and they would joke with us...they seemed interested” (P6, FoE).
For students to feel able to share personal issues, they needed to have built a relationship first.
This seemed dependent on the PT’s personality, familiarity, and feelings of trust. One female
participant felt that she would be more likely to go to someone she knew personally because...
“I felt like I already knew them really well and they had already helped me loads...they were not
a stranger...they knew my background” (P5, FAS).
This suggests that establishing a relationship with the PT as a foundation of future support is
facilitated by a mutual understanding and the sharing of personal information. P9 also
recognised the need to build a relationship with the PT prior to seeking help:
“It’s important to have a relationship with the tutor before you would go to them” (P9, FoE).
One student commented on what she expects based on the title of the personal tutor: “…
personal has to mean something” (P7, FoE). This suggests that if the PT relationship is not
going to be personal then it should be given another title, as the word ‘personal’ misleads the
students as to the nature of the relationship.
A successful role was perceived to be built on developing an enabling relationship, familiarity,
accessibility, approachability, and trusting, respectful collegial relationships. For those students
who did not have a relationship with their PT, they would choose someone else to go to with
any problems. P12 (FAS, Science) stated:
“You get allocated a personal tutor but then you just go to someone who you have a personal
relationship with”.
Proactive
This is further supported by another student who felt that a much more proactive and structured
approach should be taken in terms of arranging structured meetings early in the first semester
and that this would increase the likelihood of going to them for help when needed. She said,
87
“I think if you see them more then you are more likely to speak to them about other stuff” (P8,
FAS, Media, Male).
She went on to suggest that having a more structured approach to personal tutoring where the
PT also teaches on the module would lead to a more proactive approach to personal tutoring,
rather than the alternative which is problem-based and relies on the students making contact
with any needs and issues.
Negative experiences of personal tutoring
Poor first experience
Students were well aware of the considerable variation in the role, which they perceived to be
dependent on the individual PT; there were some examples of perceived ‘toxic’ Personal Tutors
where early experiences seemed to ‘poison’ any possibility of a future relationship.
For one student prior to starting university, contact was made through social media (Facebook)
by the programme leader of the course in an attempt to welcome the students. She describes this
experience,
“...it just felt really false and a bit weird, especially cos they didn’t seem to care when we
started” (P2, FoH).
Having also experienced a lack of anything personal after starting, the student saw this as a
contradiction. In her experience, students received conflicting messages in terms of whether the
university cared and this contributed to the feelings of suspicion as to the authenticity of any
endeavours.
These first impressions of PTs seem to matter and students seem to be able to discern from this
and through observations and comparisons with others whether they are likely to be nice and
give you time,
“We met our personal tutor in Welcome week, ours just mumbled at us, others seemed much
nicer and they seemed like they would give you more time, just not the person that was
allocated to us” (P8, FAS, Media, Male).
Poor Communication
One student talked about his experiences of his PT in the first semester of Year 1 “...She was
never there when she was supposed to be and didn’t reply to my emails so I just went to see
someone else”. This comment seemed to resonate with a number of students in the group and
88
received many nods: “...she is approachable, and will always respond straightaway, really
supportive” (P6, FoE).
Students were aware of the need to focus on communication with off-campus students, who
they perceived to be at a disadvantage to students resident on site. Three off-campus students
had experienced having to make a special journey into university to meet up with their tutor at a
prearranged time and felt that this was unreasonable to expect and that meeting times should be
arranged to coordinate with times when the student was already on campus. One student
experienced having made the journey in for a meeting that the PT did not attend. She felt this
was unfair and lacked equity in expectations:
...you need to know if your personal tutor is in, especially if you make an effort to come to
uni, they should be there...they should let someone know if they are not going to be
there...it’s not fair...if a student doesn’t turn up then we can expect a call and they would
have words with you (P3, FAS, Arts).
Lack of Genuine Care
Experiencing a lack of care and interest in the student from the PT had a negative effect:
My tutor just didn’t seem interested, it was like she didn’t even know who I was or care! So I
just never bothered going to her after that unless I had to........you just find someone you can
talk to and go to them instead (P8, FAS, Media, Male).
Another student reported a similar experience via email:
“I couldn’t go to a tutorial so I emailed and I got a really harsh response... it put me off...I
wouldn’t go to him again for anything important!” (P10, FAS, Media).
In this instance, the student’s negative early experiences of the tutor seemed to have lasting
effects and often resulted in them being disengaged with their personal tutor and seeking out
others who they perceived as interested and caring.
P2 expands on her early experience of the transition to university:
“I just felt really overwhelmed when I started...I saw my personal tutor once in the first week
but it felt more like a tick box exercise...I don’t think they do their duty of care...” (P2, FoH).
Another student felt the opposite, however, and this equated to more time:
89
“...she is brilliant, she just gives me the time, it doesn’t feel like a tick box exercise” (P11, FAS,
Media).
The reference to a ‘tick box exercise’ by both students suggests that although students may
know that it is a PT’s job to see them, they do also want to feel as though the PT cares and that
meeting with them is not just about ticking a box.
Student Choice
Students required choice in three key areas: who to go to for support, what support they feel is
appropriate, and when they would like to get the support.
Choice of who to go to for support
Students felt happy with the level of support overall. This was not always through the PT role,
however, but through accessing the wider academic/administrative departmental teams. For one
student who had negative experiences of her PT, she used other support services at the
university and this seemed to ask as a safety net when the PT relationship did not work. She
reported that,
“ I have gone to other services and it was alright, at least there’s someone else to go to” (P8,
FAS, Media, Male).
The freedom to choose who they shared personal issues with was important. If the allocated
personal tutor had not built a supportive relationship, then students tended to access the module
tutor, as this was someone who knew them on an individual basis or someone they felt closer to.
P4 (FAS, Media) felt that personal support should be offered by someone other than tutors who
teach you and felt that the choice to do this was important. She suggested that existing tutors
might make ‘judgements’ of her and she would rather it be kept separate and outside of normal
teaching times. P3 (FAS, Arts) felt that as adults, university students should be given enough
information so they can make an informed choice on who to go to for support. This is further
enforced by another student, who quite forcefully states,
“I would really like the option to choose who my personal tutor is, others seem much more
friendly than mine!” (P10, FAS, Media).
Choice in what support is needed
P2 (FoH) would like a choice in terms of the nature of the meetings and support. She said,
90
“I personally would like some options...I think 1-2-1 sessions are good for personal stuff but we
should also have group sessions and drop-ins for other things”.
A prompt, responsive, proactive approach where personal tutor meetings are integrated within
timetabled hours was favoured. Timetabling needed to be realistic and feasible and students
needed to be aware of the availability of support.
Choice in when to meet
P2 (FoH) felt that PT availability should suit the student’s needs and it should also be clear and
consistent:
…availability should meet students’ needs…just being available at lunch is no good, they
should be available when we are and they should. It should be timetabled and realistic, there
should be a slot when you know they are free, it should be ring-fenced, students need to
know their availability.
P8 also felt that tutors needed to be more available and in more and that too much relied on ad
hoc support resulting from ‘corridor meetings’ which developed into ‘proper’ meetings (FAS,
Media, Male). A number of students preferred a formal and structured approach, with regular
meetings:
“…It should be timetabled and realistic (P2, FoH).
The PT role was valued where meeting and contact was embedded in modules and was
perceived by both students and staff to be worthwhile and meaningful in terms of helping
students with academic demands. This seemed to be the more apparent for those students
undertaking practical courses such as teaching and nursing, where practical and ongoing support
would be seen as essential to the nature of the degree. This approach appeared to be very
successful, as it offered many layers of support and regular contact.
The appropriate scaffolding of the experience is crucial, i.e. the right level at the right time.
There was recognition of the need to differentiate PT support across the course, with first years
requiring a more structured approach and second/third years perhaps requiring a more flexible
approach:
“You should be able to get more support in the first year with regular meeting, after that is
should be drop-ins” (P2, FoH).
One student believed that students living on campus had more support:
91
“I think more support is available if you live in” (P1, FoH, Male).
P7 (FoE) felt that the PT should know about the course so that support can be given when it is
needed:
“…appropriate support at the right time, when you need it for the course, so it should be
someone who knows about the course”.
P7 also talks about a termly meeting which encompasses both academic and personal issues
and describes this as being a ‘proper’ tutorial:
“...we have a termly tutorial where the personal tutor reviews your work and they go over
everything...it’s a proper tutorial...they ask you about any work problems, any problems at
home...” (P7, FoE).
Here the particular requirements of the teaching programme were key to determining how the
role was operationalised.
Overview of Findings
It must be stated the Personal Tutor policy was published at the institutional level and all
faculties and departments were expected to follow the guidance and recommendations. How
these recommendations were interpreted and put into practice seemed down to the separate
faculties and departments to decide, however. This may account for some of the differences
between the experiences of the students studied in this research.
Overall, students valued the role more when they felt they had developed a relationship with
their PT. Whether or not students had the opportunity to develop a relationship was very much
dependent on which degree they were on, as some programmes facilitated this more than others.
Education, for example, appeared to do this more than Arts and Sciences, and students
identified their concern at the large number of students in Arts and Sciences being a barrier to
developing relationships. The nature of the course also resulted in different experiences of the
PT, as different courses require different kinds of support e.g. trainee teachers needing more
regular personal support than Media students. There were some programmes where the role had
been embedded in a specific module and this was perceived by both students to be worthwhile
and meaningful. This meant that there was regular contact and that the PT knew more about the
academic demands of the course. What also appeared to be very successful was where students
were offered a choice of many layers of support, whereby academic and pastoral needs were
met through a menu of one-to-one structured meetings, groups, and drop in facilities. This
92
flexibility was appreciated and valued by students who had a choice of who to see, when, and
what for.
Collegial relationships were built early on and seemed more successful where expectations were
articulated clearly and the individuals offering support had high levels of interpersonal skills,
were knowledgeable and responsive. In less successful PT relationships, the role was peripheral
and approached in a ‘tick box’ way. Where expectations of roles within the relationship with the
personal tutor were not clear, this seemed to be a barrier to seeking support. Students were not
clear about what they could legitimately expect of their personal tutor and they felt that this
should be made explicit early on in the course. Students were able to quickly perceive who they
might feel comfortable with to approach for particular areas of concern and there was a strong
element of choice in this. Students did not always choose their allocated PT, preferring to
access someone from the department who they were familiar with and perceived to be both
accessible and approachable. This can be summarised with one student comment:
“…personal must mean something” (P9, FoE).
A proactive and responsive approach was valued by students in terms of dealing with both day-
to-day issues and more serious issues that may arise.
Degree Dependent
What became apparent through the focus group session and subsequent analysis was that the
nature of student experiences and expectations was, for the most part, dependent on the specific
degree they were undertaking. Various patterns emerged through the analysis, for example,
students from the Faculty of Arts and Science were for the most part unhappy with their PT
experiences. They felt that their PTs did not care and they had not developed a relationship with
them. One possible explanation for this may be that this faculty has a larger cohort of students
per degree programme, which may mean that the PT would struggle to meet the needs of all of
their tutees. The Health students who participated in the focus group seemed to have a more
formal and structured relationship with their personal tutors, the nature of which was primarily
academic support. These students also seemed dissatisfied with their experiences, however,
expressing that it was devoid of any personal relatedness. Students from Education, on the other
hand, were all very happy with their PTs and felt they had developed personal and supportive
relationships with them over the year. This could be explained by the nature of their course. As
trainee teachers, these students experienced regular support meetings which were arranged
around supporting students’ placement needs. These meetings were both regular and flexible.
Students from Education felt that their PTs would help them with anything and would go
beyond what was expected of them, for example:
93
“I think my tutor goes above and beyond the call of duty, communication is excellent and she
takes the time to make me feel valued” (P9, FoE).
This was reinforced further by another student from Education, who said,
“…we get a lot of continuous support when we are on placement, within 24 hours you get a
response, nothing is too much and there is nothing you could ask them that would think is silly”
(P6, FoE).
5.3. Discussion
The findings from the analysis are broadly consistent with the existing literature articulated in
the introduction. Themes of expectations of the role, positive experiences, negative experiences
and student choice feature strongly. Positive experiences of personal tutors relate to a more
proactive approach by the personal tutor and the importance of building a relationship. Students
had both negative and positive experiences around the PT’s approachability, accessibility and
availability and these were key factors which influenced their decisions to access support.
Students expressed strong negative emotions when they felt that their PT was not genuine in
their role or if they felt the PT did not care. Poor first experiences strongly influenced students’
perceptions of the PT. The ideal personal tutor seems to be a responsive and readily available
tutor of the student’s choosing.
These findings on expectations are consistent with Owen (2002), as they suggest that students
are not clear about what they can legitimately expect from a tutor and the tutor may provide
support based on what they expect the student to need rather than the reality, which is often very
different. The implication for practice here would be that both tutors and students need to be
prepared for the role, with an explicit articulation of expectations and shared understandings.
Without this as a sound basis, the relationship can struggle.
One of this study’s main findings is the importance the students placed on the relationship in
building a bond with their PT. As in Hartwell and Farbrother (2006), they value the support they
receive. Students who have problems are more likely to go to someone they know and who
knows them, so developing early relationships is a proactive, solution-focused approach rather
than a deficit model which waits for the student to have a problem before reacting. Those
students who experienced a positive and proactive level of support from their PT seemed
happier with their overall first year experience as they felt well supported and could go to their
PT with anything. This supports Hixenbaugh’s (2006) findings, which suggested that a PT could
enhance the student experience. Palmer et al. (2009) also found that the PT provides a sense of
belonging and can act as an anchor for support (Owen, 2002). These students also talked about
the positive support they received in the first week at university and throughout the first year, 94
offering support for the idea that the PT is pivotal in the transition to university and makes a
difference through some of the first year challenges (Upcraft et al., 2005).
This study also supports the findings of Strivens (2006) as it identified the importance of the
first meeting with the PT and acknowledges that a poor first impression could have a negative
impact on the future of the relationship. Strivens states that the relationship between tutor and
student is easily sabotaged by one negative experience. It would seem from this that more
emphasis and importance should be placed on getting the relationship ‘right’ as early as
possible, and that tutors should be accessible and responsive.
Students in this study seem to want both a structured and flexible approach to support. A
structured approach is also called for in the research, as it would benefit tutors in making more
visible the unseen and unaccounted for hours spent on personal tutoring. Furthermore, it would
mean that the system would no longer rely on the goodwill of individual tutors (Wootton, 2006).
Hafez and Weiss (2006) suggest that a consequence of the current informalised system is that
tutors can often feel overburdened and under pressure from the increased workload. Morley
(1998) describes the role as being heavily dependent on the ‘emotional labour’ of offering
support and being caring, a role that often falls to women within the institution. Expectations of
availability, as expressed by the students in this study, seemed to be that the tutor would be
accessible when they need them to be. In the present context, however, this is unrealistic due to
the many demands on tutors’ time. Moreover, any time allocated to the PT role does not take
account of informal meetings and the increasingly diverse student body which brings with it
increasingly diverse needs.
Building on students’ right to choose and linking to the findings of Griffiths and Miller (2005)
are practical suggestions on how to alleviate some of the PT workload and satisfy student who
want more availability. Jelfs, Richardson and Price (2009) suggest that personal tutoring should
move towards a more blended approach so that support is provided not just by face-to-face
meetings but also by email, SMS, and phone/mobile contact. According to Jelfs et al. (2009)
formalising this layer of support with systematic record keeping can be very successful, it may
also be a way in which to counter the ever increasing demands on tutors’ time. Its success
would, however, rely on institutions acknowledging and supporting this approach and allocating
time and resources for tutoring.
According to Griffiths and Miller (2005), student reports suggest that there are students who
feel less at ease during face-to-face tutoring and may provide less information about their
personal learning experiences. This indicates that tutor arrangements should take into account
different student needs and provide a choice in terms of whether to discuss personal issues. This
could be seen as a student’s right to choose rather than having the content of the discussion
95
imposed on them. Students in this study strongly expressed wanting to choose what level of
support they access, as well as how and when they do so. It is clearly not the case that there is a
‘one size fits all’ approach, as all students are different. A diverse student body requires HE
institutions to provide a diverse range of support on many levels and layers. This is clearly a
challenge for institutions to meet in the current HE climate of reduced funding and increased
demands on tutors’ time. Harnessing the other support mechanisms available in the institution,
for example academic support available through student services, may provide a more holistic
approach to student support and could be a way to moderate increasing demands on tutors’ time.
It is therefore essential to investigate, develop and implement alternative approaches to student
support in response to the changing HE landscape and the pressure to ensure high rates of
student retention and success.
At an institutional level, the findings from this research contributed to recommendations by the
Personal Tutoring Audit Panel to the Working Group tasked to review the Code of Practice and
Policy development at the University where the research was conducted. These findings
informed specific recommendations, which included a recommendation for a more formal and
structured approach to Personal Tutoring, with clear and specific guidance on what to expect
from the role of the PT. Subsequent to this, the revised Code of Practice and Policy (2010)
included a clear recommendation for a minimum number of four PT-student meetings during
the academic year. Furthermore, a booklet was produced which clearly laid out what was
expected from the PT role for both students and PTs. This was given to both students and tutors.
The findings from this study support the need to further investigate, develop and implement
alternative approaches to student support in response to the changing HE landscape and the
pressure to ensure high rates of student retention and success. Furthermore, there is a need to
explore how existing personal tutor systems function in institutions within a widening
participation context to decide whether a personal tutor system delivered by academic staff is
achievable or even necessary (Wootton, 2006). This study and the wider research around it also
suggest the need to develop a meaningful way to evaluate the PT role and from this provide
evidence that the role adds value to student outcomes. At the institutional level, this would also
provide support for new approaches to the role which take account of a changing student body
and a more complex higher education context. This study does, however, offer strong support
for the benefits of building a relationship with a PT early in the first year, as this has the
potential to positively impact on many student outcomes.
5.4. Conclusion
It is clear from the analysis and research findings that timetabled tutor appointments do not
always meet with the needs of students, as support and feedback may be needed at other times.
96
Added to this are the students’ statements revealing the importance of feeling as though tutors
are ‘always there’ for them and needing a proactive and timely response to their ongoing needs.
This presents a dilemma in terms of a mismatch between student expectations and what is it
possible and realistic for a tutor to deliver. The multiple demands on tutors’ time have been
discussed here and highlighted as a constant challenge for tutors. It seems essential therefore
that PT approaches are evaluated and that whatever system is decided upon, there is a clear
articulation of the role and expectations. This should help to avoid any confusion and
uncertainty, which may lead to anger and frustration for students if what they expected is not
then delivered. The management and negotiation of realistic expectations seems to be key to
successful and positive experiences.
Overall, the findings from this study suggest that there are many inconsistencies in terms of
student experiences of personal tutoring and that much of this can be attributed to different
approaches in terms of how the role is articulated and timetabled. Prior to the focus session P2
(FoH) did not know what a PT was for:
“… it’s weird listening to everyone else as I didn’t really know what a personal tutor is for and
I’m only just realising!”.
It could be inferred from this that there would be some benefit to a group session in which PT
expectations are explored and clarified. From a critical perspective, having done this research
and engaged in this literature, what seems to work best is where the role is integrated into a first
semester module. This allows for early contact to be made and offers an opportunity for
students and PTs to build a relationship. Added to this, in an integrated approach there should
also be formal and structured 1-2-1 meetings between a student and their personal tutor to allow
for more personal support needs to be met and the relationship to develop further. This also
means that from the PT perspective, there is some formal timetabling of the role so that
demands on the PT are recognised at the institutional level. This more structured approach
reduces the dependency on the work schedule or goodwill of individual tutors and has also been
highlighted in previous research (Wootton, 2006).
This chapter reported on a focus session conducted in 2010 and was the first of four studies in
this research. The next chapter will report on a second focus session conducted in 2016 at the
same university.
97
Chapter 6 Study 2 – Focus session 2
The Personal Tutor-Student Relationship: Student Expectations and Experiences of
Personal Tutoring in Higher Education.
The previous chapter presented the findings from a focus group session conducted in March
2010. This chapter presents the second study for this thesis, in which the findings of a focus
group session conducted in March 2016 will be presented.
There was a gap of six years between the previous focus group and this one. During this time,
two important changes have taken place, each of which had the potential to impact on student
expectations and experiences of personal tutoring and higher education. These were i) a more
structured approach to personal tutoring at the university, whereby a new institutional policy at
the same institution being researched was introduced in September 2010 for Personal Tutoring,
and ii) the UK Government’s increase of student fees from £3000 to £9000 in 2012. The new
PT policy stated that PTs should have a minimum of four PT meetings with each tutee per
academic year, whereas previously the recommendation was two. Another important difference
was that the previous PT policy only stated general expectations of the PT role, while the
updated 2010 policy explicitly articulates the expectations and responsibilities of students and
PTs separately, then presents it as a shared endeavour.
The first focus group session explored perceptions of student experiences of their PT. This
second focus group aims to also explore student perceptions and experiences of their PT, but
also attempts to find out more about student expectations of the role and more broadly of higher
education in light of the two changes outlined above. The importance and impact of
expectations on the student experience was also identified as one of the key findings in the first
focus group and therefore seemed worthy of further investigation. Findings from the first focus
group also indicated the importance for students of building a genuine relationship with their
PT. Whether this is still the case in a more current consumer-driven HE climate will also be
explored in this study.
Another change between Study 1 and 2 is the nature of the participants. In the first focus session
student participants were self-selected from across the three faculties and the Researcher felt
that this was a source of many of the differences found between students in terms of the
findings. To limit the variability related to course differences and enhance the possibility of
identifying psychological differences, the participants in the second study will be self-selected
from one degree programme only.
98
6.0. Introduction
The transition into university and adjustment to a new learning environment have been
identified as key challenges for students (Brinkworth, McCann, Matthews & Nordstrӧm, 2009).
Stress experienced in the first year is much higher than stress experienced prior to university,
which has been attributed by Krieg (2013) to the notion that students’ expectations of Higher
Education do not match their actual experiences. Watts (2011) suggests that the personal tutor
(PT) role has the potential to help students to adjust to university life and is pivotal to
supporting students’ differing needs.
Developing a positive PT relationship in the first year of university is linked to many positive
student outcomes. Students felt, for example, that the support and encouragement received from
their PT had helped them to develop higher academic self-concept and motivations, compared
to those with negative experiences (Cokley 2000). Positive PT support has also been found to
mitigate the sometimes difficult transition to university and facilitate academic and social
integration (Barefoot 2000).
Braine and Parnell (2011) highlight the dearth of research on personal tutoring in general, with
only a handful of studies exploring student expectations of personal tutoring (most of this is in
the nurse education literature, as is the case with Braine and Parnell). This may account for the
lack of any consistent approaches across institutions, so it is not surprising that, as Owen (2002)
suggests, there is ‘no common experience’ of a PT and that a gap exists between what students
expect from a PT and what the system provides. Gidman (2001) suggests this gap can lead to
students having very different experiences, resulting in different levels of satisfaction.
It is the aim of this study, therefore, to add to the existing research on personal tutoring from the
perspective of the student. It will seek to explore students’ expectations and experiences of their
personal tutor and the nature and impact of that relationship on the student.
6.0.1. Expectations of Higher Education
Expectations of HE are shaped by the students’ experiences prior to starting the degree. Bennett
et al. (2007) identify two main sources of expectations, or antecedents, as prior experiences of
education and the student’s self-concept as a learner. Other sources of expectations may come
from hearing about other people’s experiences, such as family, peers, and tutors. Viewing socio-
cultural images from, for example, media representations and any university marketing, e.g.
direct advertising, Open Days, and contact with tutors and representations of Higher Education
whilst in Further Education, may also inform expectations of university (Ramsden, 2008). Even
with these prior experiences, however, students still have a limited view on what Higher
Education will really be like (Ramsden, 2008) with 60% of first year students feeling ill 99
prepared for the realities of university (Brinkworth et al., 2009). This is not the case for all
students, as those students with previous academic experience and a family background in
Higher Education usually have more realistic expectations which contribute to successful
adjustment and integration into university life (Krieg, 2013). More realistic expectations of
Higher Education were also expressed by students who visited the campus prior to starting,
particularly if they had discussions with existing students around what to expect (Bennett et al.,
2007).
Students themselves are not one homogenous group; they may vary in many respects such as
demographic factors, e.g., age, gender, race, socioeconomic background, and first-generation
student (Mancuso, Parkinson, & Pettigrew 2010). They may also differ in terms of their
previous educational experiences and the route they took into university. Some may have taken
the more traditional route of A-Levels, for example, whereas others may have come through
less traditional routes, such as a college course (Krieg 2013). Individual factors such as
personality, motivations, aspirations (Mancuso et al. 2010) and abilities (Kuh, Gonyea, &
Williams 2005) can also be reasons for differences between students. These differences could
be a source of differing expectations of Higher Education and indicate some of the complexities
of the student experience (Ramsden, 2008) and the diversity of student support needs (Thomas,
2006).
It seems reasonable to suggest previous experiences, individual differences, and demographic
factors, as outlined above, may also inform and influence student expectations of personal
tutoring in Higher Education. Students may have expectations of their personal tutor (PT) based
on their previous PT experiences at college in terms of levels of support, for example; this may
in turn influence the student to expect the same level at university. Bates and Kaye (2014)
explored student expectations through a series of focus groups and found that many students
who came through the A-Level route did not expect a high level of support prior to university,
as their A-Level tutors had prepared them to become ‘independent learners’. Bryne et al. (2012)
highlight the challenge for educators to facilitate students with differing expectations to achieve
the desired common learning outcomes. Differences between what the student expects and
receives in terms of support have been found to link to feelings of dissatisfaction, which may in
turn lead to withdrawal or disengagement from any future attempts by the PT to interact
(Mancuso et al. 2010).
6.0.2 The Personal Tutor role in Higher Education
According to Thomas (2006) the PT role can be seen to fulfil a number of academic and
pastoral support roles for students. The PT provides information about higher education
processes, procedures and expectations, offers personal and pastoral support, refers to other
100
sources of information and support, and can help to foster a sense of belonging and integration
into university life. Furthermore, it embodies the student relationship with the university
(Wellin, 2009) and is described as the ‘human face’ of the institution (Wootton, 2006). This
suggests that the role has the potential to provide insights that go far beyond that specific
relationship to that of the institution and the Higher Education context. Approaches to personal
tutoring vary across institutions and range from online support only to one-to-one personal and
academic support with an assigned tutor (Aynsley-Smith & Marr 2006).
The form and approach towards personal tutoring can depend on numerous factors, for example
some institutions may offer academic support only, whereas others offer both academic and
pastoral support through the personal tutor system. A ‘One-Stop Shop’ professional model
approach was developed by the Business School at the University of Hertfordshire, providing
students with centrally based academic support and replacing an existing pastoral model of
personal tutoring (Bunce, 2006). Their decision to adopt a centralised approach was based on
the findings from interviews with staff, which suggested that academics felt under increasing
pressure to produce research, so removing the personal tutor role from departments was seen as
a way to reduce workload (Bunce, 2006). Tutors felt the new system worked well, but it is
difficult to draw any firm conclusions given that student views were not sought. Owen (2002)
outlines a curriculum approach, whereby personal tutoring is incorporated into modules. In this
approach, students see their PT regularly in groups in seminars and also individually through
scheduled proactive meetings and reactive needs-based meetings. Owen suggests that this offers
a multifaceted approach to student support and allows the students to get to know their PT
through seeing them weekly. Students will then be more likely to go and see them if there is a
problem.
Research on personal tutoring is predominantly action research, which aims to improve practice
at specific Higher Education Institutions, rather than to produce knowledge (Elliot, 1999). It
seems that practices seem to rely more on the beliefs of the decision-making individuals in the
department and the economics of the institution and less to do with solid empirical foundations.
For the most part, the interview method is used in research on personal tutoring to elicit staff
perceptions (e.g. Bunce, 2006).
Given the importance of the role and the lack of studies from the student perspective, it seems
there is a need for research focusing on exploring student perceptions. Certainly, it seems
essential to evaluate whether students perceive the role as effective due to the impact it can have
on many student outcomes, some of which have been detailed above (Braine & Parnell, 2011).
Qualitative methods are needed to understand the phenomenology of student experiences of
personal tutoring, specifically, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). IPA will be
used in this study as it has the potential to elucidate how students construct the meaning in terms
101
of their experiences of personal tutoring within the Higher Education context (Smith, Flowers,
& Larkin 2009). This study is exploratory in nature and is not designed to produce findings
generalizable to all university students; rather it seeks to illustrate the complexity of students’
experiences. It will therefore address the gaps in research by exploring expectations and
experiences of personal tutoring in the current Higher Education context from the student
perspective and use IPA to illuminate these understandings.
This research presents a qualitative case study at a university which offers both academic and
pastoral support to students through the personal tutoring system. Consistent with the focus on
meaning and interpretation, IPA (Smith et al., 2009) will be used to explore the participants’
lived experiences.
Specifically the current research will seek to address a number of questions:
1. What is the nature and origin of students’ expectations of their personal tutor?
2. What is the impact of these expectations on the student experience?
3. What is the nature of the personal tutor-student relationship?
6.1. Method
6.1.1. Participants
First year undergraduate students were recruited through purposive sampling of students
enrolled on an undergraduate Psychology degree programme at the same UK University as
Study 1. Students were approached as a group during a seminar and asked if they would like to
volunteer. Interested students then emailed the researcher and the focus group session was
arranged according to mutual availability. There were no incentives for participation. The
sample consisted of 11 participants (10 female, 1 male). All participants were first year
undergraduate psychology students who had started their degree in 2015. Eight of the
participants were between 18 and 21 years of age, and three were mature students, with ages
ranging from 25 to 38. Of the 11 participants, four shared the same personal tutor and two
another. Psychology is a very flexible degree, which offers a wide range of options in terms of
future careers and as such psychology students have the scope to offer insights for a diversity of
students from different disciplines (see Appendix A for participant information and coding).
6.1.2. Procedure
For the convenience of participants, the focus group session took place directly after a seminar
in which all of the participants were present, so there was no requirement to move rooms. The
102
session took place in March 2016 in a quiet room and lasted for 50 minutes. The participants
seated themselves evenly around a central table area on which the recorder was placed and the
facilitator (who is also the researcher) was seated at one end. The session was facilitated by an
experienced researcher and recorded in full. The facilitator explained the process and aims of
the session; all participants provided written consent, and were informed of their right to
withdraw. Due to a number of people participating, the limitations of confidentiality were
explained and agreed and participants were reassured that all data reporting would be
anonymous. It was emphasised to participants that everyone should respect and listen to each
other’s views and take turns to speak; in this way everyone would have the opportunity to
contribute and express their views. Open questions were used and were exploratory in nature,
consistent with IPA’s inductive approach. Example questions included “How have you
experienced personal tutoring since you have been at uni?” was used to explore the nature of the
personal tutor-student relationship (see Appendix B for a full list of questions). Data was
transcribed verbatim, including all non-verbal elements such as pauses where possible, then
analysed according to the principles of IPA.
6.1.3. Focus session and IPA
An advantage of using a focus session is that it allows for multiple voices to be heard, but this
brings with it a challenge in interpreting the interactional complexities whilst staying true to the
phenomenological aspects of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA). Smith et al. (2009)
suggest the enabling of personal and experiential accounts depends on a number of factors; the
skill of the facilitator, the topic under discussion, and the personalities and characteristics of the
participants. The facilitator in this study was experienced in conducting focus groups and was
therefore able to ensure that a neutral space was created for everyone to contribute their intimate
and personal experiences, despite the presence of the group (Smith, 2008). The facilitator was
not previously known to the students and not involved in any aspect of teaching the student
participants. The aim of this study was to find out about the students’ different experiences and
expectations, therefore a focus group was an appropriate method to gather a range of
experiences. The participants all shared similar characteristics as they were all known to each
other, from the same course, and had shared the same seminar groups since the beginning of the
academic year. Because of this, they were all confident in expressing their views in front of the
others. A fairly homogenous sample in terms of social factors such as this one allows for a more
detailed examination of the psychological variability within the group by analysing the pattern
of convergence and divergence which arises (Smith et al., 2009).
6.1.4. Data Analysis
103
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is an inductive approach and was used in this
study to explore the phenomena of personal tutoring, both on a personal and at a social level in
terms of constructions of meaning (Smith et al., 2009). In addition to finding out what
experiences were like for each individual, the analysis explored the similarities and differences
within the group, with the aim of moving towards more general claims about the experience of
personal tutoring. Smith (2008) emphasises the importance of analysing the data from an
idiographic level in addition to exploring group patterns and dynamics when using a focus
group session.
Smith and Osborn (2003) state that IPA involves a ‘double hermeneutic’ as the researcher is
trying to make sense of the participant, who is trying to make sense of their experience. In the
focus sessions the participants are involved in actively trying to make sense of each other’s
experiences, adding another layer of meaning-making and interpretation. It is recognised that
any analysis produced using IPA will always be a constructed account by both the participant
and researcher (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006).
A priori concepts and themes were not imposed on the data and following initial case
familiarisation and descriptive comments, the data was coded and emergent themes identified.
Considerable time was given to retaining the idiographic focus on the individual voice and at
the same time making claims for the group. This iterative process involved exploring the
relationship between commonality and individuality. Emergent themes were subsequently
clustered on the basis of similarity and from these cluster themes super-ordinate themes were
identified (Smith et al., 2009).
6.2. Analysis
(See Appendix D for focus session IPA)
Individual participant quotes are represented by a ‘P’ followed by a number, for example, (P1)
denotes participant number one. From the eleven participants in this study, participants 3 and
11 did not have any of their own quotes included, as other student quotes were more
representative of the group in relation to that theme (see Appendix A for participant information
and coding).
The following section will highlight findings from the IPA, in which the nature and impact of
student expectations and actual experiences of personal tutoring in Higher Education are
explored. The analysis identified emergent themes which were then clustered across all themes
on the basis of similarity. Cluster themes were then identified and grouped. From this, super-
ordinate themes were then derived. A hierarchical relationship between cluster themes and
super-ordinate themes subsequently emerged. In the final stage of this iterative process, a list of 104
themes was produced which included evidence of the theme in the form of a quote. The quotes
in this section have been chosen on the basis that they capture the essence of the students’
thoughts and emotions about the experience of the phenomenon being explored (Biggerstaff &
Thompson, 2008). Super-ordinate themes were identified as Expectations, Experiences, and
Relationships and these themes will form the main headings in this section. Within the super-
ordinate theme of Expectations, the cluster themes were Antecedents and Independence. In the
Experiences cluster, themes were Flexibility and Purpose, and within the Relationships cluster
themes were Building a Bond, Authenticity and Incongruence. The cluster themes will form the
sub-headings in this section under each super-ordinate theme.
Expectations of personal tutoring and levels of support
Antecedents
Those participants with previous experience of Higher Education, for example through
attending preparatory courses, e.g. Outreach courses, had far more realistic expectations of
personal tutoring (this applied to four participants in this study). When asked whether they knew
what a PT was for prior to coming to university, one participant responded,
“We had it drummed into us on (course name) though didn’t we?” (P8).
Participants who had interacted with existing students at these events felt they knew more in
terms of what to expect from tutors and that this had really helped to prepare them. In some
cases, participants did not expect any support at all, an expectation which had come from not
having a PT at college,
“Er, I didn’t really expect to have a personal tutor like I didn’t even know we’d get one of those
so… erm cos I never really had one in 6th form so I just didn’t think we’d have one at uni.” (P2)
Expectations of university also came from friends and family who had previously attended:
“My older sister’s been to uni so…I could kind of like figure out what it was going to be like”
(P1).
Independence
Students expected to have to do more for themselves at university and become ‘independent
learners’ and realised that this is different from their previous educational experiences:
“It’s loads different to school, you’re not spoon-fed everything.” (P1) This expectation of no
longer being ‘spoon-fed’ at university originates from what their college tutors had told them;
105
“…like in 6th form we were always told like, ‘ …oh it won’t be like this at uni’ …and
everything, so I expected it to be really difficult” (P4).
This seems to imply that college tutors feel they provide a high level of support and that
students should be aware of and acknowledge this. Students had been given warnings about how
difficult university would be, providing an explicit source of future expectations:
“I didn’t really know what to expect to be honest. It was, erm, didn’t expect to get a personal
tutor, I expected that to be, I expected a lot to be down to me, a lot of independence” (P8).
Expectations of independence were also found to originate from implicit sources such as
observations of others attending university. One participant observed her sibling going through
university before her and felt that she was able to work out what to expect.
…Erm yeh cos my older sister’s been to uni so I’ve not really asked her about it but I
can pick up on like what times she’s like, going in, and like how much work she’s doing
at home and stuff so I could kind of like figure out what it was going to be like and stuff
cos she lived at home and she was always in her room doing work, so I knew how much
work she had to do independently but that made me think that I wouldn’t have a tutor as
well, like I say cos it’s so independent and you are doing so much work on your own…
(P1)
Here, P1 had observed her sibling spending many hours studying in her room alone and had
derived from this an expectation of no support or help at university; that she would have to work
entirely independently. This suggests that expectations can be derived from tacit observations
and indirect sources and internalised as implicit expectations. This expectation of independence
had led some participants to not expect to have a PT at all.
Experiences of Personal Tutoring
Flexibility
Those participants who described a positive experience of their PT tended to use them more
frequently:
“I use mine a lot, like I can email her or whatever and she like replies like straight away, I find it
useful having her there…” (P1).
This also suggests that the speed of response matters. Moreover, knowing that the tutor is there
and will respond promptly is seen to be useful and encourages using the PT more frequently.
106
The word ‘use’ is interesting here and may indicate that the participant sees their PT as a service
to be accessed and used when needed.
Purpose of the personal tutor meetings
Most participants felt they used a mixture of previous experiences, guesswork and trial and error
to work out what their PT was for. Some participants were aware they could talk to their PT
about any personal needs and issues, but a number made a choice not to;
“I guess if you wanted to you could but I never did” (P6).
Based on their first experiences of meeting with their PT and their PT’s responses in that
meeting, they would try and work out what they could and could not legitimately ask of them.
Participants discussed trying to speak to their PT about something and them not seeming like
they wanted to help, so this would put them off asking for help again. This uncertainty seems to
lead to a lack of confidence in talking to the PT in the meeting,
“…like I know they are there to help but I don’t know what to talk to them about” (P1).
Participants seemed to know that the PT is there to help, but not what with or the purpose of the
meetings.
“It’s an hour and a half drive round trip for me to come in, just for a 10-minute meeting to sit
down and say yeah, everything’s fine. Right, okay, sign this piece of paper, go home” (P8).
Here, the participant felt that the meeting lacked content and this is linked to a lack of clarity in
the purpose of the meeting. The PT showed no interest or desire to communicate, leaving the
student feeling that the PT did not care. The meeting is very short and depersonalised, given no
value, and explained in terms of a ‘tick-box exercise’.
Relationships
Building a bond
Participants frequently mentioned the importance of their relationships with their PT and tutors
more generally. Building a bond and getting to know a tutor were seen as essential precursors to
deciding on which tutor to go to for support.
…like I wouldn’t have gone to my personal tutor in college or here, if I had problems
I’d probably go to (tutor’s name) if it was something I needed, cos you know her and
107
you’ve got more of relationship (yeh) like I’d trust her more than I would a personal
tutor (P5).
One participant describes ‘feeling comfortable’ going to her PT if she needed to as her previous
experiences meant than she knew she was friendly and approachable. These attributes seem to
form the basis of the perception of trust and this is the foundation for building a relationship.
Relationships also seem to be built around regular contact in less structured and more informal
learning environments where conversation with the tutor is possible, i.e. in seminars compared
to lectures. P7 went on to clarify that,
“I think we should have to have meetings with them though, like, even if it’s just once a week”.
P6 suggested that she felt a group tutorial meeting would be useful and likely to help more
participants who are all going through similar things, providing an opportunity to get to know
the PT and be more likely to
“…open up and use them than if you were chatting an, an felt like you were allowed to.” (P6).
Here, there is a suggestion that you need permission to talk to the PT and that a more formal
environment forms a barrier to communication.
It was important to participants that their PT knows who they are. One participant describes
waiting outside her PT’s office for a meeting and observing her PT walking past her without
recognising her. She said,
“He walked past me three times as well (laughing)...I emailed again and I was like I’m waiting
outside. …and he was like oh sorry I... and I was like oh okay. But yeah I felt a bit awkward…”
(P2).
This not knowing or recognising the student is a source of discomfort for both and may
undermine whether the PT is seen as genuine in any future attempts to help.
One participant did go to their PT with a serious personal issue and experienced support during
this time, but describes feeling disappointed that the tutor did not contact her after the meeting
and this seemed to diminish the perception of caring:
“…yeah he helped me out with that but then it’s a case of like, I have to go see him … he never
emails to say like, oh are you alright, you know” (P4).
108
Four of the participants revealed through the session that they had the same PT, but only one
had anything positive to say about her experiences and the PT’s attributes. She describes feeling
that she had received a high level of support for personal issues, whereas the other three
participants described a lack of interest or of anything helpful coming from PT meetings. In
finding out that all four shared the same PT, they each tried to make sense of their different
experiences, describing it as ‘weird’ and using humour to deal with it, one participant
expressing a possible internal attribution for this difference,
“I think we’ve all got the same tutor … I think she just doesn’t like me! (nervous laugh)” (P2).
Authenticity
The most important and overriding aspect of the relationships with tutors was that the
participant had to feel that the tutor genuinely cared and this caring was transmitted in various
ways.
“I…I, get on with her really well. My tutor’s been really, really good and really supportive (P9).
A link is made here between ‘getting on’ with the PT and experiencing a high level of support
for issues the participant has had. This conversation follows on from other participants making
negative comments about their experience of the same PT, so that participant here was keen to
emphasise that her experiences had all been positive and there is nothing negative to be said but
is a little hesitant in saying this as it goes against the majority. This may be because the PT had
helped the participant in a time of need, so she feels indebted to the PT or protective of her as
she feels she has already developed a relationship with her.
PTs should have certain attributes and display certain characteristics, according to all
participants.
Yeah, really important…well approachability is a big thing. Erm and just knowing that
they’re there to, to support cos there, she was the one that I kind of reached out to
recently. She was, she was the best help actually for me as well. She really did make me
feel better (P8).
Here, the participant felt that her tutor was approachable and may have had previous experience
of contacting her, so from that she feels that she knows the PT is willing to help. For this
participant, it meant that when she needed help it was her PT she went to. Positive tutor
attributes and behaviours should also include being friendly and warm, interested, and helpful.
Incongruence
109
Here the participant experienced the feeling that the tutor did not want to see her and was
meeting with her against her will.
Yeah well I’ve seen her quite a few times but I always get the impression that she don’t
wanna see me at all. Like I just find it really short and not wanting to speak to me and
I’ve had quite a few meetings where I’ve come out quite annoyed, haven’t I, with her
(P10).
The participants described their feelings that the tutor did not want to meet with them in terms
of not seeming like they want to engage in conversation, so that any effort made comes from the
participant and is therefore one-sided. It also seems here, as with a number of other participants,
that P10 felt the length of the meeting was an indication of whether the PT wanted to spend time
with them. Not feeling as though the PT wants to meet with her was a source of strong negative
emotions, expressed as annoyance here, which may cause the participant to feel rejected. Given
that the participant has persisted through a number of meetings, it is probable that this strong
emotion is reinforced and strengthened with each meeting. This participant sought reassurance
and confirmation from another participant around these feelings. It may also be that this
reassurance was needed, as another participant who shared the same PT had expressed feeling
very supported and having a good relationship with her.
One participant who approached her tutor for help describes experiencing an apathetic response
and for her this was seen as a lack of caring.
“I’m paying for someone’s, you know. I’m paying for! Well we’re all paying, but for people to
care about the students. So to care about what we want” (P6).
This seemed to incite some anger and frustration, leading to a re-evaluation of the degree in
terms of her economic input. The participant made an overt link between paying and caring. She
seemed uncertain on being so explicit in this, however, and deferred to using ‘we’, possibly
looking for support from the rest of the group. The participant is clear that they are paying for
the degree and in return ‘people’ should care about what students want. It may be that the
participants chose to use the more generic ‘people’ and not to use the word ‘tutor’, as the
facilitator is also a tutor so it would have included her. This avoids the risk of alienation and
judgement for caring about the money, i.e. an economic exchange of tangibles for intangibles.
What comes across strongly from the analysis is that students need to view their PT as someone
who appears genuine in wanting to support the student. This appears to be essential to
developing a relationship, which can be crucial in times of real need when the student may be
up against some of the challenges that the first year at university may present.
110
6.3. Discussion
This study aimed to explore students’ perspectives on their expectations and experiences of
personal tutors. It also sought to explore the nature and impact of the relationship between
students and their personal tutors. Prior to starting university, all students in the group had an
expectation of becoming independent learners (Bates & Kaye, 2014) and for some this meant
they expected not to receive any support at all. The provision of a PT should therefore have
exceeded student expectations and led to positive responses, but whether this was in fact the
case depended on the students’ actual lived experience of their PT.
The origins and antecedents of student expectations were also explored in this study. The
findings support those of Bennett et al. (2007) in that those students who had attended a
preparatory course prior to starting university had more realistic expectations of Higher
Education than those who had not. They also seemed to be more assured in knowing what their
PT was for and confident in asking for help and support. What may confound this finding,
however, is that the pre-entry course in question is typically undertaken by mature students.
These students may differ from the more typical younger student in many ways, not least of all
because they may have more life experience which could give them more confidence in
communicating with others. They may also have experienced alternative educational pathways
which could affect their self-concept as learners and expectations of personal tutoring (Bennett
et al., 2007). This may in turn impact on how well they integrate and engage with the new
academic demands at university (Krieg, 2013).
The first encounters between a student and their PT appear key to a successful relationship. If
perceived as successful by the student, then they are more likely to contact their PT for future
support and develop a positive relationship. Prior expectations, such as levels of independence
are derived from antecedents such as previous education route, family, and media; these can
influence those early experiences. If a gap exists between what was originally expected and
what is experienced, this can lead to the student experiencing feelings of dissatisfaction, which
in turn can impact on behaviours such as disengagement from any future contact with the PT
and overall dissatisfaction with the course. This finding is similar to those of Mancuso et al.
(2010).
In terms of building a bond with the PT, experiencing warmth and friendliness from a PT who is
helpful, interested, listens, and offers mutual respect was found to engender a relationship that
helped to build trust and the perception of a PT who genuinely cares. When this sound basis is
in place, the PT has the potential to support the student through the challenges of the transition
to university (Brinkworth et al., 2009), facilitate academic and social integration (Barefoot,
2000), and foster a sense of belonging (Thomas, 2006). Having someone who cares, although
111
not expected prior to university, is important to students and clearly adds ‘value’ to the degree
experience (Stephen, O’Connell, & Hall, 2008). Students felt more valued and secure when they
perceived genuine expressions of care, which is linked to effective student support and
development (Aasen & Naden 2008) higher self- concept and motivation (Barefoot, 2000).
From this it can be seen that when students feel cared for and supported, the potential for
positive student outcomes are many and this ultimately is of benefit to the institution.
For the students in this study, the perception that their PT does not care about them had a huge
emotional impact. This proved quite damaging to the relationship, leading some students to
avoid future contact. Bates and Kaye (2014) support the link between the perception of not
caring and detrimental effects on the student experience, suggesting that this in turn may have
implications for the institution through measures of student satisfaction (e.g. the NSS).
Moreover, a perception of the PT as disingenuous is linked to strong negative emotions of anger
and frustration, which had led one participant to question the actual value of the degree and
reconsider it in economic terms.
The dynamic and interactive nature of the focus group meant that students actively tried to make
sense of their own experiences by comparing theirs to the different experiences of others. It was
really revealing in terms of student perceptions that when students learnt that they had opposing
views to others in the group about their shared PT, they made different attributions for this in an
attempt to understand why this might be the case. A number of students internalised this and
reasoned that it must be something they did not understand about the process, but by far the
most concerning was the student who decided that her PT’s reason for not appearing to want to
help was because the PT did not like her. This represents a Fundamental Attributions Error,
whereby internal causes are falsely attributed to others’ behaviour (Tetlock, 1985). In this case,
it may be potentially damaging to the student’s self-esteem and confidence.
It is also interesting to note that the relationship with the tutor is seen as a two-way relationship
based on mutual respect and shared responsibility, whereby the availability and purpose of the
meeting are seen as negotiated and a joint endeavour. This is especially important given the
imbalance of power in the relationship (Sennett, 2004). This goes against previous research
somewhat, which is suggestive of the one-way perception of ‘student as consumer’ who expects
to receive something after the payment of fees as an entitlement (Myers, 2013) It tends instead
towards McCulloch’s (2009) description of ‘student as co-producer’ in the tutor-student
relationship, with shared understandings, shared responsibilities, and a shared sense of the
common good.
This study’s main contention is that poor personal tutoring is actually worse than not providing
a personal tutor at all. This can lead students to experience anger and frustration, internalised
112
attributions, and a move towards revaluating their decision to go to university. Clearly there are
potential repercussions from this for the welfare of the students and the reputation of the
institution. Furthermore, it may also mean that the students begin to take a more consumer
approach to the degree, devoid of any personal relatedness.
6.4. Conclusion
Meeting the diverse needs of students is challenging given the constantly evolving mass
education system with increasing student numbers and competing demands on lecturers’ time
(Por & Barriball, 2008). That said, allowing for sufficient hours to be timetabled for both
structured and unstructured personal tutor support would send a clear message to both tutors and
students that the role is valued by the institution. How this can be achieved at an institutional
level is beyond the scope of this study, but as Watts (2011) states, given the socio-cultural and
economic pressures on current undergraduates, the need for effective student support has never
been greater.
The findings suggest that both tutors and students need to be prepared for the role as early as
possible, with an explicit articulation of expectations of the role (Ross, Head, King, Perry, &
Smith, 2014). Without this, the relationship could flounder. The institution can play a key role
in this by providing clear guidelines on what is expected in term of the roles and responsibilities
of both parties in the student-personal tutor relationship as early as possible in the student
journey.
What permeates across all the student experiences in this study is that evidence of a genuine
desire to help is essential to the success of the personal tutor-student relationship. Moreover,
this has implications for the institution as a whole in terms of measureable student outcomes.
Feeling genuinely cared for can provide a strong foundation to help buffer against more
challenging times (Brinkworth et al., 2009) and add to the overall value students place on their
degree. A lack of congruence between what is expected from the role and what is experienced
by the student leads some students to disengage or become distressed, leaving them confused by
mixed messages and feeling disempowered.
The effectiveness of the PT cannot be presumed, however. It must be carefully monitored and
evaluated. It is not enough to suggest, as many studies have done, that more interaction with
PTs will improve students’ experiences. This study’s findings support those of Stephen et al.
(2008) that it is more to do with the quality of the relationship and genuine feelings of
connectedness than the amount of time spent. Those considering their personal tutoring
practices must weigh up the perceived cost and positive benefits of providing a PT system
113
against the damage that can be done by PTs who are disinterested and not sincere in their
endeavours.
Given that this study has established the importance of a genuine and caring student-personal
tutor relationship, it seems imperative then to suggest that a more in-depth study is needed to
explore this relationship further. The next chapter will be a report on a series of six in-depth
interviews and will aim to explore further how the relationship is formed and develops, the
nature of the relationship, and its impact on the individual student.
114
Chapter 7 Study 3 - Interviews
An in-depth Exploration of the Personal Tutor-Student Relationship: Student
Expectations and Experiences of Personal Tutoring in Higher Education.
The previous chapter was a report of a second focus group session conducted in 2016 with 11
first year psychology students. Both Study 1 and Study 2 firmly established the importance of a
genuine and caring student-personal tutor relationship. The findings from Study 2 suggested that
the quality of the relationship was more important to students in the post-2012 fee increase
higher education context. Not only that, it also showed that the consequences to both student
and institution of poor relationships between students and PTs were potentially far greater than
they had been in a pre-fee increase higher education context. These important findings suggest
the need to investigate the relationship between student and PT in more detail.
This chapter’s focus is Study 3. This is a more in-depth study of the relationship between
student and PT using interviews with six self-selected students; specifically it explores five
aspects of the relationship. Firstly, it investigates the antecedents to the relationship and whether
these could impact on students’ expectations and experiences of their PT. Secondly, it explores
how the relationship develops from the first interaction. Thirdly, it explores what actually
happens in the interactions between a student and their PT and the overall quality of these
interactions. Having established how the relationship develops and the nature of that
relationship, it then explores the consequences of the interactions between student and PT on the
student. Finally, the study asks students for suggestions, if any, on how to improve the PT role
and experience of personal tutoring in higher education.
7.0. Introduction
7.0.1. Importance of relationships
There is a growing body of evidence on the positive effects of student-tutor interactions on
student outcomes. Interacting with tutors was found to improve student learning and
development by Kim and Sax (2009), for example, as well as increasing self-concept and
motivation (Cokley, 2000). Students themselves recognise the value of interactions with tutors.
Malik (2000) reported that students identified interactional and relational aspects as the most
effective forms of support. Developing a relationship with their PT promotes a sense of
belonging in students and has been found to increase student satisfaction through connectedness
(Palmer et al., 2009) whilst also contributing to their wider learning (Hagenhauer & Volet,
2014). What is not clear from the research, however, is the nature of these interactions and
what impact this may have on the developing relationship.
115
7.0.2. Antecedents to the relationship
Expectations of university have been found to impact on the student experience (e.g. Mancuso
et al., 2010). Students say they expect university life to be different from their previous
experiences of school life and for the most part, this seems to relate to greater expectations of
independence and levels of support (Crisp et al. (2009). In Bates and Kaye’s (2014) focus group
sessions, students who came through the ‘A’ level route to university reported feeling well
prepared for independence by their teachers. What also seems to shape student expectations of
support is hearing about experiences from friends and family who have been to university. More
realistic expectations, however, seem to come from students who attended a preparatory course
prior to starting university (Bennett, Kottasz, & Nocciolino, 2007) (for a more detailed
discussion of these expectations refer to Chapter 2).
7.0.3. Barriers to the relationship
Perceptions of tutor availability can play a crucial role in the frequency of interactions
(Hagenauer & Volet, 2016). Stephen et al. (2008) found that students were too frightened to ask
for a meeting or informally approach their PT to ask for help, as PTs are seen as being under a
lot of time pressure. Further barriers include uncertainty over whether the PT was interested in
forming a relationship and a lack of clarity over the benefits of the interaction. Requesting a
meeting is seen as a risk for some students, as they fear the PT may judge them for requesting
help and/or the nature of the problem (Cotton & Wilson, 2006).
7.0.4. Interactions
Whatever the reason for infrequent interactions between student and PT, it is difficult to build a
positive relationship if interactions are rare (Braxton, Milem & Sullivan, 2000). Hagenauer and
Volet (2014) suggest that more frequent interactions through different learning contexts such as
seminars would contribute to the development of the student-tutor relationship. They do also
caution against assuming that more meetings equates to better relationships, however, as it is the
quality of the interactions which makes the difference. Positive relationships can be fostered
through both formal and informal interactions both inside and outside the classroom (Stephen et
al., 2008) (for a more detailed discussion of interactions and relationships refer to Chapter 2).
In a review of previous studies on student-tutor interaction, Hagenhauer and Volet (2014)
identify the need to further explore how the student-tutor relationship develops through different
interactions, as not all interactions are of equal quality. The lack of research into the nature of
the interactions and how this relates to the quality of the experience suggests a need for further
study into the different types of interactions and the impact these may have on the developing
relationship. Kahu (2013) highlights the need for more in-depth qualitative methods with 116
narrow populations due to the changing nature of higher education and the student body. This
would provide a means to understand the underlying dynamics of the interactions and responses
to tutors’ attempts to interact.
This research presents a qualitative case study at a university which offers a pastoral model of
personal tutoring support for students. Semi-structured interviews will be used to collect student
experiences and IPA will be used to analyse the data. IPA’s focus on meaning and interpretation
is consistent with this study’s aim of exploring the participants’ lived experiences (Smith et al.,
2009).
Specifically, the current research will seek to address a number of questions:
1. What are the origins, nature, and impact of students’ expectations of their personal
tutor?
2. How does the relationship between student and personal tutor develop?
3. What factors affect the interactions and how the relationship develops?
4. What are the consequences of these interactions?
7.1. Method
7.1.1. Participants
Purposeful sampling was used to recruit first year Psychology undergraduate students at the
same UK University as Study 1 and Study 2. With the permission of the Head of Department
and in agreement with the Department of Psychology Research Ethics Committee, the
researcher approached students as a group after a seminar and asked for volunteers to participate
in interviews. No incentives were offered for participation in the interviews. Students were
asked to email the researcher with their details if they were interested and the interviews were
arranged according to mutual availability. Originally, eight students emailed. From this, one
decided she did not want to be interviewed after receiving more information and one student did
not turn up at the arranged interview time. The final sample consisted of six female participants,
all of whom had started their degree in September 2015. Three of the participants were between
18 and 21 years of age and three were mature students aged between 38 and 49. None of the
participants had been in either of the previous studies and none shared the same personal tutor.
The three mature students had all attended a course together over the summer prior to their
degree starting, which was aimed at academically preparing students with non-traditional entry
qualifications for university. The students were not previously known to the researcher (see
Appendix A for participant information and coding).
7.1.2. Procedure
117
The interviews were arranged at the convenience of the students and all of these took place in
March 2016. A quiet room was booked on the university campus where it was unlikely the
interview would be interrupted and each interview lasted approximately an hour. The
interviewer had multiple roles within the university, which were explained to the student
participants. The interviewer was also the researcher in this study, a PhD student, and a tutor
(and personal tutor) in another department at the same university. It was also explained that the
findings from this study would contribute to the interviewer’s PhD thesis. The interviewer is an
experienced researcher and each session was recorded in full and transcribed verbatim. Once the
interviewer had explained the process and aims of the session, all student participants provided
written consent and were informed of their right to withdraw. Participants’ right to
confidentiality and anonymity in the data reporting were explained and each participant was
asked to choose a pseudonym to ensure this.
Consistent with IPA’s inductive approach, questions were open and exploratory in nature, for
example What’s been your experience of personal tutoring since you started uni? was a
question used to explore the development and nature of the personal tutor-student relationship
(see Appendix E for the Interview Schedule) . A verbatim transcript of the interview data was
then produced, which included any non-verbal elements where possible e.g. pauses and
laughter. According to the principles of IPA, the interviews were then analysed and the findings
written up (see Chapter 4.3.1. for detail on the IPA process).
7.1.3. Interviews and IPA
Semi-structured interviews were used as this provided a flexible method of data collection well
suited to the intended analysis and the research enquiry (Willig & Rogers, 2013). A series of
open-ended questions were designed prior to the interview with the aim of extending findings
from the previous studies to elicit a more in-depth and ideographic exploration. The same basic
questions were asked of each participant in order to facilitate comparison of responses, for
example, What did you expect your personal tutor to be like? Semi-structured interviews
allowed for some structure and consistency, but also allowed for some flexibility for both the
interviewer and participants to open up and pursue new interesting areas of inquiry. Interview
questions were also designed based on the outcomes of the literature review and the focus
groups to allow for a more in-depth and idiographic exploration.
Willig and Rogers (2013) suggest that the semi-structured interview is compatible with IPA as it
allows for flexibility in the interaction and for lived experiences to be explored. Throughout
these interactions, the interviewer plays an active role as co-constructor of data in the interview
process and co-producer of knowledge thereafter (Forrester, 2010).
118
The participants were not previously known to the researcher; however the participants did
know that the researcher is also a lecturer in another department prior to the interview. They
were informed of this in the preamble to the interview as the researcher felt that it was important
to provide some context to her interest to avoid any deception. Another reason for this was that
Unluer (2012) suggests that qualitative social researchers should clarify the researcher’s role to
make their research more credible. The interviewer does, however, acknowledge the potential
for bias due to being already immersed in the social context of participants.
In terms of the interview itself, Kvale (2009) suggests that there is an asymmetry in power
between researcher and participant where the researcher holds all of the information and has the
power to respond and interpret the participants’ thoughts and feelings. In addition, the
researcher’s role as a tutor in another department had the potential to create a further power
imbalance. Throughout the interview the researcher was mindful of helping the participants feel
in control of the process by being explicit about this wherever possible. After the interview, the
researcher undertook a written reflection of her role in the interview and discussed how this may
have affected the participants’ responses. This was triangulated and discussed with her
supervisor and is included in the Methods Chapter (4.3.3) in this thesis.
7.1.4. Data Analysis
Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is an inductive approach. It was used in this
study to explore the phenomena of personal tutoring, both on a personal and at a social level in
terms of constructions of meaning (Smith et al., 2009). In addition to finding out what
experiences were like for each individual, the analysis explored the convergences and
divergences within the group, with the aim of moving towards more general claims about the
experience of personal tutoring. Smith (2008) emphasises the importance of analysing the data
from both an ideographic level and exploring group patterns and dynamics when using a focus
session.
Smith and Osborn (2003) state that IPA involves a ‘double hermeneutic’ as the researcher is
trying to understand the participant, who is also trying to make sense of their own experiences.
In the focus groups, the participants are involved in actively trying to make sense of each
other’s experiences, adding another layer of meaning-making and interpretation. It is recognised
that any analysis produced using IPA will always be a constructed account by both the
participant(s) and researcher (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006) and aspires to the attainment of an
insider perspective (McFarlane, 2016). No a priori concepts and themes were imposed on the
data. Following initial case familiarisation and descriptive comments, the data was coded and
emergent themes identified. Considerable time was given to retaining the idiographic focus on
the individual voice and at the same time making claims for the group. This iterative process
119
involved exploring the relationship between commonality and individuality. Emergent themes
were subsequently clustered on the basis of similarity and from these, cluster themes and super-
ordinate themes were identified (Smith et al., 2009). This study is exploratory in nature and is
not designed to produce generalizable findings that would relate to the experiences of all
university students; rather it seeks to illustrate the complexity of students’ expectations and
experiences.
7.2. Analysis
Participants are coded and referred to as P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, and P6 throughout the Analysis
(see Appendix A for participant coding and demographic information). The number/s given in
brackets after a quote refer to the line number/s in the transcripts, however these have been
removed to ensure participant anonymity.
The super-ordinate themes identified through the IPA were Antecedents to the PT-student
relationship, the Decision to Meet, Developing the Relationship, and Consequences of the
Interactions (see Appendix F for the IPA and Appendix G for an overview of the themes. A
schematic model diagram of the findings can be found in Appendix H).
Antecedents
Previous educational experiences
Two of the students had come through the A-Level route. Both had experienced only academic
support from their PTs at college. The student who had come through the BTec route, on the
other hand, had experienced a PT who offered both academic and pastoral support and cared for
her as an individual. Nonetheless, she did not know what to expect at university:
“They were really approachable and would help you with anything you needed really, even stuff
outside of your studies.” (P2, 10)
One A-Level student expected academic support only and felt that her college had prepared her
for this:
“...probably the college cause they were like calling us a mini university and they were kinda
like preparing you like erm, like my psychology A-level we had to do research tasks” (P1, 50).
The other A Level student was told by her college tutors that there would be no support at all at
university. The three mature students said they felt well supported by all tutors on the access
course, both academically and pastorally. They all said they had no previous experience of
personal tutoring, however, so did not know what to expect on the degree. The fact that these 120
mature students had all received a high level of support on a course at the same university may
mean that they would expect for this to continue on the degree.
The different student experiences described here would suggest that prior to starting university,
students’ expectations of a PT are mixed, as they can be influenced by their previous
educational experiences.
Fresher’s overload
All students thought they had received information during Freshers’ Week about the PT role but
could not remember what:
I’m not really sure what their role is, like they might have mentioned it at first I
remember at first when everyone introduced themselves in the hall but like, and it
sounds really bad but we can’t remember like. (P1, 30)
The feeling they had that week of being given too much information was described by one
student thus:
“I mean when you first come in you feel like you’re being bombarded with information so that
may well have been explained.” (P6, 326)
This suggests that students experience a cognitive overload of information during their first
week at university which feels similar to a physical assault and because of this, they struggle to
retain all of the information given. As they all remembered being given some information about
personal tutoring but could not remember anything from this, they felt that it was their fault for
not knowing anything about the role.
Individual differences
Students differed in many respects, but the most notable difference was age. Typically, the three
mature students who had all been through the access course felt more academically confident
due to their experiences and more social confidence and integration due to a strong cohort
identity, as P5 said:
“(the course)... has had a massive experience cos, I feel we had a bit of an edge” (160).
All students said that their main motivation for the decision to come to university was to
enhance their careers prospects, but the mature students said they came for the experience as
well. One student describes the experience as
121
“...this was just like I dunno, devouring a meal I hadn’t had for ages!” (P4, 13)
The following paragraphs provide some specific examples from the interviews of student
differences in the hope of providing some depth and insight into how student differences may
impact on subjective perceptions and accounts.
One mature student clearly felt grateful for being given a place at university, as she thought she
was not clever enough and feared rejection. This student seemed to suffer from an ‘imposter
syndrome’ whereby she felt that she may be rejected at any moment and asked to leave (Clance
& Imes, 1978). This attitude seemed to contribute to her being reluctant to say anything
negative or openly challenge poor experiences during the interview. Moreover, she also seemed
to exhibit an internal locus of control (Rotter, 1966) which meant that when things did go wrong
she blamed herself rather than others. When asked about support services she knew of, she
replied,
“It’s probably my own fault I’ve not made myself aware of where all these things are” (P4, 95).
When asked about getting more help, she replied,
“There's no point me going cos obviously I’m not, I’m not getting something” (P5, 253).
P3 is an 18-year-old student with a strong sense of independence. She feels that she is very
resilient and could cope with anything. She said that coming to university she did not expect any
help or support and felt that because of this she could not be disappointed, as she had set her
expectations so low (87). Due to the course demands, she had to ask for help when she would
rather not, however. She described being very frustrated and angry about feeling that her PT
seemed to misjudge her as a ‘typical 18 year old student’ (which according to her is lazy and
sleeps all of the time) when he suggested she do more reading instead of helping her by
answering her question.
Individual differences such as the ability to cope with stressful situations and locus of control
may mean that students differ in terms of the ways in which they interpret the same event. This
presents many challenges when trying to interpret and make any generalisations from the
findings.
Decision to meet
This super-ordinate theme explores the often complex decision making process students will go
through in their decision to meet with their PT. This involves deliberations around who is
122
responsible for what in the relationship, PTs’ availability, and perceptions of power in the
relationship.
Responsibility
Students see themselves as being responsible for letting their PT know if they have any
problems:
“I think it's definitely up to me to, because she's not going to know when something's going on
or anything like that so I think that really is down to me to, to be contacting her” (P5, 110).
There is a complicated decision-making process which precedes the decision to ask for a
meeting, which is fraught with anxiety, conflict, and confusion. This is often made worse when
students acknowledge that a relationship with their PT is necessary to ensure future help.
In asking for a meeting, students feel that they are formalising the problem. This can be a barrier
to asking if they are uncertain as to whether the problem is serious enough to justify the request.
The level of urgency of the problem is also a determining factor. PTs are seen as important and
busy people, so there is a reluctance to make any extra demands on their time unless it is
necessary and in some cases unavoidable.
For urgent problems, students are more likely to speak to someone with whom they feel they
have developed a relationship with. This may be their PT, but it is more likely to be a tutor they
have seen regularly in informal seminar sessions and from whom they therefore feel they have a
better chance of obtaining help. This decision would be based on positive perceptions of a tutor
who is caring, interested and approachable:
“She is just really approachable and will help you with anything you need really even stuff
outside of your studies” (P2, 10).
These perceptions can be developed either through direct experience or through vicarious
observations of the tutor with others. This previous evidence of care functions as proof for
students that the PT would be less likely to judge them for asking for help or to reject their
request, making them more likely to ask for help in the first place. There was only one student
from the six interviewed who stated that her first port of call would be her PT; the rest stated
they would subvert the PT process by going to another tutor.
A lack of experience in higher education and low academic confidence would make asking for a
meeting an unlikely step for most students, at least at the start of their degree. P5 said
123
“I don't like to bother people, unless I really, really need to, erm. And I have a fear that they will
think I'm stupid.” (222)
One mature student described her decision to ask her PT for help to ‘translate’ a journal article;
“... it’s not that I’m lazy, it’s not that I couldn’t be bothered doing that. I mean I’m paying for it
so I’ll do what I need to do” (P6, 188).
This quote might suggest this student is very independent and confident, however she described
a heavy dependency on the support she gets from her PT. When P6 says that she will do what
she needs to do, she may be describing the confidence to assert her needs and rely on others
rather than doing it for herself.
This section provides evidence that the decision to ask for a meeting with a PT is a complex
process involving many considerations and is influenced by students’ subjective perceptions.
Availability
Students were uncertain about some aspects of PT availability and had unclear expectations.
This seemed to contribute to lack of confidence in the decision to ask for help. Specifically
students were unsure about what they could legitimately ask for and lacked clarity on hours of
availability, response time for emails, length of meetings, how often meetings could be
requested, and what the meetings were for. One student seemed surprised and pleased by the
meetings being longer and the content more in depth than expected.
“I don’t know just had this frequency idea that it would just be a quick is everything ok and that
it is, any questions, no and that fine see ya. But he goes through everything an asked me about
volunteering” (P4, 29).
It was also important to students to be clear about the best way to communicate their support
needs. Confusion over PT office hours was a source of conflict when hours are not clear or the
PT does not keep to those stated. This can be perceived as giving mixed messages as to whether
the PT actually cares or not:
“...when I emailed he said come and see me before the lecture, like I don’t know whether that’s
his office hours but I think that’s in between like, inbetween…I don’t know his office hours...”
(P1, 374).
Another student had the opposite experience and because of the clarity and reassurance she had
from her PT, she would be more likely to go to him with urgent problems. When asked if she
would she knock on the door to ask for help, she said:124
Yeah I probably would, if I needed to yeah he has said a few times after lectures that his
office hours the lectures 9 till 11 I think his office hours are then 11 – 12 and he said a
few times if you want to see me after the lecture I’ll be there until 12 so just walk in, so
he has made himself available in that way yeah (P4, 133).
One student said that she knows it is unreasonable to expect a PT to be available when you need
them to be, but then went on to say that she does expect this and knows that her PT would be.
This particular student had received a lot of personal support from her PT as she has specific
needs, so may have different expectations to other students
…errrr knowing how work is I would say that’s quite, I would say that’s quite
unworkable really because there’s a lot of us here so essentially she could have all 50 of
us knocking at the door so no I think that would be too much of an expectation to just
be able to knock on the door but I think they should be available you know I think there
should be a reasonable time limit you know... see I think (PT name) would have done, if
fact I’m quite certain if I said I need to come in and see you she would have tried to
make herself available soon as (P6, 390-394).
As with other areas of uncertainty, in the absence of clear expectations of availability, students
try and make sense of their experiences by filling in the gaps with their subjective
interpretations which may or may not be reliably informed.
Power
The theme of Power was identified because there were many references throughout all of the
interviews which seemed to relate to levels of perceived power of both students and tutors.
Power was expressed in terms of age and status and was an influencing factor in the dynamics
of the developing relationship. It also influenced students’ decision making processes. Within
the theme of Power are sub themes of Age and Status which will form further subheadings in
this section.
There are many references to age throughout all six interviews. This theme may be more
prevalent in this study because half of the students were mature students who all came through
the access course route, thus they may have given more thought to the relevance of age than
other students. Younger students also referred frequently to age, however; both young and
mature students seemed to think that it was appropriate to be treated and judged on the basis of
their age. When asked what the tutors at university were like compared to college, P2
responded,
125
“College tutors were okay and treated us our age, Uni tutors treat us not differently so okay”
(P2, 26).
There were many examples of assumptions made by mature students in relation to younger
students:
I don’t know whether he kind of automatically assumed I won’t bother doing that and possibly
an 18 year old might do that cause they’re used to spoon feeding as such but that’s how it is
really in school and college so that’s possibly how he assumed I was. (P6, 190)
Younger students were aware this happens and talk about the unfairness of being stereotyped by
their age as ‘typical students’. Nonetheless, as previously stated, younger students had
expectations of being treated according to their age and seemed happy with this.
When asked if she knew of other students having different experiences of their PT, P1, an 18-
year-old, seemed uncertain in voicing any negativity:
“Nobody’s ever complained about, well that sounds rude saying complained, but nobody’s ever
said anything ... I think someone said that they are allowed to go through your like essay plans
with you.” (P1, 108)
The use of the words ‘rude’ and ‘allowed’ suggest that she did not want to challenge the
perceived authority of tutors, adopting a more child-like position in which the parent voice came
through. This reluctance to challenge may have been compounded by her knowing that the
interviewer is also in the collective adult-tutor group and is therefore also an authority figure.
When unhappy with something, rather than challenge outright, all students used more
subversive methods, e.g. deferring to a lesser authority source such as a PhD student or
behaving as the expected child.
“... basically everything she was saying was on the slides. If she was saying anything outside of
that I would have paid attention, but I was on my phone most of the two hours and I was sat
right at the front and she didn’t call me out (P2, 108).
Although there is still some negotiation of authority, mature students seemed to feel more
equality with their PTs and explained this in terms of age,
I don’t know whether it’s cause I’m older I can kind of, I don’t see you all as teachers
kind of thing, I do and I respect that and I respect you all I do, but I kind of feel like I’m
on the same level in the sense that I can speak... think I know how I would have felt at
126
18, I’d have felt like a kid and like a kid and a teacher kind of thing.... I think it’s just
yeah I think it’s just an age thing really. (P6, 342-352)
The status of the PT also seemed to have an effect on decisions to meet. This was linked to
perceptions of how the PTs spent their time when they are not being a PT. For the most part, the
students saw them as busy with many other roles, including research, teaching, and having lots
of other personal tutees to see. These other activities are seen as barriers to having time for
them;
“I wouldn’t expect to just knock on ... like I know there a personal tutor but I respect that they
have their own things to teach, they’ve got their own research to do” (P1, 357).
When asked whether she would like to see her PT, more P5 seemed reluctant to make any
demands on extra time, saying,
“I'm not obviously saying, because I know there so, there's thousands of students... I know each
tutor has not just this year’s, she's got you know others as well” (P5, 98).
Another student said she did not want to add to the PT workload,
“...they’ve got so much to do, you don't want to weigh them down” (P3, 454).
PTs were seen as more credible if they were researchers as well as PTs by one mature student,
even though this may mean they have less time for students. She is aware, however, that not
everyone agrees with this:
...some people argued that they shouldn’t be doing their own research at the same time
as teaching at university...I don’t really agree with that…I don’t know I think it’s almost
better if they’re conducting research cause it makes them, I think it makes them a better
tutor (P1, 362).
This may also explain why students believed that a problem has to reach a certain level before
going asking for a meeting. Lesser problems are subverted to tutors who are perceived to have
lesser status, such as PhD tutors who students see on a regular taught basis on the course. P4
talked about being upset after receiving poor feedback and her decision to speak to a PhD tutor
rather than her PT:
...some of it I didn’t think it was nice... I felt insulted I was annoyed because I thought
well I’m supposed to build on this and I did think then about making an appointment to
go and see (PT name) and say look I’m not very happy about this. But then I thought to
myself what’s the point with creating a stir ... erm but I showed (PhD tutor name) who 127
takes my class and he agreed that’s very poor feedback erm so perhaps I should of done
something... (P4, 49)
PhD students are seen to have less knowledge and teaching ability than other tutors and are
lower down in status and tutor hierarchy:
I know he’s a PhD student and I’m not saying he isn’t clever I’m sure he’s extremely
clever...I just think that perhaps he’s, the less experience that he’s got kind of limits
kind of how well he can help me... it might sound kind of as if I’m being uppity... and
you know what that’s not how it is it’s just that I just need it kind of explaining a little
bit more (P6, 200-210).
This suggests that the status of a PT is a barrier to asking for support. Students perceive a
hierarchy of tutors and this is linked to the level of the help needed and expectations of formal
and informal support. The perceived unequal status held by student and PT results in uncertainty
in expectations and an inequity in the relationship. There is confusion over what can
legitimately be expected and this is also exacerbated by the age of the student, as younger
students are seen as lower in status than mature students. Perceptions of how PTs spend their
time and the level of the problem seemed to influence the weighing up and decision making
process of whether to ask for a meeting with their PT.
“I think it yeah be, nice to have a bit of, where you can sort of email and say, I, I need a little
bit of help, I need. Me I'm not at that point yet where I think I can ask” (P5, 98).
One mature student wanted more equity in the relationship. She felt it was one sided, as it is up
to the student to ask for a meeting. Although her PT has always been immediately available and
offered a high level of support (the highest from the six interviewed) the support she gets is still
reliant on her asking for it and this places her in a dependency relationship that she does not like
and wants to change. As evidence of equity in the relationship, she would like a two hour
dedicated drop-in every week for anything urgent (P6, 416). She feels she is empathic and
reasonable in understanding that tutors have other things to do, but so does she.
As an authority figure, the PT also has the power to say no to requests for meetings. Fear of
rejection may also contribute to a reluctance to ask for a meeting. Rejection can also come in
the form of the student being referred onwards by the PT to someone else, or being misjudged
as someone who is lazy for asking for help. The decision to ask for a meeting is therefore not
made lightly and can be seen to come with risks.
PTs also hold the power to bestow or withhold knowledge and help. This can be a source of
frustration and confusion if the PT is not giving the help the students feel they could:
128
“...when we’re in that practical tutorial, people were saying well why have we not been taught
this” (P4, 125).
Developing the relationship
The super-ordinate theme of Developing the relationship includes cluster themes of Turning
points and Negotiating independence and these will form the subheadings in this section. How
the relationship between PT and student develops and the factors influencing this will be
explored, specifically the nature of the interactions, whether there are any turning points its
development, how the bond develops, and how both parties negotiate student independence.
Turning points
In exploring how the relationship develops through interactions a number of turning points have
been identified which can change the nature of the relationship. These are First meeting, Help in
a crisis, Proactive, and Building a bond. Each will form a subheading in this section.
First meeting
The first meeting the student has with their PT is the most important and can influence any
future interactions. It can be described from both extremes either as laying a strong foundation
or as poisoning any chance of a positive relationship in the future. It also seems that from this
first meeting students will firmly decide on the worth of their PT. An essential dimension of this
is that students must perceive that the PT is interested in them and cares. A PT who clearly
articulates their role, and hence their worth, seems to have more value and meaning and
provides students with a sense of security. This knowledge of what to expect from the role
represents a turning point in the relationship, as students will then be a lot more confident in
asking for meetings and articulating their needs. This clarity seems to alleviate some of the
anxiety and uncertainty students feel around asking for a meeting.
For one student, the first meeting was a test of worth. The PT failed because she did not read the
work previously sent by the student in which she wrote about her problems. From this meeting
onwards, she decided not to talk to her PT about her problems as she did not show that she
cared; she had not earned the right to hear about the student’s personal difficulties.
I think I said that on the record but if it was really gone over in a lot of detail and
discussed with her to get to know her a bit more I might have come up saying how the
stress comes... and sometimes can lead on to what the real issue is ... I guess if you
discuss that kind of things you get more familiarity (P1, 194-198).
129
Help in a crisis
One mature student did not realise what her PT was for or how important the role was until she
experienced a ‘crisis’ and because of this she now seems to hold the role in heroic status. The
support clearly meant a lot to her:
I don’t think that, up until recently I don’t think I realised just how much but yeah I do
think that it’s really important, I do feel like she’s someone I can go to if I’m
completely desperate to be honest, and like I said ‘please help!’ it wasn’t the most
elegantly written cause I was just so desperate, so yeah I think I don’t know what I’ve
have done really, cause I was that desperate.. I’m almost crying now, but I think ummm
I was just that desperate (P6, 368-370).
This occasion when a student has gone to their PT with a problem and received help clearly
demonstrates a turning point in the relationship. This successful outcome gave the student more
confidence in asking for help in the future.
Proactive
Another turning point in the relationship was shown where the PT was proactive and offered
help to the student when it was not asked for. The responsibility for requesting a meeting was
accepted by all students as theirs, so this can be seen and felt as a very one-sided relationship.
One student deliberated whether a timely reminder email would be a reasonable expectation and
balances this with how beneficial it would be for her needs compared to how much time it
would take, given the other demands on his time:
...he’s obviously got students in all three year groups I would imagine so for him from
his point of view he would have to send out one to each year group. Erm but yeah I
think that would be would be nice and a bit it might be a bit reassuring because it
definitely some kind of like right you’re in year one have you done have you done that
whatever erm because sometime I do get this bit of erm have I done everything? (P4,
83)
P1 suggests having meetings where you are not required to pass a module “...just to see how
you’re doing” (P1, 296).
When a PT offers something which has not been asked for, it is perceived as an obvious sign
that the PT does care and in some ways fast tracks the development of a positive relationship.
Building a bond
130
The way in which a positive relationship develops between student and PT can be described in
terms of stages. It usually starts with a structured meeting which has a clear and (usually)
course-related purpose as its basis. The next stage is a turning point in the developing
relationship, which occurs when there are indicators of something that is more relational and the
student feels that the PT cares about them. It is only when the relationship is ‘felt’ that the
student would consider disclosing any personal problems. Relational indicators are the PT
listening, showing interest, and showing respect for the student. From this develops the
perception of a PT who is genuine, caring, and willing to help the student with any problems. P1
elaborates:
“I mean there is personal support but if I’m honest if I had a personal issue I wouldn’t feel
comfortable like knocking on her door saying like I have this issue, cos I don’t really know her”
(162).
P3’s statement also echoes this:
I think you know without building a positive relationship you've got no kind of grounds to use
the tutor in a, you know, an efficient, an effective way, erm you not going to..Erm, you're not
going to go to a personal tutor, if you've ever had like negative experiences or you’ve had no
experience at all (362-364).
When asked if students should go to their PT with any personal problems, P5 said:
“I wouldn't have thought so unless you have a really good relationship with them then maybe”
(118).
This stage in the developing relationship can happen in any of the meetings, but is more
successful if it happens in earlier meetings, as the student will be more likely to ask for support
when it is needed in the future. What also seems to be an important part of this is that if the PT
knows the student they will be less likely to misjudge them in the future.
It is important that the PT shows they care, but for the relationship to develop further, the
meetings must also be seen as worthwhile (transactional as well as relational markers):
“I mean it sounds really horrible to say but on one of the meetings it was more like ‘oh she’s
alright’ that’s it, ‘it’s alright’.” (P1, 201)
Liking the PT is not enough, there also needs to be a clear meaning and practical worth assigned
to the meeting for the relationship to develop further;
131
“I do come away sometimes and she's so lovely, she is such a lovely person but come away
thinking there is just no point” (P5, 74).
Negotiating independence
The negotiation of independence is a key component in the developing relationship between
student and PT. The term ‘independence’ has different meanings and expectations of
independence vary according to the age of the student. Mature students feel that they need help,
but this is not seen in terms of dependency and is explained in terms of not being “...the same
help as you would give a child.” (P6, 245)
One student was told by her PT
“(PT’s name) said that most of your studying needs to be done at home er and I think as long as
you do that, which I definitely need to improve on” (P4, 23).
She seemed to accept this explanation of expectations of independence and also that she needs
to develop and take on more of the responsibility for this.
Younger students talked of being prepared for independence by their college tutors. This
preparation seems to have included weekly sessions which mimicked what might be expected
academically at university and were supported by a rhetoric of not being ‘spoon-fed’ at
university:
...and we had to go find the journal articles and write our own things, and they said this
is similar to what you’ll be doing in university like you won’t be taught like you like
you’d have a lecturer ... they won’t make sure you understand it you have to make sure
you understand it. (P1, 50)
P1 felt (and was told in college) that their actions were encouraging independence when in
reality it could have been fostering a culture of dependency and ‘learned helplessness’
(Seligman, 1972). Help would be given at weekly support meetings to the students without them
needing to take any action. This suggests that there was never a time when the student had to
struggle and resolve issues for themselves at college and in doing so learn to be more
independent. Students seemed shocked at the level of independence expected in the first year
and felt as though they were thrown in at the deep end, unprepared for some of the challenges of
university. This was in spite of having been explicitly told that they would be totally
independent by their college tutors. This suggests that they had a different understanding and
expectation of what ‘independence’ would mean at university and there is thus a gap between
what they expected and what they got. The result of this could be a mismatch between the
132
rhetoric of independence in the college preparation and the reality of university life, a
consequence of which might mean that students feel conflicted by the expectation of being
independent and the uncertainty felt when they need to ask for help.
The student who believed she was resilient and wanted complete independence did not want to
ask for help. This appeared to be a source of conflict; however, as she knew she needed help but
resented having to ask. She may thus feel that she is failing because she has to. Instead, she felt
that help should be given at the right time and not ‘held to ransom’ until they are forced to ask
for it. This suggests that in her view, asking for help could be seen as a weakness
Consequences of the interactions
This section explores some of the consequences of negative experiences and interactions
between students and PTs. This super-ordinate theme has cluster themes of Social comparison
and Cognitive dissonance. These will form the subheadings in this section of the analysis.
Social comparison
Hearing about varied experiences from other students appeared to be a cause of confusion and
mixed emotions, especially when comparing them with their own.
“Some of my friends seem to get a lot more out of their personal tutors than you know others”
(P3, 181).
P5 was asked about the role of the PT and seemed confused after comparing her experience
with other students:
... I knew obviously that support... if you needed support erm but, I don't, that yeah, I
know some people I've spoken to and they seem to, have quite long conv- and you
know they’re with their tutor for a while and I'm like five, ten minutes at most (P5, 70).
This element of social comparison (Festinger, 1957) affected students’ level of satisfaction of
their own experiences with their PT so far. If the comparison was an upwards one (n= 4) this
contributed to feelings of dissatisfaction with their PT and an attempt to reason why their
experiences were not as good. If a downward comparison was made (n=2) students generally
experienced more satisfaction and this further reinforced their positive perceptions of their
relationship with their PT. Any differences, whether positive or negative, were usually
explained in terms of personality characteristics and whether they felt their PT placed any value
on their relationship:
133
Yeah, well I know (friend’s name) has struggled, trying to get a meeting with her
tutor...but it’s kinda like trying to get blood from a stone from what I can gather I don’t,
I think there’s maybe a mix I think (friend’s name) is the type of person, I really like her
but I think she’s a very insecure, so I think she assumes that everyone doesn’t like her
first so I think that’s a barrier but I think there is an availability issue with her tutor she
seems from what she said it seems to be quite erm, certainly not as approachable as
mine anyway (P6, 500-506).
Cognitive dissonance
This theme explores examples of where students have experienced contradictory thoughts and
feelings in relation to their PT and have tried to make sense of these. According to Festinger
(1956) these contradictions create an unpleasant feeling (which he labelled as a cognitive
dissonance) which the individual is then motivated to resolve by changing one or more of the
thoughts and feelings associated with the cause of the dissonance.
P6 had high expectations of the support she should get from both her PT and other tutors. When
she does not get this, she tries to make sense of it, adjusting her expectations and compromising
if she has a relationship depth with that specific tutor. In other words, she is more tolerant of
getting less than expected if she has an existing relationship with that person. Where no
relationship exists, her anger and frustration can build if she cannot make sense of something
and this creates a dissonance. In relation to the wider context, for example, she felt that more
time and support should be given for more difficult topics and less for what she saw as
“worthless topics” (278) and thinks the university should justify this decision. Without an
explanation, she finds one for herself and reasons that the university adds more time for
“worthless topics” to trick students into believing the degree is worth it:
“I feel like it’s just been shoved in just so we feel like we got out money’s worth in a sense”
(284).
Another source of frustration and dissonance for all students were times when they felt they
were not being given the necessary knowledge when it is needed. This was seen as a barrier to
learning. When students are given poor feedback on a piece of work, for example, without the
necessary help they are not able to improve for the next piece. P1 questioned whether the
university was “...withholding information as a test or a joke on them” (261). Students searched
for attributions and explanations for actions and when this could not be found, they often
experienced negative emotions towards the source and falsely attributed the actions as
intentional.
134
All six students felt that their PTs lacked availability. Having an established relationship with
her PT, P6 attributed any lack of availability to her PT being busy with her research and saw
this as a positive, as it makes her more credible in her teaching. She decided that as it was not
the PTs fault, she would be more flexible in her own availability to meet. For other students
where no relationship existed, this lack of availability was resolved in different ways. P1 felt
that this was because her PT was not interested in her and she did not want to help, so she
decided to ask another tutor for help. P4 internalised this and felt that it was her fault she had
not developed a relationship with her and decided not to ask for a meeting again as she did not
want to ‘pester’ her tutor. P4 also asked someone else for help as they were seen as more caring.
P5 had decided that immediate availability was not expected and she decided to persevere with
another request to meet as her PT had clearly articulated in their first meeting that he was
interested and wanted to help her with any problems.
Another source of tension comes from the unclear expectation of independence. For students,
there is a conflict between wanting independence and not knowing enough about certain
academic aspects to be independent. Students know they need help, but do not want to be seen
as needing help and are confused about whether they can ask due to fear of being judged and
unclear expectations of independence. Resolutions of this conflict came from different sources
at the individual level. P4, for example, thought she was ‘stupid’ because she needed to ask for
help. P6 thought the university was at fault for not providing enough taught time, so it is their
fault she needs to ask. P3 feels she should be completely independent as she had been primed to
expect this from her college. Furthermore, she did not want to be stereotyped as a typical
student by being seen as lazy and not helping herself. P4 was happy to ask for help because she
did not view this as a child-like dependency, as was the case for the younger students.
These examples provide evidence that experiences of not getting what was expected can be
perceived by individuals differently and for some can be a cause of cognitive dissonance. The
resolution of these feelings is also very subjective, but can be influenced negatively or
positively by the relationship the student has with their PT.
7.3. Discussion
The overall aim of this study was an in-depth exploration of the PT-student relationship from
the student perspective. This was achieved by exploring the expectations of the relationship and
investigating the interactional complexities of the developing relationship between the six
students and their PTs. The consequences of interactions on the individual student were also
investigated and the implications of the findings for the role of the PT were considered. An
overview of the findings will be followed by an integration and comparison of the findings to
135
previous research. The implications of the findings will be considered with suggestions for
further research.
Students have varied expectations of a PT before they meet. These can come from previous
educational experiences and by listening to others who have been to university. For the most
part, however, expectations of the role are unknown prior to the degree. After starting
university, students find out more about what to expect from their PT from their first meeting
and through hearing about other students’ experiences. The decision to meet with their PT can
be a requirement of the course or through the student requesting a meeting. Making the decision
to meet compulsory early in the course was appreciated by the interviewed students, as this is
typically at a time of uncertainty. If this encounter is positive, it can serve as a solid foundation
not only for the developing relationship, but also the student experience more widely.
Requesting a meeting was identified as a complex decision making process which involves
consideration of the likely outcomes, the perceived importance of the reason for asking for a
meeting, and the risks involved in asking.
Also identified were factors which may affect the likely success of the interactions and these
included, whether there was any evidence of care, the extent to which expectations were met,
how student independence is negotiated, power dynamics, and whether the meeting was seen to
have any value. Also identified were instances which functioned as turning points in the
developing relationship, for example, unexpected help given by the PT being seen as evidence
of genuine care. The consequences of unsuccessful interactions included withdrawal from the
relationship and subversion to alternative sources of support. Making sense of an experience
which did not fit with what was desired or expected resulted in conflicting emotions and
thoughts, creating a cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Students sought to resolve this
conflict through finding alternative explanations and changing their associated thoughts and
feelings. How this happened depended for the most part on two factors; students’ individual
differences, and the relationship they had developed with their PT. One source of individual
differences was locus of control (Rotter, 1954), which would determine whether students made
an internal or external attribution. If students had a positive relationship with their PT, they
sought to make favourable attributions to sustain and protect their relationship. If the
relationship had not developed, however, emotional responses were more extreme and in some
cases students considered leaving. The reality is that although many students may consider
leaving university at some point, most do not. Thomas (2006) explains that leaving university is
a high cost and life altering event, so although students may think about it (42% in Thomas’s
study), in reality less than a quarter of these (8%) actually left. Students who remain, unless they
find a way to resolve these contradictory thoughts and feelings, are at risk of psychological
consequences or instead may act out and share their dissatisfaction with others. This has
consequences for all those involved, of course, not least of all the university whose reputation 136
may be damaged as a result. This suggests that the consequences of negative experiences can be
far greater when students do not have a positive relationship with their PT. Overall, the findings
suggest that the relationship students have with their PT can impact both positively and
negatively on students’ attitudes and experiences whilst at university.
A number of new insights were revealed in the present study, including a key theme of
independence. These findings offer a deeper understanding of the impact of (and confusion
around) what this means for both parties in the relationship. Linked to this is a deeper
understanding of what implicit and mixed messages are being conveyed by the approach to
student support and the impact these can have for all parties.
From expectations of the PT to the decision to ask for a meeting, what happens in the actual
meeting, and then its consequences, expectations of independence weigh heavily on students.
Similar to Mancuso et al. (2010) participants in this study all said they knew university would
be different in terms of level of support from their previous educational experiences. Moreover,
as with Crisp et al. (2009), expectations of independence were a key factor. Although
participants believed they were prepared for independence, particularly former A-Level students
as in Bates and Kaye (2014), the evidence from this study seems to contradict this. Indeed, all
participants said they expected to be independent, yet experienced a range of negative emotions
(e.g. disappointment, frustration, anger, confusion) when they did not get the support they
needed. This apparent delusion may result from internalising and repeating the rhetoric of
independence in higher education which surrounds them (e.g. sources from previous education,
media, the government, and higher education institutions (HEIs) themselves) without full
exploring what this might mean in reality. Without explicit articulation, each student was left to
fall back on idiosyncratic interpretations of beliefs around independence. It is unsurprising that
students are confused over what ‘being independent’ means given that research from the tutor
perspective has found that tutors themselves are conflicted about providing support, resisting
being caring for fear of fostering dependency (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). This suggested that
students may be getting mixed messages from their PTs. This study clarifies the issue
somewhat, as students here did not want to be dependent or overly nurtured; in fact they wanted
to be challenged and supported by someone who cares on the journey towards independence.
Comparing experiences of their PT with other students was a powerful source of expectations
and influenced satisfaction with actual experiences. Support for the consequences of these
comparisons comes from Ody and Carey (2013) whose biggest critique of personal tutoring is
around the lack of equity felt amongst students in what they experience from their personal
tutor. Clearly there is an argument here for more consistency in the provision, but it could also
be argued that students should be encouraged to see the value in diversity of tutors in the same
way student diversity is promoted, as it adds to the richness of the experience.
137
Similar to Bennett et al. (2007) and Thomas (2011), participants who had attended a preparatory
course prior to starting university had more realistic expectations of support than those who had
not. The findings also matched Thomas (2011) in that these students had developed a strong
cohort identity and more academic confidence, which contributed to a successful integration.
This was particularly successful for mature students. Similarly, all three of the participants here
who had attended the pre-entry course were mature students, but it seems reasonable to assume
that all students would benefit from such preparatory courses and that this would contribute to
better transitions and improved student outcomes. There are of course financial implications of
this for institutions in terms of staffing, however one suggestion might be to incorporate this
into an extended transition phase at the start of the degree.
The findings around the decision to ask the PT for a meeting share some features with previous
research, as perceived availability, the value of the meeting, and perceptions of willingness to
help can be barriers to interaction (Hagenauer & Volet, 2016). Students were also reluctant to
ask for fear of rejection (Stephen et al., 2008) and negative judgement (Cotton & Wilson). As in
previous studies, the frequency of interactions was an indicator of whether the relationship
developed (Braxton, Milem & Sullivan, 2000). This study revealed a more complex and fraught
decision making process, however, which often ended with students not requesting a meeting
with their PT and either continuing to struggle or going to someone else for help. This side-
stepping of meetings was also described in Riddell and Bates (2010) as a fear expressed by PTs,
which from the findings in this study seems to match the reality. This has clear implications
both for vulnerable students who are not getting help, and also for tutors who provide informal
help and become overburdened with their workload, as this is often unseen and unaccounted for
but nonetheless has an impact.
This study contributes to narrowing the gap identified in previous research concerning a lack of
understanding around the nature of interactions and the links to the quality and development of
the relationship (Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). Student perceptions of the quality of interactions in
this study are linked to frequency of interactions (Mancuso et al., 2010) occurring in private
one-to-one informal settings (Dobransky & Frymier, 2004) and feelings of connectedness
(Komarraju et al., 2010), equity in the relationship (Mancuso et al., 2010), evidence of care
through PT proactivity, and the meeting having some meaning through relevance to the degree
(Thomas, 2006; Evenbeck & Jackson, 2005; Riddell & Bates, 2010; van Hooff & Westall,
2016).
The dissatisfaction felt by these students around the frequency of meetings can be explained in
part by the ‘asymmetry’ of the relationship around the student-PT ratio (i.e. there are many
students to one PT) (Mancuso et al., 2010). The paradox here is that whilst students feel
unhappy with the frequency of contact, the PTs feel overwhelmed by the level of student
138
support they provide. The asymmetry is also felt by students in terms of the perceived power
imbalance between themselves and their PT. This can impact in a number of ways, but
importantly is a barrier in deciding to ask for support and to the relationship developing (Riddell
& Bates, 2010; van Hooff & Westall, 2016). The PT is seen to hold the majority of power as
they can decide whether to agree to requests to meet and whether to help. PTs are also seen as
an authority figure as they ‘police’ students’ progress and they also hold the power to decide
whether to meet and help the student with any problems. Mature students seemed better able to
negotiate this as they see themselves as being more equal to them due to similarity in age.
Younger students, however, seem to struggle in making the transition to an adult-adult
relationship and seem reluctant to either make any demands on their PT or challenge them
(Hagenauer & Volet, 2014). In terms of using these findings in future PT approaches, any
implementations need to demonstrate sensitivity towards the impact of the perceived inequity in
the relationship and find ways to redress the perceived imbalance. Providing support as part of
the course, for example, would reduce the need to ask for help, along with making changes to
terminology around student needs, issues and problems to a discourse of support, shared
responsibility and collaboration. It seems important to also note that assumptions regarding the
age of students should be avoided, as the younger students here were aware of and felt
disempowered by such stereotyping.
Similarities to previous studies were also found in relation to what students want from their PT.
Students would like more opportunities to interact with their PT (Mancuso et al., 2010), more
clarity and consistency around PT availability (Earwaker, 1992; Mancuso et al., 2010), clearer
guidance and structure around support, particularly at the start of the degree (Beggs et al., 2004;
Docan-Morgan and Manusov, 2009). These factors were also found to support the development
of a positive relationship between students and PTs in this study.
There is strong support in the current study for the importance of turning points in the
relationship. This is similar to Docan-Morgan (2011) who identified that relational turning
points can have a long-term impact on the future of the relationship. From the PT perspective,
Docan-Morgan (2011) identified specific turning points and labelled these as different stages.
The ‘intimacy stage’, for example, is marked by the student disclosing personal information.
Interestingly, this can also have emotional consequences for the PT, with the tutor either liking
the student more or less, which can have a long-term impact on the relationship. Also supported
in this study were turning points relating to course related discussions, discussions regarding
future careers, and self-disclosures, and these matched those identified by students in Docan-
Morgan and Manusov (2009).
In addition to previous findings on turning points, this study identified strong emotions
associated with their PT helping them in a crisis. This created a perception of a strong bond and
139
the feeling that their PT would help them with any issues in the future. The PT helping them
with an issue which holds meaning for them and has made a difference, whether of an academic
or personal nature, was also seen as a significant turning point. A key determinant of the future
success of the relationship and whether the student persists with the relationship is the
perception of the PT as someone who cares, listens, and is willing to help. This matches the
main findings in Study 2. Given the identification of the importance of turning points in the
relationship and that we all agree that the nature of the interaction has consequences, future
research could take a more in-depth exploration of the turning points in the student-PT
relationship. This has the potential to provide new insights into changes within the relationship.
As this study included only female participants, future studies should include males as the
findings may be different. This suggestion is supported by Docan-Morgan and Manusov (2009)
who noted that female students tend to disclose more than males and that female tutors are
expected to be more personal and interact more with students. It is reasonable to suggest that the
gender of the student and the PT may influence expectations and outcomes of the relationship,
which was outside the scope of this research considered. Sander et al. (2000) found that
psychology students rated personal relationships as more important than business students,
suggesting that the student-tutor relationship is context dependent, therefore the subject studied
could affect students’ perceptions of the relationship. Considering different degree contexts
could be another avenue for future research to explore. Age is another demographic factor
worthy of more in-depth exploration as this study revealed that all students felt age was a factor
in the developing relationship and influenced the relative power of each party within.
7.4. Conclusion
Approaches to students support are not value-free. The approach in itself can reveal how
students are viewed by the institution and this has consequences for both students and
universities. Myers (2013) argues that the pastoral model is a deficit approach to student
support, in which the student is positioned as demanding, vulnerable, and in need of protection.
This approach also pathologises the need for support rather than seeing it as a normal part of the
process of learning in higher education. Practices such as attendance monitoring by the PT can
focus on protection and control and could reinforce the power hierarchy experienced by students
in the current research. This could perpetuate constructions of the student as a child in need of
control and resemble procedures in college. It is not surprising, therefore, that students are
confused around expectations of support and there is a tension between autonomy and
dependence. Mynott (2016) highlights the need to support but also to challenge students if
independence is to be promoted.
140
Expectations of independence are axiomatic with university and students are surrounded by this
message. What is not made clear, however, is when this transition is supposed to happen.
Participants in this study seemed to expect this to be immediate rather than an outcome of the
three years of the degree. They felt deficient when they then had to ask for help. This has
obvious implications in terms of damaging student confidence and self-efficacy and is at odds
with universities saying they are trying to do the exact opposite. It is expected that students will
need help with many aspects of university life, so it seems unfair to problematise this within a
rhetoric of independence. Universities should make clear what this expectation of
‘independence’ means and normalise support on the journey towards it.
In line with Ody and Carey (2013), this study’s findings would recommend that it would be
good practice be to allocate the personal tutor at the start of the programme and continue with
the same tutor throughout the programme in order to develop a meaningful relationship. They
should also have regular and scheduled meetings in addition to meetings when required. There
is much support for the positive benefits of pre-entry courses, but the resourcing of this may be
difficult for some institutions. What might be more reasonable to suggest is an extended
transition period at the start of the course which could incorporate some of the features of the
pre-entry course and therefore some of the benefits. In its current form in the research context,
Freshers’ Week has limited value and actually contributes to students’ confusion and
uncertainty. Participants fed back that too much information is given to them too soon for them
to recognise its meaning and value (as evidenced in the theme of Freshers’ Overload in the
analysis). This adds further support for an extended transition period.
These findings indicate a diversity of student expectations, experiences and consequences
emerging from an in-depth exploration of the student-PT relationship. In support of previous
research, it highlights the importance of the relationship and emphasises the need for a PT
system which is integrated within the wider learning context, in which both students and PTs
are invested and of which they can see the benefits. As indicated by Thomas (2006), these
findings would also support an extended transition phase and timetabling of PT meetings to
make clear the importance of the PT role and that student support is expected.
The next chapter will be a further study which will use the IPA findings from this chapter to
explore the usefulness of the psychological contract (PC). This will be examined in terms of an
explanatory framework for understanding student expectations, perceptions, and consequences
of the relationship with the PT.
141
Chapter 8 Study 4 – Application of psychological contract theory
Using the Psychological Contract as a Framework for Understanding the Student-
Personal Tutor Relationship
The deepest truths are best read between the lines
(A.B. Alcott 1872)
The previous chapter was a write-up of an interview study undertaken with six first year
students which used IPA to analyse the data. It revealed new insights into the relationship
between student and personal tutor (PT) and identified areas of confusion and conflict around
the nature of the relationship. After rereading the data, the researcher realised that students
talked in terms of reciprocity and exchange, which was more complex than the initial focus on
expectations. As the researcher had previously conducted a study on the psychological contract
(PC) in higher education (HE) with 1st year students, she noticed strong similarities with these
findings and previous research worthy of further investigation (Hornby-Atkinson, Sumner,
Connors, Putwain, Larkin, Yale et al., 2008). Support for using the PC in HE also came from
O’Toole and Prince (2015) who suggested that the PC is a useful lens for examining HE
relationships. Furthermore, Bordia, Hobman, Restubog and Bordia (2010) had used the PC to
study the specific relationship in HE between student and research supervisor. This study will
use psychological contract theory in a HE context to investigate the PT-student relationship.
8.0 Introduction
8.0.1. Overview of the Psychological Contract (PC)
(For a more detailed overview of PC theory see Chapter 3)
The PC is a conceptual framework which has predominantly been used to explore employer-
employee relationships. Research into its use in other contexts is limited, however. It can be
explained as a dynamic mental model of the subjective beliefs concerning the rights and
responsibilities of an exchange agreement between themselves and an organisation (O’Toole &
Prince, 2015). O’Toole and Prince (2015) explain that the PC draws from social exchange
theory; they describe this as compliance by both parties in a relationship to rules of exchange
which in time fosters a trusting relationship. Through a series of reciprocal exchanges,
interdependency develops in reaching desired outcomes which in turn generates perceptions of
obligations to the other. Social exchange theory also suggests that one party will expect that
they will receive the equivalent of their own contributions to the exchange in return (Bordia et
al., 2010).
142
Prior to Rousseau’s (1989) reconceptualisation, social exchanges in the psychological contract
were seen as being more values based (e.g. Argyris, 1960). Rousseau refined the construct to a
more subjective belief of individuals in a work context regarding mutual obligations of
reciprocity which constitute the contract (Rousseau, 1989; 1995; 2001; 2011; 2012).
‘Obligations’ are seen as different to ‘expectations’, as expectations are general beliefs about
what a job and organisation will be like. As such PC breaches involving obligations tend to be
more serious than unmet expectations (Robinson, 1996).
The PC is held by the individual but can be shaped by the organisation. Rousseau (2001)
suggests that the PC develops from actual or implied promises made by organisational agents
during the recruitment and socialisation process. For students, Bordia et al. (2010) suggest that
students gather information from formal sources such as websites, university prospectuses and
Open Days and also informally through word of mouth (other students, tutors, alumni,
department). This information forms a mental framework of expectations and obligations and is
the basis of the PC. They suggest that fulfilment of the PC obligations leads to positive
outcomes such as increased motivation to learn, overall satisfaction with the educational
process, and feelings of well-being (Bordia et al., 2010). The PC can also be shaped through
direct experiences and the perceptions of interactions. The contract is adapted throughout the
duration of the relationship to take account of the extent to which each party fails or fulfils the
perceived promises and obligations (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). When changes occur, the
individual goes through a sense-making process to interpret the changes in terms of how they
impact on the individual themselves (De Vos, Buyens, & Schalk, 2003).
The PC is described in the research as having both explicit transactional and implicit relational
aspects, the combination of which can be complex. Transactional aspects relate to explicit
rights, conditions and obligations, whereas ‘relational’ refers to implicit and socio-emotionally
based aspects (Rousseau, 1995). Koskina (2013) added an ideological aspect to this framework
in her research on post-graduate students, which included the aspects students wished for from
the relationship. For students in Bordia et al. (2010) the obligations of the research supervisor
role included help with project planning, timely support, in-depth consultations, and research
support.
When students start university they will have existing understandings or ‘schema’ relating to
expectations of university. According to Rousseau (1995), this forms the basis of the PC, which
will then be adapted and developed through observation and experience. In additional to the
more general schema relating to university, students will also have a specific PC concerning the
relationship with the PT. A schema is explained as a dynamic mental model of the subjective
beliefs concerning the rights and responsibilities of an exchange agreement between themselves
and an organisation or agent of the organisation (O’Toole & Prince, 2015). This forms the basis
143
of the PC and this information is used when trying to find causal explanations for any perceived
breach and make attributions (Weiner, 1985).
Consistent with schema theory, with any new experiences and information, whether explicit or
implied, attempts will then be made to try and fit these into existing networks of knowledge.
The result is that more elaborate schemas form or a new schema will be created (Rousseau,
2001, 2010). In some cases this is unsuccessful and this causes an internal conflict or ‘cognitive
dissonance’ (as referred to in Study 3). Bordia et al. (2010) suggests that any experience of
breach will add to an already stressful time for students trying to adapt to university life and
expectations. It is likely, therefore, that there will be many new experiences which do not fit
with students’ schemas. Students in Study 3, for example, said they knew little of what to expect
at university.
If an individual believes that promises in the contract are unfilled and that the other party has
failed in their obligations in how they respond, this can result in a breach of the PC (Rousseau,
1989). The reaction to breach depends on the level of trust the individual has in their employer,
as this will affect their recognition, interpretations and reaction to the perceived breach
(Robinson, 1996). Individuals with low trust in the organisation will respond less favourably
than those with high trust and are more likely to remember the breach, whereas high trust
individuals would be more likely to overlook the breach or give it less importance.
Individuals who perceive a breach in their PC can respond by experiencing strong emotions
ranging from anger, betrayal, disappointment, psychological distress, frustration, to moral
outrage. In addition to emotional responses, the individual may change their behaviour towards
the organisation by reducing their performance, acting out in less honourable ways, or may even
consider leaving (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). These responses serve to re-balance the PC (De
Vos et al., 2003).
Conway and Briner (2005) suggested that PC breach has 5 characteristics: delay, magnitude,
type-form, inequity, and reciprocal imbalance. Cassar et al. (2013) believe that responses to
breach will be influenced by these characteristics. In trying to make sense of the behaviour of
others in relation to the breach experience, causal attributions will be made, drawing on existing
associated schema (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1998). Attribution theory posits the drive for
individuals to try and understand and explain the behaviour of others in order to provide a sense
of security and predictability (Weiner, 1972). Explanations for the breach behaviour are given
either an internal or external cause and have been labelled as ‘reneging’, ‘disruption’, and
‘incongruence’ (Rousseau, 1995; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). ‘Reneging’ is an external
attribution that attributes the blame to the organisation and the breach is seen as intentional.
‘Disruption’ is also an external attribution, but in this case the breach is viewed as beyond the
144
organisation’s control. The experience of incongruence occurs when the breach is given an
internal cause. Divergence of beliefs around promises and obligations in the contract of both
parties is identified and the other party is blamed. It has been suggested that behavioural
responses will depend on the causal attributions made for the breach (e.g. Cassar et al., 2013)
and the extent to which the breach is experienced is dependent on whether the organisation is
held responsible (Anderson & Schalk, 1998).
Attempts have also been made to identify and categorise the different responses to breach.
Rousseau (1995) expanded on the four main types of breach responses identified and these are
referred to widely in the research as ‘exit’, ‘voice’, ‘loyalty’, and ‘neglect’. These behavioural
responses vary from leaving the relationship, to voicing concerns, ignoring the breach or acting
out negative behaviours (for more detail on these responses see Chapter 3). Irrespective of the
cause of the breach, it appears that the recipient will feel less injustice if an explanation is
provided (Rousseau & Anton, 1988). Turnley and Feldman (1999) examined the relationship
between breach and response to breach and found Exit, Voice and Neglect behaviours increased
whereas experience breach decreased levels of loyalty. They also found that responses to breach
were affected by situational factors and the availability of alternatives. For example individuals
may not have the option to leave the organisation or there may not be anyone in the organisation
who would listen to the individual’s concerns.
8.0.2. Higher Education context
Koskina (2013) suggests the PC concept generalises to a wide variety of exchange relationships
between individuals, individuals and organisations as well as between organisations. Using the
PC in higher education is an under-researched area in education studies and in the wider
psychological contract literature. Studies on the PC in a higher education context are few,
particularly from a student perspective (O’Toole & Prince, 2015). Bathmaker (1999) looked at
the PC between the institution and academic staff, and Wilson, Jackman and Kennedy (2009)
examined the PC between students and teachers. Bordia et al., (2010) explored the PC of
students with their final research project supervisor and found that students felt that supervisors
were obligated to provide both practical and emotional support. They highlighted that students
are often not fully aware of supervisors’ workloads and this can often lead to misunderstanding
and breach through unrealistic expectations of availability. Hornby-Atkinson et al. (2008) is the
only study so far to have explored first year students’ ideas of PC and compared these to their
tutors. Their findings indicated that students often have unrealistic expectations relating to
availability, academic support and support for future careers, and are confused about
expectations of independence at university.
145
The traditional conceptualisation of the PC as a framework for employee-employer relationships
was extended by Rousseau (1989) to include agents of the university as a third party in the
relationship. Three key actors are involved in the relationship; the student, academics, and the
administrators, all with different agendas and different levels of power (McCulloch, 2009).
Koskina (2013) extended the PC in the higher education context to include students’ belief that
the contract was between three parties, the institution, tutors, and themselves, and explored
students’ perceptions of the obligations and expectations on them. Koskina (2013) proposed
that universities are now sites of exchange in the minds of both students and the university.
Students are under obligation to pay fees and carry out certain actions, e.g. attend lectures and
submit assignments on time, and in return tutors provide lecture material and mark assignments.
Whether explicit or implicit, these promises constitute the contents of the exchange relationship
(Conway & Briner, 2005). According to Koskina, expectations were emphasised over explicit
promissory elements in higher education compared to promises and obligations in employment
contexts and this may be due to employment relationships being more clearly contractual
(2013). Of direct relevance to this research was Koskina’s assertion that the real student PC is
formed in the specific student-tutor relationship and that the quality of this provision is part of
the exchange.
This research will therefore focus on the student PC in relation to one specific relationship, that
which exists between a student and their personal tutor. It will explore student perceptions of
what is owed and what is given in return in this relationship and the consequences of a
mismatch. Using the IPA findings from the interviews in Study 3, it will ascertain the relevance
of using PC theory as a framework for understanding the students’ PC with their PT, leading to
suggestions on how the PC can be used in a HE context.
A limitation of the research is that it relies on self-reporting and this seems at odds with the
psychological contract as a mainly implicit concept that is unknown to the individual. Where
necessary, the findings from the IPA in the previous study will therefore be used to illuminate
PC findings further. Rousseau (1995) suggests that interviews with individuals are important to
capture the subjective nature of the contract and also the dynamic nature of contractual thinking.
Another limitation is that this study will only look at one side of the relationship, but given that
the construct is highly individualised this seems a good place to start. Future research could
extend this by examining the other side of the contract, i.e. the PTs. to explore how the contract
develops through reciprocal exchanges.
8.1. Method
An overview of the methodology will be provided here. A more detailed account is provided in
Study 3.
146
A case study approach was adopted as this has the potential to provide an in-depth
understanding of a specific phenomenon. This was also the preferred method as the current
study is attempting to add to existing understandings of the PC of students in a HE context.
A purposive sample of six self- selected first-year undergraduate students came from the
Psychology department at Edge Hill University. The participants were homogenous in terms of
their degree programme to allow for more psychological variability, as this fits with the
individualised nature of the PC. Three of the participants were mature students who had come
through an access course, and three came directly from further education. Two of these came
from A-Level study and one from college (see Appendix A for participant overview).The
rationale for the focus on first years was due to the fact that the PT is likely to play a greater role
in their degree experience and they were also more likely to remember their first encounters
with their PT.
Semi-structured interviews were used with an open framework of questions regarding
expectations and experiences of the PT (Kvale, 2009) (see Appendix E for a list of questions).
This framework was helpful in allowing students to identify particular interactions and events
which were of importance to them.
The resulting interview transcripts were analysed using IPA, which allowed for new insights
through individual interpretations and sense-making (Smith, 2008). The IPA itself can be found
in Study 3, but for this study, the IPA findings will be used and PC theory applied to it. The
application of the PC theory is exploratory in nature and draws from the literature review
outlined in Chapter 3. Consistent with existing research on the concept, it will focus primarily
on exploring the contents of students’ PCs with their PTs and any incidents where a breach of
contract may have occurred.
8.2. Analysis and discussion
This section will draw on all aspects of PC theory which are considered relevant and helpful in
explaining student experiences and where possible the findings will be related to relevant PC
theory. Specifically, this section will explore the antecedents to the contract and the contents of
the student PC with their PT. This will be followed by an exploration of breach experiences.
(see Appendix J for the application of PC overview table)
8.2.1. Antecedents to the PC
Sources of expectations come from pre-educational experiences, social comparisons with other
students and others outside the university, and are built up from every experience of the PT
147
since starting university. P6, for example, is a mature student who is registered disabled, so her
experiences of support prior to university had impacted and raised her expectations of the
support she would receive from her PT. Students therefore enter into a relationship with their
PT and then expect benefits to be exchanged irrespective of other norms of obligations in that
context (Zafirovski, 2005). Consistent with schema theory, with any new experiences and
information, whether explicit or implied, attempts are made by students to try and fit these into
existing networks of knowledge. As Rousseau (2001; 2010) acknowledges, these either adapt
existing schema or establish new ones. In some cases this was unsuccessful and caused an
internal conflict or ‘cognitive dissonance’ (as it was referred to in Study 3). Consistent with
Bordia et al. (2010) these experiences seem to add to an already stressful time for students
trying to adapt to university life and expectations. As identified in Study 3, many of these new
experiences did not fit with students’ schemas, as students said they did not know much about
what to expect at university, which added to their anxiety.
8.2.2. Contents of the PC
This section will explore the contents of the relationship which constitute the student PC with
their PT. Two main categories were identified as transactional and relational, consistent with
previous research on contents (Rousseau, 1995: Koskina, 2013). Also consistent was that rather
than being separate, there is a crossover between transactional and relational promises where
transactional aspects are influenced by relational aspects and vice versa. These often contain
both explicit and implicit aspects (Conway & Briner, 2005). In addition to this, there was an
ideological dimension to many of the promises but rather than a separate category, as in
Koskina, (2013), this was an added dimension of both relational and transactional components.
The content-related dimensions detailed next were found to contribute towards the students’
perceptions of the worth and quality of the PT relationship. Both relational and transactional
dimensions are seen by students to have made a difference to the relationship developing
positively (Koskina, 2013).
8.2.2.1. Relational dimensions
Relational dimensions were found to relate to the value students placed on their PT themselves
and were either PT attributes and affective dimensions or implicit dimensions and these are sub-
categorised below on this basis.
-Attributes and Affective dimensions
148
‘Kind’; ‘helpful’; ‘approachable’; ‘calm’; ‘gentle’; ‘listens’; ‘unrushed’; ‘flexible’; ‘good
person’; ‘genuine’; ‘supportive’; ‘lovely’; ‘easy going’; ‘comfortable’; ‘familiar’; show
concern; be proactive in helping.
-Implicit dimensions (these aspects were implied in the relationship and may have been
experienced directly or are what is expected from the role, i.e. ideological):
‘Willing’ (the PT should want to be a PT and want to help them); help is more valued when it is
voluntary; consistent; offers security; similarity in age means more similarity overall; similar in
experience; treats her like she is unique; ‘receptive’; ‘encouraging’; ‘trust’; ‘respect’; support is
meaningful; support is worthwhile; offer a safety net; give help not asked for, ‘responsive’,
provide emotional support; can go with anything; validates their experiences and views;
proactive, act as a sounding board, i.e. they can go and see them if they have a problem with
another tutor; help with academic and social integration; share knowledge; the relationship
students have with their PT is seen as an investment in the future for when students will need
more help; support to develop independence; shared responsibility in the PT relationship.
8.2.2.2. Transactional dimensions.
Transactional dimensions consist of what the students believe to be the PT side of the contract
and these may have either been experienced directly, through observations, or what they expect
from the role (i.e. ideological).
Monitor and police student progress; offer academic support; support for the course; give help
translating feedback; provide extensions; prepare the students for future years and careers; look
over students’ work; act as a point of referral; careers help; act as an advocate; be a source of
information on other support; clarify expectations; can go for personal support if this affects
academic work, e.g. “I wouldn't have said unless it's going to affect you if it's going to affect
your study then maybe...” (p5, 116) (i.e. both relational and transactional); they are there for
problems; provide a job reference in the future; provide support in the more difficult second and
third years of the degree; clear and regular availability.
Although listed separately, the distinction between transactional and relational dimensions is
somewhat illusory, as much of the transactional elements were underpinned by relational
elements. PTs were, for example seen as being proactive and this helped students with their
academic work but also served to make the student feel valued. There were also examples of
students exchanging relational aspects for transactional aspects, for example students wanted
reassurance (relational) and explanation around feedback (transactional) received from other
tutors. Where students felt that the relationship was an investment in the future (help with future
years and writing a reference) this suggests an instrumentality to the relational endeavours. 149
“I think if you don’t have a relationship it would be more generic but if they actually
like you then they’re probably more likely to give you a nicer reference. I’m not saying
they’re going to spoil you cause they don’t know you as well but I think the more you
get on with someone and the more you relate you know they actually know you are
you’re not just a student number (p1, 399)… the relationship is going to be the
reference” (p1,401)
These findings support Rousseau’s (1990) assertion that they are not mutually exclusive and the
relationship consists of both transactional and relational elements that interact and impact upon
each other. Similar to Koskina (2013) the contents of the relationship also had an ideological
component, but whereas Koskina identified this as a separate category, in the current study there
were ideological aspects to both the transactional and relational components. To have this as a
separate category therefore seemed an oversimplification of the complexities. The same could
be said for the separation of relational and transactional elements, but the distinction seemed
clearer here.
These findings also shared some similarities with Bordia et al. (2010) as students here also
identified obligations in relation to more transactional aspects. This included help with
academic demands, timely support, in-depth consultations and research support. Bordia et al.
studied the student-research supervisor relationship in which the tutor’s role was explicitly to
support final year business students with their research. This is different to the three year
pastoral support offered in the student-PT relationship in this study’s context. Given these
differences, it was expected that there would be differences in the students’ PCs. It was
surprising, however, that the relational aspects were similar as both the research supervisors and
PTs in this study were expected to show concern, be proactive in helping, share knowledge, be
responsive, and provide emotional support. The stress experienced by first year students in
terms of their transition and integration into new academic and social demands could be similar
to stress related to the final year students’ project completion, which may explain the similarity.
Both student groups therefore required emotional support and evidence of care to succeed.
Bordia et al.’s students differed from the current study as they also wanted their research
supervisor to motivate them to produce work. This could be explained by the student-supervisor
relationship in Bordia et al.’s study having more defined parameters in terms of lasting four
months and providing a three hour weekly meeting. This more explicit focus and timed purpose
of the project completion would seem to align with more instrumental goals.
8.2.3. Attributions and breach
150
In many examples throughout the interviews, students experienced conflict in trying to make
sense of their experiences and attempting to rebalance their PC (De Vos et al., 2003) and make
different attributions. The PC is held by the individual but is shaped by the organisation through
perceptions of interactions and is adapted throughout the duration of the relationship to take
account of the extent to which each party succeeds or fails in delivering the perceived promises
and obligations (Robinson & Rousseau, 1994). With any changes to the relationship, the
individual will try to make sense of this and interpret the changes in relation to how they impact
on the individual themselves (De Vos et al., 2003). The following section will provide examples
of students’ sense-making processes in which students make attributions for any discrepancies
and try to resolve any conflicts. For some, this results in a perceived breach of contract by their
PT which has consequences for the ongoing relationship in terms of the PC. As identified in the
previous study using IPA, areas of conflict included notions of independence, with confusion
around support and availability which are complicated with perceptions of power. These
experiences will be explored through the application of PC theory.
All students had implicit notions of independence and this seems to have originated from
previous educational experiences and rhetoric around university. How this translated to
university life was a source of conflict for all students. Most felt that they were expected to be
completely independent from the start. When the reality differed due to unfamiliar HE practices
and they found themselves needing help negotiating new demands, however, this was a source
of uncertainty and strong negative emotions (Hornby-Atkinson et al., 2008). According to
Conway and Briner (2005) this discrepancy can be categorised as a breach in the type/form of
support provided and also differed in terms of the magnitude of support, so that less support was
given than the students expected. Students finding themselves in a position of having to ask for
help has a number of consequences depending on the causal attribution made. For some this is
attributed at the organisational level, referred to as reneging (Cassar et al., 2013) and is seen as
an intentional failure to provide the appropriate level of teaching and learning experiences,
“...we were kind of covering things that didn’t really make any sense and didn’t give any real
reason as to why we would do it, it just seemed madness” (p6, 129).
Three of the students made an internal attribution, blaming the PT for intentionally withholding
the means to become independent (referred to as incongruence by Cassar et al. (2013).
...a little bit a bone of contention this really cause we did have an essay erm, and then a
couple of weeks later we covered how to write an essay…which seemed a little bit of a
mickey take really it was as if you were kind of being I think the impression of a lot of
people was that you were kind of being set up to fail (p6, 104-108).
151
For others, individual differences accounted for attributions made, e.g. P4 had an internal locus
of control (Rotter, 1966) so she saw this as her fault for not being clever enough and therefore
needing help,
“I don't even know... It's probably my own fault I've not made myself aware” (p4, 95).
Lowe and Cook (2003) claim students have unrealistic expectations they will be provided with
all of the information required to learn when they start university. The use of the word
‘unrealistic’ aligns well and feeds notions of constructions of students as demanding consumers
with a client mentality. However the term, ‘all of the information required to learn’ can be
understood differently. An alternative interpretation may be that they expect to be given the
means to learn, i.e. for learning to be facilitated rather than fed to them. The latter explanation
would be a better fit with the findings from this research as it suggests that all students had
expectations of being an independent learner at university but do not have the knowledge or
understanding of how to achieve this. As the findings revealed, students are unclear what
independence means and how to negotiate this and this can lead to a breach in PC arising from
the conflicted between needing support and believing that they should not need it. This points to
a misunderstanding gap that is all too easy to fill with negative constructions of student as
consumers believing they are not prepared to work and want everything to be given to them.
Expectations of independence also featured in Nicholson, Putwain, Connors and Hornby-
Atkinson (2013). They found that students performed better at the end of the semester when
they had expectations of independent study which lead to them taking more responsibility for
their own learning compared to those who did not. As outlined previously, all students in this
research had expectations of independence but whether they were able to achieve this was
dependent on a number of factors (e.g. age, negotiation of power and availability). An
overarching factor for all students however, in becoming independent and responsible for their
learning was if they were given more explicit guidance at the start of the degree by their PT
around academic practices and levels of support and understood how to access this.
Adding to the conflict around independence is confusion around the availability of the PT
which further complicates students negotiating support (Hornby-Atkinson et al., 2008). The lack
of availability of a PT is interpreted in different ways and given negative or positive
attributions. These may either internalise or externalise the reason for the PT’s availability or
lack thereof (Rousseau, 1995; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). The source of the attributions made
when trying to resolve the conflict differs depending on individual student differences and
whether they feel they have developed a relationship with their PT. Where trust existed in the
relationship, a lack of availability, similar to the independence theme, is seen as reneging and
externalised to blame the institution. This is similar to Robinson (1996) in that responses to
152
breach are influenced by the presence of trust in a relationship. Using Rousseau’s (1995)
categorisation of breach responses, this can be described as a ‘considerate voice’ response,
where the behaviour is explained favourably. It could also fit with a ‘loyalty’ response where no
further action is taken and the student remains ‘loyal’, thereby restoring and maintaining the
relationship. Any lack of availability was attributed to the PT being too busy with research and
other students in Study 3. This can be viewed positively as the PT being well rounded, caring
for others, and is knowledgeable, or it can be seen an a negative, with insufficient time for
student support being provided by the institution or the PT, therefore support is not valued by
the institution.
“It’s almost better if they’re conducting research cause it makes them, I think it makes them a
better tutor or… but then maybe I guess they’d be more available if they didn’t have research or
anything to conduct” (p1, 356-358).
The lack of PT availability may also be perceived as an individual lack of interest and an
unwillingness to help. This is explained as either a failing in the PT or in the student themselves.
When students perceived it as the PT’s fault, they adopted an ‘exit’ response (Rousseau, 1995).
Rather than leave the organisation, as a disgruntled employee might, they exited the relationship
and looked elsewhere for support, deciding not to engage further in the relationship with the PT.
This is consistent with Turnley and Feldman’s (1999) assertion that response to breach depends
on situational factors and whether an alternative is available. For students who exit the
relationship they have already identified other sources of potential support. Lastly, one student
thought it was her fault for not knowing when the PT is available; she felt like she was
pestering. This again could be explained by an internal locus of control. These findings are
similar to Bordia et al. (2010) who suggest that not understanding a tutor’s workload or the
specific role expectations can often lead to an unrealistic PC so that breach becomes likely.
The following quote is an example of a student trying to resolve the conflict felt around her
PT’s lack of availability,
... they could be teaching, or like, you know doing research or something. I wouldn’t
expect to just knock on, I mean I know lunch breaks and everything but they have to
have their own space, like I know there a personal tutor but I respect that they have their
own things to teach, they’ve got their own research to do (p5, 350).
Using Rousseau’s categorisations further, responses to breach as a consequence of these
attributions ranged from deciding to go to another tutor for help and withdrawing from the
relationship (exit response), continuing to struggle (internal locus of control), or acting out the
dissatisfaction through sharing attitudes or behaviours which could have negative repercussions
153
for the PTs and the institution’s reputation (aggressive voice/neglect response). There are also
repercussions for other tutors informally supporting students in terms of unseen workload. One
student (p6) actually suggested that the reason more time is given for teaching ‘worthless’
topics compared to the time allocated to student support is that the university is trying to ‘trick’
students into thinking the degree is worth it (aggressive voice response). Consistent with Bordia
et al. (2010) students are likely to be more satisfied and fulfilled in their PC if they feel they
have acquired knowledge and skills which are useful in their future learning and careers.
The range of emotions experienced by students in response to breach varied in intensity. Impact
ranged from feeling rejected and not feeling cared for to resentment at having to ask for help,
frustration at not knowing whether to ask for help, to anger and feeling of injustice when not
getting the help when it was needed. What seems to be the case is that the stronger the negative
emotion, the more likely a negative behavioural response (exit, aggressive voice, neglect),
which is consistent with Cassar et al. (2013).
I ended up asking * and * ended up helping me with it but first off, erm I ask (PT) she
was no help what so ever, she er emailed me back ... she was like, ‘I just don't have time
to help you, I just don't have time’, oh ‘I'm not meeting up with people anymore’, when
I knew she was helping my friends! (p3, 317).
Minor breaches such as a misunderstanding over available office hours can be overlooked, but
consistent with previous research on thresholds (Rigotti, 2009) these are seen to have a
cumulative negative effect if not resolved. Also consistent with previous research on tipping
points (Rigotti, 2009) this research identified the same phenomenon (labelled Turning Points in
Study 3), whereby a single event is perceived of such magnitude that the student ends the
relationship (exit response).
Responses to breach are stronger when given an internal attribution and are viewed as the PT’s
fault (as per the quote above), categorised as incongruence (Robinson & Morrison, 2000).
These emotions serve to rebalance the contract (De Vos et al., 2003) and include anger,
betrayal, disappointment, psychological distress, and frustration.
One student (p5) seemed to experience a sense of moral outrage at the lack of apparent care
through a lack of support and availability. This had led her to question whether the degree was
worth it and consider withdrawing. This is consistent with Koskina (2013) who found an
interdependency between the three parties in the relationship, the student, PT and the institution.
Only when there is a breach of contract with the PT is the PC with the institution called to mind
and questioned.
154
“I did keep thinking at some point this will click into place but I feel like it’s just been shoved
in just so we feel like we got out money’s worth in a sense” (p6, 121).
In support of Rousseau’s (1995) assertion, these findings would suggest that ultimately the
consequence of breach, whether the contract is broken or survives is shaped by the relationship
history, the previous interactions between the parties, and the emotional effects of the breach
(Rousseau, 1995).
Positive emotions are also experienced through the developing relationship and are described in
the PC literature as relational indicators (Braxton, Milem & Sullivan, 2000). Examples include
when the PT listens, respects, cares, and is willing to help. These are likely to lead to a more
positive and fulfilled PC. A turning point in the relationship in terms of these indicators is when
the student discloses personal information and learns they can trust their PT.
“I emailed asking her ‘’please help’’ cause I was just desperate and the stress was just making
me worse… because she was my personal tutor…and she’s just lovely…yeah and I just knew
that she would help if she could” (p6, 171-177).
The level of trust the individual has in their organisation can impact on the reaction to breach,
whether breach is recognised, and how it is interpreted (Robinson, 1996). For the relationship to
be sustained, in addition to relational indicators, students also said they wanted more
transactional elements linked to the degree. For them, this would give longevity and meaning to
the relationship. The findings support Rousseau and Wade-Benzoni’s (1994) assertion that the
PC involves subjectively perceived promises shaped by the individual’s interaction with the
employer (Rousseau & Wade-Benzoni, 1994). When the employee feels the contract has been
fulfilled by the organisation, the employee in turn will be loyal to the organisation (DeCuyper et
al., 2011).
Age is also a factor which can affect interpretations and response to breach and tends to
moderate emotional responses (Ng & Feldman, 2009). This is explained by Lockenhoff and
Carstenson (2004) that older people are able to regulate their emotions better than younger
people. Mature students seemed more at ease with asking for help as they did not see this as a
lack of independence or feel deficient due to more confidence through life experiences
(Rousseau, 2001).
“I don’t know whether it’s cause I’m older I can kind of, I don’t see you all as teachers kind of
thing, I do and I respect that and I respect you all I do, but I kind of feel like I’m on the same
level in the sense that I can speak”(p6, 179).
155
There are exceptions to this, however; when a mature student in the current study demonstrated
an internal locus of control and low confidence, she internalised the need for help as a weakness
in her,
“I don't like to bother people, unless I really, really need to, erm. And I have a fear that they
will think I’m stupid” (p5, 220).
A student with an external locus of control, however, saw the need to ask for help as the
university’s failure to provide enough taught time (p1). Another student felt that the institution
holds all of the knowledge and uses this as a source of power to wield over students (p4). This
knowledge is ‘held to ransom’ so that students are forced to ask for help. This fits with Bordia et
al.’s (2010) assertion that students recognise a power imbalance between themselves and their
tutors and are therefore more sensitive to breach.
A young student (p3) who expressed what she described as “resilience” and desire to be
independent resented having to ask for help. She felt that her PT stereotyped her as a typical 18
year old ‘lazy student’ because of this, which made her angry.
“I just wouldn't go to them because I’d feel like they wouldn't quite get where I was coming
from, they’d just think that I was a lazy, idiot that wasn't doing any work” (p3, 167). This
conflict and strong emotions around independence is unsurprising given that students are
primed to expect independence and then denied the means to actualise it. Morrison and
Robinson (1997) suggested that an individual who sees themselves as self-reliant is less likely
to blame the organisation. It is likely, therefore, that for this student the emotional response will
be somewhat reduced. In seeing herself as resilient, she is less likely to see the organisation as
failing and is therefore less likely to perceive a breach. This is an example of the complex and
confounding factors at play in determining an individual response to a breach event, e.g.
implicit and explicit notions of independence and age by both parties, confounded by individual
differences such as the student’s locus of control. Research suggests that with age individuals
have more tolerance for minor breaches and are less likely to display exit or neglect behaviours
(Ng & Feldman, 2009). They also have a more malleable PC so that they are able to adapt and
be flexible.
I know it’s very independent and obviously as an adult that’s, I’d probably prefer to be
more independent than be treated like a five year old but I probably expected a little
more of guidance in regards to I spoke to * I emailed him about the fact I felt that I was
drowning in stats I’m not great with numbers, and his kind of only answer was ‘well
have you read the book that’s been recommended ?’ and I had tried to read the book but
156
when you’re new and you look at these books you kind of have to translate them before
you can understand what they’re saying (p6, 28).
Certainly the mature students in this study seemed to provide more complex reasoning and use
humour in response to minor breaches compared to younger students. The implication of these
findings is that the PCs of mature students should be handled differently.
A strong source of information which students use to interpret their own is other students’
experiences and comparing these to their own. This process of comparison can result in either
dissatisfaction and feelings of injustice at the inequity of support, or a strengthening of the
relationship with their PT and feelings of satisfaction.
Erm, I know some of my friends have come out of their initial tutor meeting and the
(PT) has basically said, if you’ve got a problem go to counselling if you’ve got an
academic problem go to the person that is leading the module, any other reason, don't
come to me. Haha, like you know…So in comparison, I’ve had quite a receptive person
(p3, 207-210).
The student may also make an adjustment to their views of their PT so that any differences are
explained so as to maintain the equilibrium in the relationship. A student may discover that
another student sees their PT more regularly than they do, for example, and may reason that the
other student is needier than they are. The contents of the PC are the promises made by the
organisation (Rousseau, 1995) and these need to be fair and fulfilled in an ongoing way for both
parties to feel satisfied with the relationship. Comparing experiences with others is one way for
students to ascertain whether their deal is fair.
“I thought personal tutor meeting would be five ten minutes but each time for me it's been a
good half hour proper half an hour” (p4, 27). “I know some people I’ve spoken to and they
seem to, have quite long conv- and you know they’re with their tutor for a while and I’m like
five, ten minutes at most” (p1, 70).
Using situational information to inform a response to breach does fit with Turnley and Feldman
(1999) but using others in the same situation to make social comparisons is a novel insight.
An unseen yet strong influence on the attributions students make comes from the perception of
power. There is an assumption and an acceptance from all students that PTs are in a position of
authority and should be respected. This creates an imbalance and an inequity in the relationship
where the PT holds all of the power. There is a pronounced difference here between mature
students and younger students in how they resolve this. Mature students seem aware of the
power imbalance but are less affected by it as age and experience seems to equalise it
157
somewhat. Two of the three younger students adopted a teacher-pupil discourse, which served
to reinforce the inequality and position themselves as the child with the tutor in a position of
authority over them. When there is a perceived injustice in the relationship, they act out in
child-like ways and talk of being ‘allowed’ to ask questions.
“... nobody’s ever complained about, well that sounds rude saying complained, but nobody’s
ever said anything… and I think someone said that they are allowed to go through your like
essay plans with you” (p1, 102).
These students are also more likely to blame the PT for the lack of relationship and support
rather than take responsibility, which again feeds into child-like attitude and dependency if it
remains unchallenged.
In trying to resolve and make sense of this inequity, students wanted explicit evidence of equity
in the form of PTs being available every week for them, whether they are needed or not.
Another form of acting out behaviour came from subverting the PT process. Students still
attended the meetings if they felt they had to, but chose not to engage or share any problems
(exit/neglect response - Rousseau, 1995). This supports Bordia et al.’s (2010) assertion that
experiencing a breach can lead to a reduction in motivation and effort. They will also go to
other tutors for support in a form of protest or to avoid future interactions with the PT.
Relational factors such as differences between parties in terms of experiences, power and
expertise may also influence shared understanding. Large differences in social backgrounds are
also expected to reduce understanding due to the absence of common frames of reference
(Rousseau, 2001). Moreover, power differences affect willingness to share information
regarding personal preferences (Rousseau, 2003). Relating this to the HE context, Bordia et al.,
(2010) state the potential for a greater power imbalance in an educational context compared to a
work environment, suggesting that students may be more vulnerable to negative consequences
of breach because of this. They suggest this as an important reason for more research to develop
a better understanding of student PCs in an academic setting.
The evidence suggests that if the role expectations were made explicit in the first meeting with
the PT, the student will persist with the relationship through evidence to the contrary and
persevere through inconsistencies in support provision. When a PT does not respond to requests
to help within a given timescale, for example the student will email again and assume the lack
of response was an error and unintentional. In situations where both parties have a shared
understanding regarding their relational obligations, benefits accrue to both parties (Dabos &
Rousseau, 2013). Reactions to these breaches in contract are more extreme and more emotional
than if the there was no relationship, leading some students to question the worth of the degree
and consider leaving university. Having to deal with these negative emotions can diminish
158
student well-being (|Bordia et al., 2010). This suggests therefore that PC breach represent
incidences where intervention is necessary, as they are likely to influence other salient
organisational variables (Cassar et al., 2013).
By developing a relationship with agents of the organisation, a more relational PC develops
which can foster feelings of loyalty and security (Montes & Irving, 2008). This in turn
contributes to a stronger commitment to the organisation (Rousseau, 2011) and greater well-
being and satisfaction with the educational experience (Bordia et al., 2010) derived from a more
fulfilling learning experience (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2006). As Rousseau (1995) suggests,
having a relationship in which obligations are mutually understood and fulfilled means students
are more likely to experience overall satisfaction with the learning experience and a balanced
PC. This has never been more important than in the current HE context of competing markets
where competition between universities is high. The kind of relationship may also moderate the
relationship between breach (and component forms of breach) and attributions which may in
turn influence the kind of elicited behavioural reactions. The distinction of stages in the PC
development made by Herriot and Pemberton (1997) might provide a useful framework for
approaching the PT relationship through the mechanism of one-to-one meetings. First comes the
informing stage where each party states their needs and what they offer in return, followed by
negotiation and agreement of these, and then monitoring to check if each are happy with the
other’s contribution and then renegotiation of the contract to ensure both are satisfied on an
ongoing basis. It is likely that this would lead to more a more explicit contract with a closer
match in expectations. As Herriot and Pemberton argue, this is likely to leading to a more
trusting relationship and the avoidance of breach. They refer to these stages as ‘psychological
contracting’ which infers more of a process which provides a better fit and more flexibility with
students’ changing and ongoing needs.
This study found many instances where the PC framework was useful for exploring and
explaining students’ experiences of personal tutoring and provided some interesting insights
into the relationship from the student perspective. As with previous studies which have
identified that agents of the organisation play a key role in the PC (e.g. Guest & Conway, 2000),
this study found that the PT plays a vital role in the making and shaping of the PC through
communication of what is expected and negotiating terms of the agreement between the PT and
student. This also applies more broadly in terms of the institution and the student. Given this
influence, future research should focus on how this contributes to shaping the PC.
As the interview questions were originally designed for the IPA in the previous study and the
introduction of the PC only came afterwards, post-hoc rationalisation was undertaken to assess
the relevance of the PC. Future studies should therefore include questions which build on the
159
findings of this study (e.g. the theme of independence) to find out more about specific aspects of
the PC construct (e.g. breach) in the student-PT relationship.
It would be interesting to further explore the salient events and the attributional mechanisms
which underlie and lead to breach and the different factors which can influence responses to
breach in students’ PCs. The current study highlights the impact of subjective perceptions and
individual differences impacting on interpretations of events. Future studies could therefore
consider the use of quantitative measures to assess the role and relevance of individual factors
(e.g. locus of control and personality). It is also important to study the quality of the relationship
further as reactions to perceived breaches are a function of the relationship (Luchak, 2003).
8.3. Conclusion
The present study aimed to understand the student-PT relationship through a PC theory lens to
ascertain whether it had anything to offer. The findings from this study offer strong support for
the utility of the PC in a higher education context; it also has much to offer in terms of
understanding students’ attitudes and behaviours.
Specifically, this study offered insights into perceptions of the student PC contract and was able,
through the use of IPA, to identify some of the more implicit aspects. It also illuminated some
of the complexities of the attribution process and the ways in which students reason and
attribute blame.
As in the previous study, the findings from this study support recommendations for an extended
transition phase and structured curriculum contact with the PT. The expectations of the PT and
of the degree could thus stand as a firm foundation for the relationship and the student
experience. From this, further opportunities for discussion and negotiation of the PC and any
perceived breaches should also be provided so that the relationship can be built on and the
consequences of breach avoided. This would also help students through the uncertainties of the
transition to university and go some way towards guiding expectations of independence. The
importance and value of the PT relationship could also be clearly highlighted during this time so
that the role would be seen as meaningful to them and given value. The importance of ‘turning
points’ and the first meeting was highlighted in Study 3, so this would also go some way
towards utilising the findings practically. Changing the discourse around student support to one
of collaboration, actioned through a clear and consistent framework, would reduce the negative
emotions associated with uncertainties around specific areas such as those identified in this
study of independence, availability, power imbalance, and the need for student support.
The findings suggest that all of the students in this study have experienced breaches in their PC
with their PT, whether an actual breach or a perceived incongruence. The consequences of 160
either can result in a variety of negative emotions, which in turn influence perceptions of the
overall experience and satisfaction with the relationship. In all cases, students found different
ways to attempt to rebalance their PCs with their PTs with more success and satisfaction
experienced by students whose PT had clearly articulated the role expectations early in the
relationship. This meant that students could draw on this and experienced less stress and
uncertainty around the reasons for the breach. Those students with a more balanced and
congruent PC were more able to adjust to any discrepancies and less likely to experience strong
negative emotions. This effect was stronger for mature students. Most importantly, having a
well-developed relationship with the PT was found to moderate any effects of breach, whether
this related to the PT relationship or wider experiences of the degree.
The research supports the PC as a useful lens for examining perceptions of higher education
relationships between students and their PT. Similar to O’Toole and Prince (2015), this study’s
findings question the perception of students as passive consumers of education and instead sees
them as having active and social relationships.
As Rousseau (1995) acknowledges, the ability to compete effectively may depend on contracts
consistent with the expectations of customers and the flexibility demanded by both the
technological change and the marketplace (i.e. the out-of-date literature does not reflect the
context). It is important to build on these findings to better reflect the current HE context and
elicit more insights into the current student body. It is not simply the case that institutions
should always meet and satisfy student expectations, as this study highlights that often these are
idiosyncratic and unrealistic.
It is not the case that one simple unilateral view of students will suffice due to multiple
subjective realities and interpretations. Understanding the PCs of individuals becomes a
fundamental part of a productive relationship. Understanding the sense-making process around
PC breach will help to inform understanding of future events and response to breach (Conway
& Briner, 2005).
This research has focused on student perceptions of the PC to provide insights into the current
student body. A key limitation of this is that it has only considered one side of the exchange
relationship, however. The researcher acknowledges that the PC of the student with their PT
cannot be fully understood without considering the other party in the relationship, the PT.
Future studies should therefore aim to capture the PT side of the contact to identify
discrepancies with what students perceive to be the ‘deal’.
161
Chapter 9 General Discussion
9.0. Overview of main findings
(see Appendix K for a Schematic Model of the combined IPA and PC findings)
Overall, the findings from the four studies in this thesis would suggest that being really clear in
what students can expect from the PT role in the first meeting seems to be one of the most
important building blocks in the development of the relationship. This serves as a strong
foundation through the transition to university and future interactions. Students knowing what
they can ask from their PT seems to alleviate uncertainty around the role and reduce the anxiety
which surrounds the decision to ask for a meeting. Clarity in expectations is also beneficial for
reassuring PTs, as this can help with negotiating the boundaries of the relationship and can give
the PT more confidence around points of release and referral (McFarlane, 2016). Establishing
clear expectations and boundaries has the potential to make both parties feel safer in the
relationship. That is not to say that every aspect should be fixed or exactly the same for
everyone, however, as both PTs and students are individuals, allowing for individuality enriches
the experience and promotes diversity. In fact, due to the subjective nature of the psychological
contract between PT and student, it would be impossible to be explicit in everything. The
contract between the two parties, whilst acknowledging the explicit factors associated with the
institution as the third party to the contract and the general PT role expectations, should be
individualised and flexible and be open to change. It is through this process of change,
facilitated by open discussion and negotiation, that students can develop their potential and
minimise any misunderstandings. It is likely that this will avoid the more severe consequences
of a breach in contract associated with the different responses, which are likely to negatively
impact students, the PTs and the university’s reputation and success.
Throughout all the studies, there are different connotations and perceptions of the expectation of
independence at university and this is a source of conflict and confusion for students. For some
students, asking for help can be seen as a personal failing, as this seems at odds with what they
have been told about expectations of independence at university. Students express that they
want to be independent, but in providing a system which denies the essential academic support
needed by all students, this places them in the unavoidable position of having to ask for help.
This has the effect of reinforcing their feelings of need and deficiency. The impact of students
feeling that it is their fault because they do not understand and need help may mean a drop in
academic confidence. This goes against one of the main aims of university, which is to develop
students’ confidence in their academic abilities. Clegg, Bradley and Smith (2006) found that
students preferred to seek out their own support and were resistant to the idea of being 162
perceived as ‘needy’, suggesting students are sensitive to these perceptions. The reality is that
all students are likely to need help negotiating the demands of higher education at some point.
This would suggest that instead of a deficit approach, student requests for help should be seen as
positive and an expected part of the students’ learning journey. It is likely that the need for help
will be more in the first semester, so more opportunities to interact and help students should be
provided and wherever possible send a clear message to students that it is the ‘norm’ to need
and ask for help.
There was a gap of six years between the first focus group (March 2010) and the second (March
2016). During this time, two important changes had taken place, each of which had the potential
to impact on student expectations and experiences of personal tutoring and higher education
more broadly. These were i) a more structured approach to personal tutoring at the university
studied, whereby a new Institutional policy was introduced in September 2010 for Personal
Tutoring and ii) the increase by the UK Government of student fees from £3000 to £9000 in
2012. The new PT policy stated that PTs should have a minimum of four PT meetings with each
tutee per academic year, whereas the previous recommendation was two. Another important
difference was that until the policy was updated in 2010, only general expectations of the PT
role had been provided. The new policy provided explicit articulation of the separate
expectations and responsibilities of students and PTs. Furthermore, the increase in student fees
in 2012 contributed to an increased marketisation of higher education and a move towards
seeing students as consumers. Whether or not this is the preferred term, the reality is that
universities now have to compete for students who are encouraged by government and media
rhetoric to see a degree as an investment in their future. This is all in the context of a
massification of higher education in which student choice has never been greater. The changes
in PT policy and the increases to tuition fees were likely to affect student expectations and
experiences at the case study research site. With more explicit articulation of PT and student
responsibilities included in the updated policy and students paying three times more for their
degree than previous years, it was anticipated that these would change the nature of student
expectations and impact on the student-PT relationship.
The first focus group explored perceptions of student experiences of their PT. The second focus
session also explored student perceptions and experiences of their PT but attempted to find out
more about student expectations of the role in light of the changing higher education context,
outlined above. The importance and impact of expectations on the student experience was also
identified as one of the key findings in the first focus session and this was supported by the
literature so therefore seemed worthy of further investigation. Studies 2 and 3 further supported
the importance of expectations in terms of their origin, nature and influence on the relationship.
Study 3 revealed deeper insights into the nature of the relationship and explored the quality of
interactions. This exposed tensions in accessing student support, which at its very heart revealed 163
social constructions of students and of student support. This suggested ambivalence in the
message students are getting; whilst promoting the rhetoric of independence, the support
provided plays to a dependent and demanding consumer construction. Understandably students
are confused, conflicted and anxious around the need for help and lack the skills and experience
to negotiate asking for it. Study 4 supported the findings of the previous studies in terms of the
importance of the quality of the relationship and provided more insights on the attribution
process surrounding experiences which differ from the student’s beliefs about the contract.
Importantly, the relationship with the PT can moderate responses to breach, whether these relate
to the PT or other aspects of the degree experience.
Students in Study 3 all experienced negative responses to a request for help and feel
assumptions are made about students, particularly young students, that they are lazy and
demanding. The two post-fee increase studies (Study 2 and Study 3) both offer support that
there is a move for students to take on more responsibility for their learning. As one student in
Study 3 reported saying, “I’m paying for it so I’ll do what’s needed” (P6). It seems important
then that there is a need to revisit our perceptions of who contemporary students are. We should
resist the common stereotypes of 18 year-old students of viewing students as demanding
‘consumers’ who want to be handed a degree on a plate. These findings suggest the opposite, in
that students want to be independent and are prepared to work for their degree; they just need
the right help at the right time to achieve it. Another insight from the post-fee increase studies is
that there should be an appreciation by all those involved in offering student support of how
difficult it is for some students to ask for help in the first place. Efforts should therefore be made
to provide easy to access support systems with clear availability. In addition to this, if support is
only seen as responding to problems, there is a risk of pathologising support needs as Clegg et
al. (2006) suggest.
It is not only students who are negotiating notions of independence but this is also a source of
conflict for PTs. Myers (2013) says that PTs worry about how much support to give students
and the nature of that support. Providing the right level of support to develop independent
students ready to enter the jobs market without over-supporting and creating dependency is
challenging for PTs. Essentially what institutions should consider is what is a PT for and what a
student needs, and decide on the best way to provide this. The challenge is to get a balance
between developing independence, without fostering dependency and helping students
overcome barriers to asking for help. Recommendations from Study 4 would suggest that
explicit articulation of expectations of ‘independence’ are needed. Consideration of how and
when this develops would help to avoid the negative emotions associated with student support.
The confusion students feel around independence is compounded further by PTs who are
confused and conflicted themselves and therefore give out mixed messages (Myers, 2013).
164
Findings from all of the studies support the importance to students of developing a relationship
with their PT, as this can provide a strong foundation for learning and have a direct impact on
student confidence. Mottet, Beebe, Raffeld and Paulsel (2004) found that the relationship
between student and tutor is the basis for more effective, efficient and satisfying teaching and
learning to take place, suggesting it has the potential to positively influence tutors as well as
students. The relationship also serves as a mediating factor through some of the challenges of
first year and a high value is placed by students on knowing their PT cares about them. There is
much support for the positive impact a PT can have on the first year student experience on a
range of student outcomes and this can, in turn, lead to increased retention rates (Thomas,
2006). Further support for the importance of the relationship came from Study 4, as relational
factors can moderate the effects of breach. Specifically, positive interactions in the student-PT
relationship were found to promote the development of trust, which contributes to the
perception of quality in the relationship and in turn moderates the effects of breach. One barrier
to the relationship developing relates to differences in social backgrounds between students and
PTs creating perceptions of inequality.
Highlighted in the Introduction in Chapter 1 the current student body can be very diverse and
therefore have diverse support needs which institutions need to respond to. Referring back to
Bourdieu’s (1986) notion of ‘habitus’ students can often lack in ‘institutional habitus’ due to
differences in social backgrounds and educational experiences. This can create a ‘gap’ in frames
of reference between students and their PT and an inequality in the relationship. One of the
ways this gap could be narrowed is through effective support and communication. A barrier to
this was identified in Study 3, however, in that students feel a power imbalance between
themselves and their tutors. There are many ways in which these apparent inequalities could be
addressed; Thomas (2002) suggests that this could be done by improving the quality of
relationships between staff and students by demonstrating a respect for diversity and creating a
system which is responsive to a wide range of students’ needs, promotes access, and encourages
equality and collaboration. Study 4 revealed that perceptions of power were an overarching
factor which influenced perceptions of the main themes identified in Study 3; independence,
availability, responsibility, and individual differences. Also revealed was that perceptions of an
imbalance in power in the relationship meant that students were more sensitive to breach. This
offers further support for this issue to be explicitly addressed in the relationship.
Passing the power to the student in the early stages of the degree may not, however, be wise as
the research suggests. At this stage, students may not have enough information to make
informed choices. Making informed choices as a consumer relies on the student having access
to good quality information and the ability to use that information (Lomas, 2007). Students
often have little prior knowledge of university and may not be able to make sense of
information supplied by universities. They may be relying on peers and family members who 165
have more experience to make choices. An example of this could be universities publishing
their respective NSS scores, placing a lot of importance on this information and using the results
as the basis for institutional change and marketing. This perceived importance may not be
reflected at the student level, as they may not even understand what it is or what it means (there
is scant evidence to the contrary). This research would suggest that it may not feature in student
decision making.
The studies identified that there can be turning points (referred to as tipping points in the PC
literature) in the development of the relationship, which can be either negative or positive and
lead to different outcomes. Negative turning points usually come early in the relationship, when
the student can quickly decide that the PT relationship has no value or meaning for them
(Docan-Morgan, 2011; Docan-Morgan & Manvuso, 2009). One factor that can impact on
perceptions of the relationship is whether the PT shows any evidence of willingness to help or
interest in them. In line with other research (e.g. Docan-Morgan & Manvuso, 2009) this study
found that such moments are associated with strong emotions and will result in the student
liking their tutor more or less. This is associated with a breach in contract. Given that, as with
other studies, this research revealed that liking is an influencing factor found to be affective in
the student-tutor relationship, further research should explore the nature of the interactions more
fully within these turning points. Where these turning points were negative, these were referred
to as a breach in Study 4 and the consequences of the breach were explored more fully. There
can also be positive outcomes from turning points, so for example when a student receives help
in a crisis, this can form a solid foundation for the relationship developing further.
Evidence of quality, value and meaning can facilitate the development of the PT-student
relationship. This can come from relational factors, such as the PT showing that they are
interested by listening to the student’s views. This can have an empowering effect and make the
student feel valued. It can also come from transactional factors such as helping a student
understand assignment feedback and being available. Study 4 on the PC revealed an interaction
between relational and transactional factors; the contract needed both for the relationship to be
valued. Helping students with the practical and academic demands of the course seems to form
the basis for the relationship to develop into something more relational as long as there is also
evidence of care. There was also an ideological aspect to the components of the PC and whilst
idealistic most were in the bounds of reasonableness. One student wanted their PT to be
available when they said they would be i.e. during their office hours, for example.
The findings from Study 4 offered further support for the subjective and idiosyncratic nature of
the PC (Rousseau, 1995). The practical implications of this suggest the need for PTs to
recognise that students have different needs and starting points and treat each student as an
individual. The interview analysis also revealed the importance of understanding the impact
166
individual differences can have on subjective beliefs. This may mean that students can interpret
the same event in different ways, particularly in relation to locus of control and the age of the
student. Older students are more likely to draw on their experiences when considering a breach
in contract and this likely reduces the effects of any breaches. This offers support for the idea
that PCs among older people should be handled differently, as suggested in Study 4.
This further emphasises the importance of the PT meeting, as this provides a unique opportunity
to explore individual perceptions and experiences, as well as to negotiate any unrealistic student
expectations and address any perceptions of breach (referred to as shaping, managing and
negotiating the contract in the PC literature, (Rousseau, 1995)). Listening to student views,
whether they are accurate or not, can have a very empowering effect on the student as they feel
valued when they are given a voice. The implications of this are that students would be more
likely to voice any issues, knowing they will be listened to and in doing so develop confidence
and agency. This in turn will contribute to the primary goals of both student and institution -
developing independent learners ready for the job market with the likely effect of improving
student satisfaction. As students recognise they know little of what to expect at university, they
seem not to object to adjusting and adapting their cognitions where these do not match the
reality. Establishing realistic expectations early in the relationship and addressing any issues in
an ongoing manner is essential given schema, once established, can be robust and resistant to
change (Rousseau, 1995). This provides strong support for early and regular meetings between
the PT and student, particularly in the first semester and in doing so avoid or reduce the effects
of a breach in PC.
Referring back to the models of personal tutoring outlined by Earwaker (1992) and detailed in
Chapter 2 of this thesis, the findings from this study would support a curriculum model
approach where support from the PT is timetabled within a specific module. In this approach
helping students is seen as a normal part of the course, rather than an add-on as in other
approaches. This approach would address a number of challenges and issues identified
throughout the research. Firstly, it would help to overcome one of the biggest barriers to student
support identified in Study 3, which is asking for help in the first place. The complex and often
negative decision making students go through before asking for help suggests that removing the
need to ask would facilitate a more proactive approach. It would not rest on the student knowing
when they need help and having the confidence and necessary skills to ask for it.
Secondly, the curriculum model aims to help students towards a better understanding of their
own learning processes and to encourage them to help themselves. It does this by showing
students what the institution expects of them through module-based sessions. These aims seem
to more closely align to successful PT approaches and outcomes described in previous research,
which hold that students do need help to negotiate the new academic demands. It would also
167
support one of the main findings in this research, which was that students need help developing
a more realistic understanding of what the university and course expectations are. Given that
there are two sides to the relationship, help is needed to also address student expectations.
Another assumption discovered in the research reviewed was that because student expectations
prior to starting university often do not match the reality, institutions need to do more to meet
these expectations. This research suggest that this is an erroneous assumption, as the students in
all three studies held only vague notions of what to expect from a PT at university prior to
starting the degree. As most of these expectations precede the PT relationship and are based on
previous educational experiences, they do in fact acknowledge and expect that their experiences
will be different. This suggests that they are open to the realities of the role being different from
what was previously experienced and most importantly, they are open to realigning their
expectations at the start of the relationship without any consequences or likelihood of breach
occurring.
The earlier students are given realistic expectations of their PT, the better, although not in
Fresher’s Week, as students may not remember what they are told due to the sheer volume of
information given that week (referred to as ‘Fresher’s overload’ in Study 3). This would support
an extended transition phase, which should include one-to-one planned meetings with their PT
in the first weeks of teaching. This would provide the ideal opportunity to discuss and negotiate
a student’s expectations, particularly because students perceive and interpret things differently
due to their individual differences. Making these meetings compulsory as part of the course in
the early stages seems to alleviate some of the uncertainty experienced by students and means
that the university can support students through some of the difficulties of the transition to
higher education identified in previous research.
Rousseau (1995) highlighted that explicit articulation and negotiation of all aspects of the
contract is not possible. This is due in part to the subjective and implicit nature of the contract
making it impossible for all aspects to be known. Limitations also come from the individual’s
cognitive capacity, however, which limits the amount of information available and the time
available to process it. This is referred to by Simon (1991) as Bounded Rationality. This offers
further support for the need for individual meetings to support students in their understanding
and knowledge. The changing nature of the organisational environment and social changes also
make it impossible to stipulate all aspects to the contract up front and both parties are left to fill
in the gaps. As Rousseau emphasises, the PC is in the eye of the beholder and this has many
vantage points, suggesting that effective communication is essential.
Problems only arise after students have learnt what to expect, usually from their PT or other
students, after starting university and if their experiences are inconsistent with this. Both
previous research and this research support that when the experience falls short of the
168
expectation, this has consequences. In both the previous research and this research, this
mismatch evoked strong emotions and this research also found that this can have added
psychological consequences when students search for an explanation. Sidestepping the fact that
in some cases this is justified, what needs to be recognised here above all else is that the
university sets the expectations after the student starts their course, so it is very important to get
this right and be consistent in the delivery of what was promised. This offers further support for
a curriculum model of personal tutoring, which offers the potential to set and meet student
expectations in a more consistent learning context. As identified both in this research and in
previous studies (e.g. Hagenauer & Volet, 2014) the frequency of interactions matters in
developing the relationship as it is difficult to do so when interactions are too infrequent. With
regular interactions being facilitated through course interactions, it is more likely that the
relationship will develop sooner. The only requirement in the current PT policy at the research
institution is for four meetings in the first year; it is difficult to see how a positive and enduring
relationship can be built through only four interactions.
What also supports this idea of the relationship developing through course-related interactions
are findings from this research on vicarious learning. These suggest although there is strong
support for the place of one-to-one meetings, students can also develop an understanding of
whether the PT is caring and willing to help through observing their interactions with other
students. A perception of a caring and willing PT provides a strong foundation for a positive
relationship. This offers support for the use of group tutorials and incorporation of these within
specific modules in the first year. This would be a practical way to approach support given the
demands on tutors’ time and that students can learn indirectly what is expected.
Although this research was a small scale case study, the findings in the study are mirrored by a
greater number of students in two large scale student surveys, particularly in relation to
availability and meetings containing both relational and transactional components. The Student
Experience Research (NUS/QAA, 2012) highlighted that from 5000 students 42% said they
wanted more contact time with their personal tutor and to feel part of the academic community
rather than a passive recipient of education. This, they suggested, was a key aspect to improving
their academic experience. Another large scale study, the annual Student Academic Experience
Survey, has been conducted since 2006 and is funded by The Higher Education Policy Institute
and Higher Education Academy. It explores student satisfaction with questions covering the full
range of student academic experiences (Buckley, Soilemetzidis, & Hillman, 2015). Positive
results from the 2015 survey of 15,129 students relate strongly to the number of contact hours
and this is related to perceptions of value for money. The authors comment that this has
remained fairly consistent since the start of the survey in 2006 and does not seem to have been
affected by the tuition fee increases. A new finding from the 2015 survey, however, indicates a
more consumer mentality as 75% of students wanted more information on how their tuition fees 169
were being spent. They felt that the universities had not provided enough information about this
(Buckley et al., 2015). 90% of students felt that money spent on student support is money well
spent. Although students say they want more contact time, there is a mismatch between this and
actual engagement (van Hooff & Westall, 2016), however, with the highest level of attendance
at meetings being 40% in 2014/2015 at MMU in the Sociology Department. The demographics
of these students are not dissimilar from the current research case study, as they both institutions
are in the North West and have similar entry requirements. The reasons for this are not
understood and warrant further investigation.
9.1. The other side of the psychological contract
Study 4 applied PC theory to the IPA interview findings and highlighted a limitation of the
study, which is that only one side of the contract had been explored. Given the exchange nature
of the contract, it is useful to consider both parties in the relationship. Whilst this is beyond the
scope of this thesis and suggestions were made in the previous study on future research to
consider both sides of the contract, McFarlane’s (2016) research can be used to shed some light
on the PT perspective and allow for some comparison with students’ perceptions. Surprising
parallels were found with McFarlane’s findings, which suggest that PTs share similar worries to
students in relation a number of aspects but for different reasons.
The quality of the relationship has been considered in a number of ways from the student
perspective and much of this seems to relate to the PT’s ability to communicate the role
expectations. Where this fails, students attribute this to different causes, but blame usually falls
on the PT and is understood as a lack of care. McFarlane’s findings offer a different perspective
and suggest that there is a need to reinterpret this rather as a lack of PT confidence and
competence in the role. Given that this thesis revealed that the PT is seen by students as an
authority figure who holds all the knowledge and power, it is understandable that this idea of
tutors lacking confidence and competence does not feature in students’ interpretations.
Fears around becoming an academic and PT are similar to students’ fears about becoming a
student. PTs in McFarlane’s study expressed concern when they started at university at not
knowing the ‘language’ of being an academic and struggling to adapt to the PT role. This seems
quite ironic when compared to the case study findings, as these feelings mirror the feelings of
fear expressed by students around not knowing the language of academia and needing help from
their PT to translate and understand this. Acknowledging that this is a concern for new PTs is a
step towards legitimising students’ concerns and would promote understanding and the
provision of appropriate support.
170
Students’ perceptions that their PT is too busy to ask for help seems to be accurate, as this is
often a reality for tutors (McFarlane, 2016). Although students know that PTs are busy, they do
not always know what with. This leads to more instances of breach around their availability
(Bordia et al., 2010). Myers (2008) identifies the challenge for tutors to balance teaching,
research and personal support, which can leave some PTs feeling overwhelmed with work and
burdened by the PT role (McFarlane, 2016). Barlow and Antoniou (2007) report that the PTs
they interviewed in their study experienced guilt from not having given enough time to support
their personal tutees. The consequences of this pressure on tutors’ time from other sources and
student uncertainty around the reasons for a lack of availability would add further support for
the adoption of a curriculum model approach, whereby meetings with the PT are scheduled as
part of the module. The guilt could thus be eliminated by removing the choice. PTs in
McFarlane’s study also expressed fear in asking for help from other tutors as they feel they may
be judged negatively. This mirrors concerns by students around asking their PT for help and this
is seen as a risk. The explicit articulation of a PTs workload to students is also supported.
It appears that both parties (students in this study and PTs in McFarlane’s) are aware PTs are
under time pressure and that this is a barrier for both to more interaction. Students feel that PTs
are too busy to meet because they have lots of other students and also spend a lot of time on
their own research. Similar to the case study, PTs in McFarlane’s research did have a large
number of tutees (typically have around 40 students across the three year groups) and are under
pressure to produce research. Nonetheless, McFarlane highlights that the number of students
does not always reflect the time needed to provide adequate support, as some students may not
engage in the PT process or see their PT regularly. The PTs also state that a lot of time can be
given to supporting high maintenance students and this has a great impact on workload. This
was not acknowledged by any of the students in the case study, which is surprising as one of the
students could be described as ‘high maintenance’. PTs identified feeling that their workload
was exacerbated by giving support to students who were not allocated to them as tutees but had
approached them for support. This is the other side to the theme of students in this research
seeking support from other tutors when they did not want to approach their own PT; there are
unseen consequences for other tutors. PTs in McFarlane’s study made assumptions regarding
the needs of students, which mirrors the feelings by students in the case study that they were
being stereotyped and not listened to by their PT. PTs were likely to believe that students’ issues
related to issues they had experienced with other students in previous years or that they
themselves had experienced in their own degree. The reality, however, is a changing student
body; contemporary student issues are more likely to include mental health issues than
homesickness (McFarlane, 2016).
Different and contrasting approaches to personal tutoring were taken by PTs in McFarlane’s
study. Some of the PTs were anxious to be non-directive in their approach and foster 171
independence, whilst other tutors took a more directive approach and acted in advocacy roles
for students. These different approaches were explained in terms of previous job roles and level
of confidence, as it takes confidence and experience to negotiate the boundaries of
independence. These are also different for each student as it depends on their starting point.
Avoiding assumptions that helping students is always beneficial is useful here, as not having all
the answers can be important for student development. As previously stated, these different
approaches will have different student outcomes; one can be viewed as enabling students,
whereas the other is protective and disempowering. The implication here is that these
differences between PTs are not insignificant and as they can contribute to the varied
experiences of students, they are likely to impact on student outcomes.
Students in the case study expressed some confusion as to who they should approach for what
and at what point they would be referred to other support services. This seems to also match
PTs’ realities. PTs expressed role confusion and uncertainty around the boundaries of where
their role starts and ends (McFarlane, 2016). This presents challenges to those responsible for
defining the role (usually the institution at the policy level) as this clarity in fact does not exist
due to the multiplicity and complexity of student needs. Confidence and experience are
therefore key to establishing clear boundaries at the start of the relationships and being able to
draw on and implement these when required.
There are often emotional consequences for PTs of dealing with complex and distressing
student issues (McFarlane, 2016). Not all tutors are well equipped to deal with the needs of
students. PTs can experience guilt if they perceive themselves as lacking in competency, anxiety
when dealing with personal issues, and feelings that the role is not valued. If student support
and satisfaction is a priority for institutions, this should be underpinned by providing
appropriate and timely training and support for PTs themselves so as to promote confidence and
enable competency in the role. As the PTs in McFarlane’s study suggest, rather than any
training being solely at the start of their appointment it should be dynamic and provide
individual developmental support for the ongoing emotional demands of being a PT and
supporting students.
The student experience is inextricably linked to the PT experience, which strongly emerged
through comparing these findings with McFarlane’s (2016). Both suffer due to having to
negotiate the PT workload and uncertainty in the role, for example. The institution can address
the PT workload by providing more structured time and by finding ways to demonstrate that the
role is valued by the institution and valuable for the student.
Despite a multitude of evidence supporting the positive impact of personal tutoring on student
outcomes, the system is not flourishing in higher education. Vinson et al. (2010) suggest that
172
staff being unwilling in their participation is a contributing factor. They speculate that reasons
for this may be that they do not see pastoral support as being part of their role, as well as
Wingate (2007) emphasising that tutors are under pressure to produce research and are already
overwhelmed with workloads. This situation needs an urgent remedy, as it is clear from this
research that students feel this unwillingness and as a consequence are less likely to access PT
support when it is needed.
With increasing fees and views of students as clients and consumers becoming embedded in
university culture, Morgan (2012) suggest institutions should expect an increase in student
complaints if they are not able to deliver an excellent quality experience. Furthermore, Luck
(2010) outlines how external measures of student satisfaction such as the NSS are major causes
of anxiety for tutors, as they are key indicators of success for the university. Such measures can
mean that tutors feel vulnerable to complaints from customers (students), which can result in
staff becoming more defensive and entrenched in their position.
It is important for staff to understand the need for a high quality student experience and how
their role contributes, undertaking the necessary and relevant staff development training to
support this. At a time when potential students have considerable choice of where to study,
Morgan (2012) feels that the student experience should be central to everything the university
and staff do (p. 211). They believe that the quality of the student experience will, “...make or
break an institution and hence its reputation and survival”. Rather than just words, an excellent
student experience must have meaning to everyone in the institution, together with an
understanding of how students can contribute positively and take personal responsibility. The
personal tutor is a key figure in the student journey and a face of the institution, so more must
be done to prioritise and support this role. Moreover, this should be seen by institutions as a
positive investment in the student experience and it should therefore be the last area to be
reduced in case of financial pressures and constraints.
Considering the wider context of student support, institutions should be mindful of the implicit
messages and assumptions inherent in forms of support. Pastoral approaches promote negative
constructions of students as vulnerable and in need of protection. Meetings are reliant on
students asking for help and are problem based, presenting a deficit approach to student support.
The curriculum approach, on the other hand, normalises needing help and support as expected
and anticipated through its timely provision (Myers, 2013). Characterising and constructing
students as a focus of concern has significant consequences. Forms of student support can focus
on protection or control rather than challenge and develop student capabilities. Without an
explicit view of the reasons why support is provided, there is a risk that it will result in
outcomes in which students become instrumental, disempowered, or simply confused by mixed
messages about their capabilities (Myers, 2013). The message here is that that there is a need to
173
get to know the current student body, avoid assumptions on what they need, and resist unhelpful
constructions of students, refocusing on the educational purpose of higher education. The ways
in which the student can be constructed in different ways at the same time, for example as a
vulnerable child, as a collaborating partner as a demanding consumer, can complicate the issue
further as well as having potential consequences for all those involved.
Whilst resisting the negative connotations associated with students as passive consumers of
education, it should be recognised that students are in fact consumers, as the relationship
between the higher education providers and students is governed by consumer protections law
overseen by the Competitions and Markers Authority (CMA) and enforceable by local authority
Trading Standards. This consumer protection in law is believed necessary by the CMA as
students are viewed as being in a weaker bargaining position than the institution due to the fact
that they cannot easily change course once they have started. Guidance from the CMA (March
2015) covers all aspects of the student journey from pre-entry to post-entry. They stipulate, for
example, that “...it is unlawful to mislead students” by failing to provide accurate course
information so that they can make an informed choice. Pre-entry, the offer of a place is deemed
to be a contract for educational services and any changes to the advertised course must be given
in writing prior to the start of the contract. Institutions are allowed to make changes to the
course once it has started, as long as they are not to the “detriment of the student”. This phase
suggests some flexibility in interpretation and allows for the discretion of the institution in
making and warranting any changes to the original contract. The use of such vague terminology
seems not unintentional, as it casts doubt over whether students could genuinely bring a case
against the institution given that so much is down to the interpretation and discretionary powers
of the university.
Institutional goals such as student satisfaction and retention may promote a more customer
serving approach, which may be giving students what they want rather than what they need. In
fact, there is a tension between the two, with Myers (2013) suggesting that student support
practices have the potential to render students less capable. Rather than focusing on clarifying
the functioning of the PT role, Mynott (2016) suggests clarifying what problem the PT is trying
to fix. Specifically, she questions whether it is about monitoring and control or development and
independent learning, support or enablement. More widely, she suggests deciding who the role
is there for, to help the student or to achieve institutional goals. There are clear tensions and
conflicts between these aspects which need to be resolved so that the student does not get mixed
messages and PTs have a clear purpose. Moreover, Myers (2013) advocates understanding the
links between all of these drivers as it is possible to combine policy which operates at both the
macro and meso-level so that micro-level support practices act in an ethically appropriate way
towards students. As more managerialist methods of accountability are introduced and more
174
metrics (e.g. the TEF, 2016) there is likely to be more of a focus on the PT role as a measure of
teaching quality, thus emphasising its continued importance for institutions (Mynott, 2016).
Institutions should caution against unquestioningly trying to meet student expectations as this
resolves nothing. Instead, it conceals the sources of problems amid the rhetoric of satisfying
students. By rethinking expectations there can be a move towards deconstructing unhelpful
notions of the student as consumer and instead promote student autonomy and independence
whilst acknowledging that they do need help in achieving this. Further support comes from this
research, as students were conflicted between wanting independence and needing help and were
reluctant to ask for fear of being stereotyped as demanding or lazy. A key consideration in terms
of outcomes here is for institutions to ask what type of students they want to construct. If the
answer is not ‘passive consumers’ then more active and collaborative methods of student
support are needed.
9.2. Specific recommendations from the thesis for PT practice
1. Explicit and realistic articulation of the PT role expectations in the first meeting
2. Extended transition phase
a. more one-to-one structured interactions between students and their PT
b. include group tutorials to foster integration and shared understandings
c. focus on academic and social integration
d. provide accurate information
3. Curriculum model of personal tutoring which would:
a. allow for more interaction
b. alleviate time pressures on PTs
c. alleviate uncertainty around availability
d. normalise the need for support
e. reduce anxiety over independence
f. reduce anxiety associated with the decision to ask for help
4. Recognition that the PC is ongoing and requires continued shaping, negotiating and
management in meetings
5. PTs treat students as individuals and recognise the impact of individual difference (e.g.
age and locus of control)
6. Contents of the PC should contain both relational and transactional elements, where the
meaning and relevance of transactional aspects are explicitly linked to the student’s
degree
7. Ongoing training and support for PT to develop confidence and competence which
recognises PTs individual training needs and starting points.
175
9.3. Limitations of the research
The choice of sample was appropriate to the research aims of providing an in-depth exploration
of student perceptions and their experiences of their relationship with their PT. There was also a
congruity with the methodological choices, as IPA and the PC are essentially idiographic and
the data collection methods were flexible and well suited to in-depth exploration of similarities
and differences between individual students. The small sample size was also appropriate for a
single researcher as these qualitative approaches are time consuming, so the researcher decided
not to compromise quality over quantity. As the sample of participants was self-selected it may
be that those who volunteered were students who had something specific to say regarding their
PT experience thus creating a potential bias. Future studies should consider a more random
sampling method to allow for other student voices to be heard.
Another limitation concerns how relevant these findings are to other departments, as PT formats
may vary considerably for different subject areas. In more practice based departments, such as
those offering nursing and teaching degrees, for example, the PT role may involve placement
support and is likely to have a more defined remit so the issues of relationship will be less
ambiguous.
As the research relied on participants’ subjective accounts of how important their PT is for its
outcomes, further empirical support for the consequences of the PT relationship is needed.
Quantitative measures could be used to build on and assess the PT-student relationship in terms
of how this may be related to specific psychological, academic or social outcomes.
9.4. Suggestions for future research
Longitudinal studies to collect data at various time points through the first year to
explore how the relationship develops. This would also be a better fit with the PC as a
dynamic and ongoing process as the current research did not allow for the study of the
PC over time. For example, responses to breach may differ depending on the number
and quality of interactions.
Future research should examine how individual differences and characteristics influence
perceptions of breach in relation to the PC (e.g. age, locus of control, personality, equity
sensitivity). For example, individuals with an external locus of control are more likely
to perceive greater and more frequency of breach. Individuals with higher equity
sensitivity may respond more negatively to minor violations of their PC than
individuals lower in equity sensitivity.
Broader sampling is needed as the research found that some of the findings related to
the specific research context. Research could extend to other departments to explore
176
how difference practices impact on student expectations and experience of their PT
relationship and the PC.
Future research could explore how the PC initially develops as more promises (e.g.
made by the PT) may be seen as more binding than others (e.g. Open Day information
and marketing). For example, students may believe that observations of ongoing
organisational practices are not as binding as specific promises made by the
organisational agents.
Extending the PC study to explore student expectations of higher education more
generally. For example the research found that students assess the quality of the
student- PT relationship in both relational and transactional terms. This could be
extended to explore the wider factors students consider to be part of the ‘deal’ when
they pay for their degree. It may be that more general expectations of higher education
contain a higher level of transactional elements in their PC as they are paying higher
tuitions fees than previous students.
Future research also needs to further examine the attributions students make for a
breach in PC as the current research found that this is likely to influence perceptions of
and response to breach. For example students may respond less strongly if the
organisation is unable to fulfil their obligations rather than if they are seen as unwilling.
Research should extend to both parties to the contract (PT and student) to compare and
explore any gaps in the PC in terms of the exchange (i.e. contents of the PC). For
example the research is suggestive that the PT may not be aware when a breach is
perceived by a student so that exploring the other side to the contract is essential to fully
understand how the PC develops and negotiated.
Categories of breach response needs further developing in relation to students in a
higher education context as the basis of the relationship is fundamentally different to an
employer-employee relationship so existing categories may be inadequate.
As the PC exists at the individual level wider sampling of idiographic measures to
capture more of the factors which make up the PC/explain the attribution process/
identify incidents of breach/explore response to breach/fulfilment in relation to the PT
relationship and the institute more widely. As this relies on self-report measures this
could be followed by collecting a range of quantitative measures to allow for
comparison and cross-checking with a wider sample to allow for some generalising of
the findings.
The impact of breach on the organisation needs closer examination. This research found
evidence that PC breach can be detrimental both directly to the organisation (e.g. in
terms of damaging its reputation) but also indirectly through students outcomes (e.g.
lower academic confidence, linked to poorer degree outcomes) but this issue needs to
be more directly examined in future research.
177
Action research to examine suggested implementation and effect on students’ PCs of
introducing recommendations from the research (e.g. extended transition phase
incorporating more one-to-one PT meetings and opportunities to interact).
Use the findings from PC Study 4 as a theoretical basis for further conceptualising and
developing a model for the relationship between student and PT. Further work is needed
on the characteristics of a “good” relationship and how this relates to outcomes. This
could be used to recommend practical insights into how to foster effective relationship
building.
178
Chapter 10 Conclusion and Reflection
10.0. Conclusion
These findings indicate not only shared and related, but also unique and divergent student
expectations, experiences and consequences emerging from a constantly changing and highly
influential student-PT relationship. It also highlights the need for a PT system which is
integrated within the wider learning context, that both students and PTs are invested in and can
see the benefit of. Clear articulation of the purpose and benefit of the role within an extended
transition period would go some way to addressing this and alleviating some of students’
uncertainties. Furthermore, this study supports sufficient timetabled student support hours to
send a clearer message that the role of PT is valued and that student support is expected. In line
with this would also be more helpful constructions of students than simply ‘consumers’. These
constructions, moreover, should align with approaches to student support to avoid sending
mixed messages and confusing students and PTs alike. It should be expected that students will
demonstrate some instrumentality in their learning, as a lot may have gone into the decision to
go to university (especially in the current fee-paying climate where students may have to
provide more justification for the high cost of going to university, not just to others but to
themselves). Institutions should rightly recognise this, but rather than making negative
associations about students as ‘demanding customers’ and simply trying to satisfy student
expectations, they should take the lead in outlining and guiding expectations, as these findings
suggest students know little about what university life will really be like. Within the context of
PT-student meetings, both parties should negotiate a mutual understanding of what the degree
process means and the part each party plays in this.
The research identifies the need to explore and recognise the assumptions underlying student
support mechanisms, the implicit messages such assumptions send to students, and how this
positions them. We can construct notions of students as either autonomous and independent
learners, or as in need and dependent, but need to recognise the implications for both students
and for practice and move towards reconstructing more helpful discourses. As advocated by
Myers (2013) educational models of support should link to the demands of higher education and
aim to facilitate students’ coping strategies, not amplify their perceived deficits. Clegg et al.
(2006) argue for a pedagogy of support. The curriculum model with its clear structure and
solution focused approach would normalise student support. In doing so, it reduces the
psychological burden and negative impact for students of decision making around having to ask
for help. In considering what approaches the institution might take to student support, a starting
point might be to consider why students are offered support. This might help to uncover the
assumptions made about student support and students themselves that implicitly arise through
its provision. Student support which focuses on student need may actively contradict
179
developmental aims, either by treating students as incapable or vulnerable or by ensuring that
they do not experience the consequences of their actions. Reconsidering what underlying
messages are implicit in the forms of support offered is essential, but using it to effect change
may be challenging for institutions trying to remain competitive. Resisting simply meeting
students’ needs and instead enabling and challenging may feel risky for PTs under the looming
threat of student satisfaction measures and the view of the student as a consumer. This approach
would, however, be more likely to foster independence and capability and should align with the
institutional mission to enable students throughout their degree to develop into independent
learners ready for the world of work.
Tait (2004) highlights that social and moral values are inherent in student support systems and
change over time. Without making these explicit it will conceal the ways in which relationships
with students are conceived. He suggests that this is an issue that all of us working in this field
with our different approaches to student services can reflect on. The implications and messages
implied and conveyed in these constructions can be complex and often contradictory, however.
Seeing the students as consumers raises questions as to what the student has paid for and is
entitled to. This is where the PC has the potential to offer some insights into what students
perceive as having been promised and what the university is under obligation to provide. It is
easy to see how students can be confused and conflicted through receiving mixed messages.
Myers (2013) emphasises that students do not have an entitlement to a degree qualification;
rather they have an entitlement to the opportunity to study for a qualification, to the educational
process and experience. This can be likened to the purchaser of a gym membership not
automatically entitling the purchaser to become fitter. The opportunity is there to get fit, the
equipment and support are provided, but they still have to engage with the support and do the
work themselves to achieve the desired results.
This thesis has provided a unique contribution to HE research by providing insights into the
nature and consequences of the student-PT relationship. It is also unique in providing insights
into the effects of student psychological contract breach in the context of the student-PT
relationship. It suggests that due to the wide-ranging nature of the PT’s role, students may not
be clear about the role and that the PT may not be aware of students’ PCs due to the highly
individualised and subjective nature of the experience. It is highly likely, therefore, that a PC
breach will be experienced and will have consequences for all parties, not least the student. It
should be acknowledged at this point that some ambiguity is often built into contracts, which
creates flexibility, but can inevitably lead to conflict. The degree of conflict and its impact on
the student and organisation can, however, be reduced by the development of a contract which
is underpinned with relational quality and depth whilst also ensuring the value and meaning of
the relationship is clear to both student and PT in both relational and transactional terms. This
180
research was the first of its kind to use IPA to explore the student-PT relationship and the first
to combine IPA with PC theory. It is also the first to do so in the higher education context.
The findings from this thesis have practical implications for institutions as the insights from the
student experiences can be used to manage student perceptions and expectations effectively
regarding the PT role. PTs should be encouraged to attend to the nature and formation of the PC
as early as possible in the relationship and to understand the consequences of breaches and how
to manage them. They should seek to clarify role expectations and specific responsibilities,
giving attention to availability, workload, and the purpose of the meetings. This would reduce
the chances of breach occurring. PTs should be encouraged to have open, constructive
communication and discussion with students, which would serve to provide a more equal
relationship and rebalance the power in the relationship from the perceived authority of the PT
towards mutual collaboration between parties. Through this, more realistic student expectations
and obligations can be managed and negotiated, leading to more positive relationships. The
research findings support that building this relationship will come with its own benefits and
positive outcomes for all parties to the contract; students, PTs, and the institution. Institutions
can also benefit from knowing the sources of the PC formation and the perception of promises.
They must balance the short-term gain of attracting new students by promoting unrealistic
expectations against the consequences of unmet and unfilled promises. Knowledge of the
student PC can help to provide a better alignment, not by simply meeting student expectations
but by understanding how these develop and the consequences of not meeting them. Fulfilling
the student PC can have reputational benefits to the institutions by generating the sharing of
positive experiences rather than it solely being used when things have gone wrong.
10.1. Reflection
My interest in personal tutoring was initially inspired by the responses from my own tutees and
from being involved in a PDP module and hearing about other students’ experiences. I was
shocked at the different experiences and the impact these had on students’ emotions and
confidence and wanted to find out more. Alongside this, I was involved in a HEA funded
project as a novice researcher collecting data on the first year PC. I found the qualitative
findings fascinating, but as the project did not receive any more funding for the end of year data
collection and analysis it was left unfinished. I was, however, convinced that the PC had
potential to be used in higher education. Reflecting on this now, if the same thing happened I
would have taken the project forward myself, but as a novice researcher I lacked the confidence
to do so at that time. Combining the two topics thus seemed a logical and legitimate progression
of my research interests.
181
From my experience as a psychology lecturer for many years, I realise that humans are complex
and there are many interrelated factors which can be used to explain behaviour. As I have taught
across most of the subjects within the discipline, I feel that they all have something to offer in
terms of explanations, however I feel I most closely associate with social psychology
explanations. I feel that this wide psychological knowledge was an advantage in terms of
considering different explanations but was also a disadvantage due to the many different ways I
could have explained the findings. I had also taught both qualitative and quantitative research
methods across the different years and this was most definitely a strength, as I felt I could make
a much more informed decision on which methods to use in my research. At times I became so
immersed in my research that this teaching served as a good foundation, as I had to keep going
back to what I had taught students to give myself more focus. I am very good at helping others
find a way through their difficulties, but not as good at applying it to myself. I had to keep
reminding myself to ground my research in what you want to find out, i.e. the research question,
so I kept asking myself what I was I was trying to find out and why and then decide from there
how best to do it, revisiting the questions if necessary. I found it reassuring to read other PhD
students’ accounts of their experiences, as it seems that getting too immersed in your research is
not unusual.
My own academic journey progressed throughout the thesis. At the start I worked as an
associate tutor in Psychology and then after a few years jointly in Social Sciences. I was then
given a full-time yearly contract with Social Sciences and worked there for two years, then
since March 2017 I have worked in Education as an Early Years lecturer. Serendipity intervened
when I started my new job in Education and they gave me a much needed six-week study leave
to complete my thesis. It was during this time that I turned a corner with my research as I was
able to focus entirely on my analysis and it removed all of the other ‘noise’ from my head. For
two of those weeks I stayed with a friend so that the clutter of family life was also removed. I
was amazed how my brain functioned during this time and worked things out that I had been
struggling with for months. I used a technique recommended in a psychology self-help book I
had read somewhere that suggested you ask yourself one question before sleep and more often
than not my brain worked out the answer whilst I slept (probably because I believed it would!).
One of the biggest challenges has been the changes in my supervision due to staff changes. This
resulted in three different supervision teams. Naturally, each change brought with it different
research viewpoints and perspectives so that I was encouraged to take my research in different
directions. This resulted in a confusing experience at times and a struggle to retain the PhD as
my own. When I started my PhD I was also working in the same department as my supervision
team, who were also personal friends. Reflecting on this now from my newly gained insights
into PCs with students, I realise that some of the difficulties I experienced are understandable
given the different role conflicts and expectations. I also think that this role confusion was also 182
difficult for individuals on my team to negotiate. Much of their relationship and experience of
me was as a friend and colleague, so making the transition to having me as their student was
difficult to negotiate. Implicit in a lecturer’s role is autonomy, so much of what is done is often
unknown and unchecked and self-driven. I feel that this conflict contributed to the ongoing issue
of my supervisors being reluctant to set deadlines and make any demands on me, particularly
because we all shared our struggles over demanding workloads.
I was shocked when I started to relate my findings to the social construction of students and
realised I would not have had this insight had it not been for my own trajectory into Social
Sciences. Working across two departments also allowed me to see the differences in how the PT
system was operationalised and the value each department placed on the role. I have to also
admit I was also fuelled and frustrated by the negativity often expressed by lecturers around the
PT role. This only served to re-enforce my belief that student experiences often vary to
extremes and can impact greatly on students’ experiences and outcomes. I did expect that
student experiences would depend greatly on the individual PT’s characteristics and was
surprised to find that students were actually quite accepting of difference. What mattered more
to them was that the experience was meaningful and that the student felt the PT wanted to help.
The unwieldy nature of IPA often overwhelmed me, particularly in relation to the interviews. I
often compared the process to having lots of pieces of a jigsaw but not the picture on the front
of the box. This part took a long time and I found the phrase ‘analysis paralysis’ referred to by
another researcher apt. I also found the benefits of IPA outweighed the negatives, as it offered
greater flexibility in exploring and explaining students’ views and experiences. I did, however,
struggle with the decisions I had to make around my interpretations of participants’ accounts
and staying true to them. Having read others’ accounts I knew that qualitative researchers,
particularly those who have used IPA, have struggled with the same concerns. I therefore found
reading about others experiences helpful in knowing how to move forward and it was reassuring
that I was not alone (or in some way deficient when the solutions did not present immediately).
Inevitably, finding time to work on my research was a pipe dream most weeks as I worked full-
time throughout, have four children, a husband and elderly mum, a dog and a cat and all that
comes with this. I don’t think I am alone in this and feel that this experience is something I
would like to write about in the hope it might help others in similar situations. I have never
wanted to give up my PhD, but there have been times when I thought that completing it was just
not possible and many of my friends in similar positions to me from my starting cohort have
sadly fallen by the wayside. Making a decision that I would write 500 words three times a week
helped me to move forward. I also had to say to myself that it did not matter whether the words
were any good, as I am aware that I also have many demons waiting in the wings to jump at the
chance to tell me I’m not good enough or clever enough. I found overcoming these mental
183
demons as difficult as any aspect of the PhD process and this was made worse by having to be
self-motivated to write. At times, it was easier to actively procrastinate on other things than
working through these challenges. In finding ways to move forward when each obstacle
presented itself I learned so much about myself, which came as a shock at 50 years of age when
I thought I knew everything about myself there was to know. Despite the struggles (or maybe
because of them) overall I have found the PhD process empowering and would like to share my
experiences to empower others in the future.
184
References
Aasen, K. H., & Naden, D. (2008). The tune of confirmation in guiding nurse students. International
Journal of Human Caring, 12 (4), 7-14.
Agarwal, P. (2011). Relationship between psychological contract & organizational commitment in
Indian IT industry. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 290-305.
Anderson, L. E., & Carta-Falsa, J. (2002). Factors that make faculty and student relationships
effective. College Teaching, 50(4), 134-138. doi: 10.1080/87567550209595894
Anderson, N., & Schalk, R. (1998). The psychological contract in retrospect and prospect. Journal of
organizational behavior, 19, 637-647.
Argyris, C. (1960). Understanding organizational behaviour. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Arnold, N. G. (1996). Learned helplessness and attribution for success and failure in LD students.
Dostupno. http://www. aimhieducational.com/InclusionResources/learnedhelplessness-131. pdf
Aynsley-Smith, S., & Marr. L. (2006). Putting students first: Developing accessible and integrated
support. In L.Thomas and P. Hixenbaugh (Eds.), Personal Tutoring in Higher Education.
Stoke-on Trent:Trentham Books.
Barefoot, B. O. (2000). The first-year experience. About Campus, 4(6), 12-18.
Barlow, J., & Antoniou, M. (2007). Room for improvement: the experiences of new lecturers in
higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(1), 67-77.
doi: 10.1080/14703290601081365
Bates, E. A., & Kaye. L.K. (2014). ““I’d be expecting caviar in lectures”: the impact of the new fee
regime on undergraduate students’ expectations of Higher Education.” Higher Education 67(5),
655-673. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9671-3.
185
Bathmaker, S. (1999). “So, what's the deal?” the state of the psychological contract in a
‘new’university. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 51(2), 265-282.
Beggs, B.J. & Smith, E.M. (2004). The ‘Triple C’ Model for Optimisation of Student Retention in
Engineering Education. EE2004. University of Wolverhampton.
Behi, R., & Nolan, M. (1995). Ethical issues in nursing. British Journal of Nursing, 4 (12), 714-716.
Bennett, R., Kottasz, R., & Nocciolino, J. (2007). Catching the early-walker: An examination of
potential antecedents of rapid student exit from business-related undergraduate degree
programmes in a post-1992 university. Journal of Further and Higher Education 32(2), 109-
132. doi: org/10.1080/03098770701267556
Biggerstaff, D., & Thompson, A.R. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A
qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
5(3), 214-224. doi: 10.1080/14780880802314304
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John-Wiley.
Boden, R., & Nedeva, M. (2010). Employing discourse: universities and graduate ‘employability’.
Journal of Education Policy, 1, 37-56. doi: 10.1080/02680930903349489
Bordia, S., & Bordia, P. (2008). Promises From Afar: Nature of International Student Psychological
Contracts in Management Education. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6. doi:
10.5465/AMBPP.2008.33660408
Bordia, S., Hobman, E. V., Restubog, S. L. D., & Bordia, P. (2010). Advisor–Student Relationship in
Business Education Project Collaborations: A Psychological Contract Perspective. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2360–2386. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00662.x
186
Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, S., & Tang, R. L. (2010). Breach begets breach: Trickle-down
effects of psychological contract breach on customer service. Journal of management, 36(6),
1578-1607. https://doi-org.edgehill.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0149206310378366
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of
education (pp. 241–258). R.(1974). The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.
BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009) Retrieved from:
https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/beta.bps.org.uk/files/Policy%20-%20Files/Code%20of%20Ethics
%20and%20Conduct%20(2009).pdf
Braine, M. E., & Parnell, J. (2011). Exploring student's perceptions and experience of personal tutors.
Nurse education today, 31(8), 904-910. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2011.01.005
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college
student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto's theory. The Journal of Higher
Education, 71(5), 569-590. doi: 10.1080/00221546.2000.11778853
Brinkworth, R., McCann, B., Matthews, C., & Nordström, K. (2009). First year expectations and
experiences: Student and teacher perspectives. Higher Education, 58(2), 157-173. doi:
10.1007/s10734-008-9188-3
Brocki, J. M., & Wearden, A.J. (2006). A critical evaluation of the use of interpretative
phenomenological analysis (IPA) in health psychology. Psychology and Health, 21(1), 87-
108. doi: 10.1080/14768320500230185
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bryne, M. B., Flood, T., Hassall, J., Joyce, J. L., Arquero Montano, J. M. G., Gonzalez, B., & Turna-
Germanou, E. (2012). Motivations, expectations and preparedness for higher education: A study
of accounting students in Ireland, the UK, Spain and Greece. Accounting Forum, 36 (2),134-
144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2011.12.001
187
Buckley, A., Soilemetzidis, I., & Hillman, N. (2015). The 2015 Student Academic Experience
Survey. The Higher Education Policy Institute and Higher Education Academy.
http://31.25.185.230/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/AS-PRINTED-HEA_HEPI_report_print4.pdf
Bunce, S. (2006). Abandoning the Personal Tutoring System. Perspectives on Personal Tutoring in
Mass Education: Supporting Diverse Students. Paper presented at the Higher Academy Personal
Tutoring Conference, London May 2005, University of Westminster, London. Retrieved from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/ourwork/tla/personal_tutoring_ecasebook_2006
Carey, M.A. (1994).The group effect in focus groups: planning, implementing and interpreting focus
group research. In J. Morse (ed.). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. London:
Sage.
Cassar, V., Buttigieg, S. C., & Briner, R. B. (2013). Causal explanations of psychological contract
breach characteristics. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 16(2), 85. doi: 10.1037/h0094949
Cassar, V., & Briner, R. B. (2011). The relationship between psychological contract breach and
organizational commitment: Exchange imbalance as a moderator of the mediating role of
violation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 283-289.
Charlton, J., Barrow, C., & Hornby-Atkinson, P. (2007). Attempting to predict withdrawal from higher
education using demographic, psychological and educational measures. Educational
Administration Abstracts, 2 (42), 31. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.007
Chester University Personal Tutoring (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.chester.ac.uk/sps/pre-arrival-hub/courses
Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. (1978). The impostor phenomenon in high achieving women: Dynamics and
therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 15, 241-246.
188
Clegg, S., Bradley, S., & Smith, K. (2006). ‘I’ve had to swallow my pride’: Help seeking and self-
esteem. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(2), 101–13. doi:
10.1080/07294360600610354
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6thed). London:
Routledge.
Cokley, K. O. (2000). Examining the validity of the academic motivation scale by comparing scale
construction to self-determination theory. Psychological Reports, 86(2), 560-564. doi:
10.2466/PR0.86.2.560-564
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2002). A Diary Study of Effective Responses to Psychological Contract
Breach and Exceeded Promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 279-301. doi:
10.1002/job.139
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005).Understanding Psychological Contracts at Work, A Critical
Evaluation of Theory and Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cotten, S. R., & Wilson, B. (2006). Student–faculty interactions: Dynamics and determinants. Higher
Education, 51, 487–519. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-1705-4
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A., & Conway, N. (2005). Exchange relationships: Examining psychological
contracts and perceived organizational support. Journal of applied psychology, 90(4), 774-778.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.774
Coyle-Shapiro, J., & Kessler, I. (2000). Consequences of the psychological contract for the
employment relationship: A large scale survey. Journal of management studies, 37(7), 903-930.
doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00210
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Kessler, I. (2002). Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the
psychological contract: Employee and employer perspectives. European journal of work and
organizational psychology, 11(1), 69-86. doi: 10.1080/13594320143000852
189
Creswell, J. (2007). Editorial: Differing Perspectives on Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(2), 307-310. doi: 10.1177/1558689807306132
Crisp, G., Palmer, E., Turnbull, D., Nettelbeck, T., Ward, L., & LeCouter, A. (2009). First year
student expectations: Results from a university wide student survey. Journal of University
Teaching and Learning Practice, 6(1), 11–16. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9188-3
Cronin, A. (2008).Focus groups. In N. Gilbert (ed.) Researching Social Life, 3rd edition. London:Sage.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.
Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. London: Sage.
Dacre Pool, L., & Sewell, P. (2007). The Key to Employability: Developing a practical model of
graduate employability. Education and Training, 49 (4) 277-289. doi:
10.1108/00400910710754435
Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2013). Psychological contracts and informal networks in
organizations: The effects of social status and local ties. Human Resource Management, 52(4),
485-510. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21540
Dearing, R. (1997). Summary Report: The National Committee of England into Higher Education.
Norwich: HMSO. Retrieved from:
http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997.html
Department for Business, Innovation & Skills. Students at the Heart of the System (2011). Retrieved
from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31384/11-
944-higher-education-students-at-heart-of-system.pdf
190
Department of Education and Skills (2003). Widening Participation in Higher Education, London:
DfES.
Department for Education. Participation Rates in Higher Education Academic Years 2006/2007-
2015/2016. Retrieved from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/648165/
HEIPR_PUBLICATION_2015-16.pdf
Department for Education (2018). Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (2016).
Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/teaching-excellence-framework
De Cuyper, N., Van der Heijden, B. I., & De Witte, H. (2011). Associations between perceived
employability, employee well-being, and its contribution to organizational success: a matter of
psychological contracts? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(7),
1486-1503. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.561962
De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during
organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of
organizational behavior, 24(5), 537-559. doi: 10.1002/job.205
Dobransky, N. D., & Frymier, A. B. (2004). Developing teacher–student relationships through out of
class communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 211–223. doi:
10.1080/01463370409370193
Docan-Morgan, T. (2011). “Everything Changed”: Relational Turning Point Events in College
Teacher–Student Relationships from Teachers' Perspectives. Communication Education, 60(1),
20-50. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2010.497223
Docan-Morgan, T., & Manusov, V. (2009). Relational turning point events and their outcomes in
college teacher–student relationships from students’ perspectives. Communication Education,
58(2), 155-188. doi: 10.1080/03634520802515713
191
Dunahee, M. H., & Wangler, L. A. (1974). The psychological contract: A conceptual structure for
management/employee relations. Personnel Journal.
Earwaker, J. (1992). Helping and Supporting Students. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher
Education and Open University Press.
Edge Hill University (2018). Personal Tutor Policy (March, 2011) Retrieved from:
https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2012/02/The-Personal-Tutor-System-at-EHU-Mar-11.pdf
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Evenbeck, S.E., & Jackson, B. (2004). Faculty development and the first year. In M.
L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, B.O. & B. Barefoot. (2005) In Meeting challenges and building
support: Creating campus climates for first‐year student success, Community College Journal
of Research and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
Festinger, L. (1957). Cognitive dissonance theory. (1989). Primary Prevention of HIV/AIDS:
Psychological Approaches. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research (4th ed.) London: Sage Publications.
Forrester, M. A. (ed) (2010). Doing Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: Sage.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109. doi:
10.3102/00346543074001059.
Freese, C., & Schalk, R. (2008). How to measure the psychological contract? A critical criteria-based
review of measures. South African Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 269-286. doi:
10.1177/00812463080380020
192
Gallagher, D. J., & Allen, N. (2000). First-year initiatives and results of a year-long advising pilot
study: A proposed advising model. Journal of the First Year Experience and Students in
Transition, 12(2), 107–128.
Georg, W. (2009). Individual and institutional factors in the tendency to drop out of higher education:
a multilevel analysis using data from the Konstanz Student Survey. Studies in Higher
Education, 34(6), 647-661. doi: 10.1080/03075070802592730
Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college
students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72(3), 281-
288. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb00935.x
Gidman, J. (2001). The role of the personal tutor: a literature review. Nurse Education Today 21(5),
359-365. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.0565
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American sociological
review, 161-178.
Grant, A. (2006). Personal tutoring: A system in crisis. Personal Tutoring in Higher Education. Stoke
on Trent: Trentham Books Ltd.
Grant, A., & Woolfson, M. (2001). Responding to students in difficulty: a cross institutional
collaboration. Association of University and College Counselling Newsletter and Journal, 1, 9-
11.
Gray, D. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World. London: Sage.
Griffiths, M., & Miller, H. (2005). E-mentoring: Does it have a place in medicine ? Postgrad Med
Journal, 81, 389-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2004.029702
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of
qualitative research, 2(105)163-194.
193
Guest, D. (1998). Is the Psychological Contract Worth Taking Seriously? Journal of Organisational
Behaviour, 19(3), 649-664. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(1998)19:1+<649::AID-
JOB970>3.0.CO;2-T
Guest, D. E. (2007). HRM and the worker: towards a new psychological contract? The Oxford
Handbook of Human Resource Management, 128.
Guest, D. E., & Conway, N. (2002). Communicating the psychological contract: an employer
perspective. Human resource management journal, 12(2), 22-38. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-
8583.2002.tb00062.x
Guest, D., & Conway, N. (2004). Employee well-being and the psychological contract: A report for
the CIPD. CIPD Publishing.
Hafez, R., & Weiss, N. (2006). Personal tutoring to develop professionalism in trainee teachers: a
case study. From the University of East London’s PGCE (PCET) course. Retrieved from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resources/casestudies/web0151_eCasebook
Hagenauer, G., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Teacher–student relationship at university: an important yet
under-researched field. Oxford Review of Education, 40(3), 370-388. doi:
10.1080/03054985.2014.921613
Hartwell, H., & Farbrother, C. (2006). Enhancing the first year experience through personal tutoring.
In L.Thomas & P. Hixenbaugh (eds.), Personal Tutoring in Higher Education. Stoke-on Trent:
Trentham Books.
Herrera, C.D. (2003). A clash of methodology and ethics in undercover social research. Philosophy of
the Social Sciences, 33 (3), 143-155. doi: 10.1177/0048393103252782
Herriot, P., & Pemberton, C. (1997). Facilitating new deals. Human resource management journal,
7(1), 45-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.1997.tb00273.x
194
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). (2011). National student survey: Findings
and trends 2006 to 2010. Retrieved from:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2011/201111/11_11.pdf
Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE, 2017). The second Research Excellence Framework
Policy Guide. Available from : http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/ref2021/
Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE, 2017). National Student Survey results 2017. Retrieved
from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/2017/
Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE, 2018). National Student Survey results 2018. Retrieved
from: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/nss/
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) SFR 224 Higher Education Student Enrolments and
Qualifications Obtained at Higher Education Providers in the United Kingdom 2014/15
https://www.hesa.ac.uk/sfr224
Higher Education White Paper (2012). ‘Students at the heart of the system’, Department for Business
Innovation and Skills.https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/higher-education-white-
paper-students-at-the-heart-of-the-system
Hillage, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis.
Research Brief No 85. London: Department for Education and Employment.
Hinchcliffe, G.W., & Jolly, A. (2011). Graduate Identity and Employability, British Educational
Research Journal, 37(4), 563 584. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.482200
Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher (2nded.). London: Routledge.
Hixenbaugh, P. (2006). Relationships and Retention. Academic Exchange, Issue 4, summer, HEA.
195
Hixenbaugh, P., Dewart, H., Drees, D., & Williams, D. (2005). Peer e-mentoring Enhancement of the
first year experience. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 5 (1), 8-14. doi:
10.2304/plat.2005.5.1.8
Hixenbaugh, P., Pearson, C., & Williams, D. (2006). Student perspectives on personal tutoring: what
do students want? Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.
Ho, V. T., Rousseau, D. M., & Levesque, L. L. (2006). Social networks and the psychological
contract: Structural holes, cohesive ties, and beliefs regarding employer obligations. Human
Relations, 59(4), 459-481. doi: 10.1177/0018726706065370
Holmes, D. L., Rupert, P. A., Ross, S. A., & Shapera, W. E. (1999). Student perceptions of dual
relationships between faculty and students. Ethics & Behavior, 9(2), 79-106. doi:
10.1207/s15327019eb0902_1
Hornby-Atkinson, P., Sumner, L., Connors, E., Putwain, D., Larkin, D., Yale, A., Hale, L., & Symes,
W. (2008). Assessing the value of 'managing' the psychological contract of 1st year psychology
students. Report to the HEA, accessed 24/03/14
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/subjects/psychology/Assessing_the_value_of_ma
naging_the_psychological_contract
Howitt, D., & Cramer, D. (2005). Introduction to research methods in Psychology. Harlow: Pearson
Education Ltd.
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student‐faculty out‐of‐class communication
to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48(1),
41-47. doi: 10.1080/03634529909379151
Jacklin, A., & Le Riche, P. (2009). Reconceptualising student support: from ‘support’to
‘supportive’. Studies in Higher Education, 34(7), 735-749. doi: 10.1080/03075070802666807
Jafri, H. (2014). Influence of Personality on Perception of Psychological Contract Breach.
Psychological Thought, 7(2), 168–178. doi: 10.5964/psyct.v7i2.113
196
Jaasma, M. A., & Koper, R. J. (1999). The relationship of student-faculty out-of-class communication
to instructor immediacy and trust and to student motivation. Communication Education, 48, 41–
47. doi: 10.1080/03634529909379151
Jelfs, A., Richardson, J.T.E., & Price, L. (2009). Student and tutor perceptions of effective tutoring in
distance education. Distance Education, 30 (3), 419–441. doi: 10.1080/01587910903236551
Jones, G. (2010). Managing student expectations: The impact of top-up tuition
fees. Perspectives, 14(2), 44-48. doi: 10.1080/13603101003776135
Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher
Education, 38(5), 758-773. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
Kaye, L. K., & Bates, E. A. (2016). The impact of higher fees on students’ reasons for attending
university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 4(3), 379-392. doi:
10.1080/0309877X.2015.1117597
Kaye, T., Bickel, R. R., & Birtwistle, T. (2006). Criticizing the image of the student as consumer:
examining legal trends and administrative responses in the US and UK. Education and the Law,
18(2-3), 85-129. doi: 10.1080/09539960600919779
Kickul, J., & Lester, S. W. (2001). Broken promises: Equity sensitivity as a moderator between
psychological contract breach and employee attitudes and behavior. Journal of business and
psychology, 16(2), 191-217. doi: 10.1023/A:1011105132252
Kingry M.J., Tiedje L.B., & Friedman, L.L. (1990). Focus groups; a measurement. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 18, 886–891. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by
student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher
Education, 50(5), 437-459. doi: 10.1007/s11162-009-9127-x
197
Kirkup, M. & Carrigan, M. (2000). Video surveillance research in retailing: ethical issues.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 28, 470-10. doi:
10.1108/09590550010356831
Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M., & McIntyre, J. M. (1984). Organizational psychology: readings on human
behavior in organizations. London: Prentice Hall.
Komarraju, M., Musulin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of student-faculty interactions in
developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement. Journal of
College Student Development, 51(3), 332–342. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0137
Koskina, A. (2013). What does the student psychological contract mean? Evidence from a UK
business school. Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 1020-1036. doi:
10.1080/03075079.2011.618945
Kotter, J. P. (1973). The psychological contract: Managing the joining-up process. California
management review, 15(3), 91-99. doi: 10.2307/41164442
Krieg, D. (2013). High expectations for higher education? Perceptions of college and experiences of
stress prior to and through the college career. College Student Journal, 47(4), 635-643.
Kreuger, R.A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park,
California: Sage.
Kuh, G.R., Gonyea, A., & Williams, J. (2005). What students expect from college and what they get.
In Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and institutional views of the college
experience, edited by T. Miller, B. Bender, & J. Schuh, 34-64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
198
Kvale, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing(2nd ed).
London: Sage.
Kvale, S.,& Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research
Interviewing (2nded.). London: Sage.
Larkin, M., Watts, S., & Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in interpretative
phenomenological analysis. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 102-120. doi:
10.1191/1478088706qp062oa
Lee, B., & Robinson, A. (2006). Creating a network of student support. In P. Hixenbaugh, L.Thomas,
& S. Barfield (eds). Personal Tutoring in Higher Education. London: Trentham Books.
Lester, S. W., Turnley, W. H., Bloodgood, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Not seeing eye to eye:
Differences in supervisor and subordinate perceptions of and attributions for psychological
contract breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(1), 39-56. doi: 10.1002/job.126
Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, H. J., & Solley, C. M. (1962). Men, management,
and mental health.
Levy, A., Nicholls, A., Marchant, D., & Polman, R. (2009). Organisational Stressors, Coping and
Coping effectiveness: A longitudinal study with an elite coach. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 4 (1), 31-43. doi: 10.1260/1747-9541.4.1.31
Liverpool Hope University (2018). Student Support. Retrieved from:
http://www.hope.ac.uk/media/liverpoolhope/contentassets/documents/studentsupport/
media,44794,en.pdf
Liverpool John Moore (LJMU) (2018). Student Support, Health and Well-being. Retrieved from:
https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/discover/student-support/health-and-wellbeing
199
Lomas, J. (2007). Decision support: a new approach to making the best healthcare management and
policy choices. Healthcare Quarterly,10, 16-18. doi: 10.12927/hcq..18918
Longden, B. (2006). An institutional response to changing student expectations and their impact on
retention rates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(2), 173-187. doi:
10.1080/13600800600751044
Lowe, H., & Cook, A. (2003). Mind the Gap: are students prepared for higher education? Journal of
further and higher education, 27(1), 53-76. doi: 10.1080/03098770305629
Luck, C. (2010). Challenges faced by tutors in higher education. Psychodynamic Practice, 16(3), 273-
287. doi: 10.1080/14753634.2010.489386
Luchak, A. A. (2003). What kind of voice do loyal employees use? British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 41(1), 115-134. doi: 10.1111/1467-8543.00264
Maguire, H. (2002). Psychological contracts: are they still relevant?. Career Development
International, 7(3), 167-180. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430210414856
Malik, S. (2000). Students, tutors and relationships: the ingredients of a successful student support
scheme. Medical Education, 34(8), 635-641. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00541.x
Manchester Metropolitan University (2018). Personal Tutoring. Retrieved from:
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/personal_tutoring/index.php
Mancuso, M., Parkinson, K., & Pettigrew, B. (2010). Disappointment, Misunderstanding and
Expectations: A Gap Analysis of NSSE, BCSSE and FSSE. Toronto: Higher Education Quality
Council of Ontario.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
200
McCulloch, A. (2009). The student as co-producer: learning from public administration about the
student–university relationship. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 171-183.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070802562857
McFarlane, K. J. (2016). Tutoring the tutors: Supporting effective personal tutoring. Active Learning
in Higher Education, 17(1), 77-88. doi: 10.1177/1469787415616720
McInnes, C. (2001). Signs of Disengagement? The Changing Undergraduate Experience in
Australian Universities, Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of
Melbourne.
McMillan, J. J., & Cheney, G. (1996). The student as consumer: The implications and limitations of a
metaphor. Communication Education, 45(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1080/03634529609379028
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
Menninger, K. (1958). Theory of psychoanalytic technique.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.
Montes, S. D., & Irving, P. G. (2008). Disentangling the effects of promised and delivered
inducements: Relational and transactional contract elements and the mediating role of trust.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1367. doi: 10.1037/a0012851
Montes, S. D., & Zweig, D. (2009). Do promises matter? An exploration of the role of promises in
psychological contract breach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1243. doi:
10.1037/a0015725
Moon, J. A. (2004). Reflection and employability (Vol. 4). York: LTSN Generic Centre.
201
Moore, J., McNeill, J., & Halliday, S. (2012). Worth the price? Some findings from young people on
attitudes to increases in university tuition fees. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning,
13(1), 57-70. doi: 10.5456/WPLL.13.1.57
Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lots and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of
combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-
76. https://doi.org/10.1177/2345678906292462
Morgan, M. (2012). Improving the Student Experience. Oxon: Routledge.
Morley, L. (1998). All you need is love: feminist pedagogy for empowerment and emotional labour in
the academy. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2(1), 15-27. doi:
10.1080/1360311980020102
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how
psychological contract violation develops. Academy of management Review, 22(1), 226-256.
doi: 10.5465/AMR.1997.9707180265
Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). The effects of student verbal and
nonverbal responsiveness on teachers' liking of students and willingness to comply with student
requests. Communication Quarterly, 52(1), 27-38. doi: 10.1080/01463370409370176
Myers, J. (2013). Why support students? Using the past to understand the present. Higher Education
Research and Development, 32(4), 590-602. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2012.700509
Mynott, G. (2016). Personal tutoring: positioning practice in relation to policy. Innovations in
Practice, 10(2), 103-112.
National Union of Students & QAA (2012). Student Experience Research (2012).Retrieved from:
https://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/2012_NUS_QAA_Teaching_and_Learning.pdf
202
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Age, work experience, and the psychological contract. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1053-1075. doi: 10.1002/job.599
Nicholson, L., Putwain, D., Connors, L., & Hornby-Atkinson, P. (2013). The key to successful
achievement as an undergraduate student: confidence and realistic expectations? Studies in
Higher Education, 38 (2), 285–298. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2011.585710
Ody, M., & Carey, W. (2013). Peer education. Student Engagement Handbook: Practice in Higher
Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 291-312.
Olsen, D., Kuh, G. D., Schilling, K. M., Schilling, K., Connolly, M., Simmons, A., & Vesper, N.
(1998). Great expectations: What first-year students say they will do and what they actually do.
In annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL.
O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). ‘Unsatisfactory Saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of
saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative research, 13(2), 190-197. doi:
10.1177/1468794112446106
O'Toole, P., & Prince, N. (2015). The psychological contract of science students: social exchange with
universities and university staff from the students' perspective. Higher Education Research &
Development, 34(1), 160-172. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.934326
Owen, M. (2002). ‘Sometimes you feel you're in niche time’: the personal tutor system, a case study.
Active Learning in Higher Education 3(1), 7–23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177%2F1469787402003001002
Palfreyman, D., & Tapper, T. (2016). The marketization of English higher education and the financing
of tuition fees. London Review of Education, 14(1), 47-55.
Palfreyman, D., & Warner, D. (1998). Higher Education and the Law: A Guide for Managers. Open
University Press, 325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.
203
Palmer, M., O'Kane, P., & Owens, M. (2009). Betwixt spaces: Student accounts of turning point
experiences in the first year transition. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 37-54. doi:
10.1080/03075070802601929
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Hendy-Isaac, S., & Lawton, R. (2012). Pedagogy for employability. Retreived
from:
https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/pedagogy_for_employability_update_2012.pdf
Por, J., & Barriball, L. (2008). The personal tutor's role in pre-registration nursing education. British
Journal of Nursing, 17(2), 99-103.
Pugsley, L. (2004). The university challenge. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Quinn, J., Thomas, L., Slack, K., Casey, L., Thexton, W., & Noble, J. (2005). From Life Disaster to
Lifelong Learning: Reframing Working Class ‘Drop Out’, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Radford, L. M., & Larwood, L. (1982). A field study of conflict in psychological exchange: The
California taxpayers' revolt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12(1), 60-69.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00849.x
Race, P. (2010). Increasing Students’ Satisfaction. Reflections, December, 1.
Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 350-367. doi: 10.2307/20159586
Ramsden, P. (2008). The future of higher education teaching and the student experience. The Higher
Education Academy. Retrieved March, 30, 2010.
Research Excellence Framework (REF2021) Retrieved from: http://www.ref.ac.uk/about/whatref/204
Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2006). Effects of psychological contract breach on
performance of IT employees: The mediating role of affective commitment. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(2), 299-306. doi:
10.1348/096317905X53183
Riddell, S., & Bates, N. (2010). The role of the personal tutor in a curriculum approach to PDP.
Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. Special Edition: Researching PDP
Practice, 2010.
Ridley, P. (2006). Who’s looking after me? - Supporting new personal tutors. In L.Thomas and P.
Hixenbaugh (eds.), Personal Tutoring in Higher Education. Stoke-on Trent: Trentham Books.
Rigotti, T. (2009). Enough is enough? Threshold models for the relationship between psychological
contract breach and job-related attitudes. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 18, 442–463. doi:
10.1080/13594320802402039
Robinson, S. L. (1995). Violations of the Psychological Contract: Impact on Employee Attitudes. In L.
E. Tetrick & J. Barling (eds). Changing Employment Relations: Behavioural and Social
Perspectives. Washington DC: APA, 91-108.
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative science
quarterly, 574-599.
Robinson, S. L., Kraatz, M. S., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Changing obligations and the
psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Academy of management Journal, 37(1), 137-152.
doi: 10.2307/256773
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of
unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of organizational behavior, 16(3), 289-
298. doi: 10.1002/job.4030160309
205
Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and
violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of organizational Behavior, 525-546. doi:
10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<525::AID-JOB40>3.0.CO;2-T
Robinson, S. L., & Rousseau, D. M. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception
but the norm. Journal of organizational behavior, 15(3), 245-259. doi: 10.1002/job.4030150306
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nded.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Roehling, M. V. (1997). The origins and early development of the psychological contract construct.
Journal of Management History, 3(2), 204-217. doi: 10.1108/13552529710171993
Ross, J., Head, K., King, L., Perry, P.M., & Smith, S. (2014). The personal development tutor role: An
exploration of student and lecturer experiences and perceptions of that relationship. Nurse
education today, 34(9), 1207-1213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2014.01.001
Rossier J., Ginevra M.C., Bollmann G., & Nota L. (2017) The Importance of Career Adaptability,
Career Resilience, and Employability in Designing a Successful Life. In: Maree K. (eds)
Psychology of Career Adaptability, Employability and Resilience . Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66954-0_5
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1. doi: 10.1037/h009297
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and Implied Contracts in Organisations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(1), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384942
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Normative beliefs in fund-raising organizations: Linking culture to
organizational performance and individual responses. Group & Organization Studies, 15(4),
448-460. doi: 10.1177/105960119001500408
206
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten
agreements. London: Sage Publications.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). The'problem'of the psychological contract considered. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 665-671. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100282
Rousseau, D. M. (2000). Psychological Contract Inventory: Technical Report. Pittsburgh, PA:
Cargenie Mellon University.
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological
contract. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 74(4), 511-541. doi:
10.1348/096317901167505
Rousseau, D. M. (2003). Extending the psychology of the psychological contract: A reply to "putting
psychology back into psychological contracts". Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(3), 229.
doi: 10.1177/1056492603256339
Rousseau, D.M. (2011). The individual–organization relationship: The psychological contract.
In S. Zedek (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. (Vol. 3:
Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization, pp. 191–220). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Rousseau, D.M. (2012). Free will in social and psychological contracts. Society and Business Review,
7(1), 8–13. doi:10.1108/17465681211195751
Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations.
Research in organizational behavior, 15, 1-1.
Rousseau, D.M., & Tijoriwala, S.A. (1998). Assessing psychological contracts: issues, alternatives and
measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior,19 (1), 679-695. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(1998)19:1+<679::AID-JOB971>3.0.CO;2-N
207
Rousseau, D. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (1994). Linking strategy and human resource practices:
How employee and customer contracts are created. Human resource management, 33(3), 463-
489. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930330312
Salford University of Manchester (2018). Retrieved from:
http://www.salford.ac.uk/study/visit/undergraduate-open-days/film-production/accordion/does-
each-student-have-a-tutor-as-a-point-of-contact
Sander, P., Stevenson, K., King, M., & Coates, D. (2000). University students’ expectations of
teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 25, 309–323. doi: 10.1080/03075070050193433
Schalk, R., & Freese, C. (1993). Trends in Organisational Behavior. New Facets of Commitment in
Response to Organizational Change: Research Trends and the Dutch Experience, 107-123.
Schalk, R., & Freese, C. (1997). New facets of commitment in response to organizational change:
Research trends and the Dutch experience. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1998),
107.
Schalk, R., & Roe, R. E. (2007). Towards a dynamic model of the psychological contract. Journal for
the theory of social behaviour, 37(2), 167-182. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00330.x
Schein, E. (1965). Organisational psychology. Unglued cliffs.
Scotland, J. (2012). Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and
epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical
research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5(9), 9. doi: 10.5539/elt.v5n9p9
Seligman, M. E. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual review of medicine, 23(1), 407-412.
Sennett, R. (2004). Respect: The formation of character in an age of inequality. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
208
Shore, L. M., & Tetrick, L. E. (1994). The psychological contract as an explanatory framework in the
employment relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior (1986-1998), 91.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Silverman, D. (2009). Doing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Simon, H. A. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1),
125-134.
Smith, E.M. (2008). Personal Tutoring: An Engineering Subject Centre Guide. Higher Education
Academy Engineering Subject Centre..
Smith, J.A. (2008). Qualitative Psychology: A practical guide to IPA (2nd ed.). London: Sage
Publications.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory,
Method and Research. London: Sage.
Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J.A.Smith (Ed.),
Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods. London: Sage.
Stake, R. (2003).Case studies. In Strategies of qualitatively enquiry, N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (eds),
134–64. London: Sage.
Stern Review (2016). Building on Success and Leaning from Experience. Retrieived from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-
ref-stern-review.pdf
Stephen, D. E., O’Connell, P., & Hall, M. (2008). ‘Going the extra mile’, ‘fire-fighting’, or laissez-
faire? Re-evaluating personal tutoring relationships within mass higher education. Teaching in
Higher Education, 13, 449–460. doi: 10.1080/13562510802169749209
Stephenson, J., & Yorke, M. (eds.). (2013). Capability and quality in higher education. London:
Routledge.
Stevenson, N. (2009). Enhancing the student experience by embedding personal tutoring in the
curriculum. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sports and Tourism Education (Pre-2012), 8(2),
117. doi: 10.3794/johlste.82.218
Strivens, J. (2006). Transforming Personal Tutors into Personal Development Tutors at the University
of Liverpool, Higher Education Academy. Retrieved on 20/5/10 from
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/resources/casestudies/
web0151_eCasebook_transforming_personal_tutors_into_personal_development_tutors
Tait, A. (2004). On institutional models and concepts of student support services: The case of the
Open University, UK. Learner support in open, distance and online learning environments,
9, 283–93.
Tay, I. (2014). To what extent should data saturation be used as a quality criterion in qualitative
research. Pulse. Retrieved from: https://www. linkedin. com/pulse/20140824092647-82509310
Taylor, M. S., & Tekleab, A. G. (2004). Taking stock of psychological contract research: Assessing
progress, addressing troublesome issues, and setting research priorities. The employment
relationship: Examining psychological and contextual perspectives, 253-283.
Tekleab, A. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2003). Aren't there two parties in an employment relationship?
Antecedents and consequences of organization–employee agreement on contract obligations and
violations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 585-608. doi: 10.1002/job.204
Tellis, W. M. (1997). Results of a case study on information technology at a university. The
qualitative report, 3(4), 1-2.
Ten Brink, B.E.H. (2004). Psychological Contract: a useful concept? Amsterdam: PhD Thesis. VU
University.210
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 227-236. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033683
The Complete University Guide (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/bolton/
Thomas, L. (2002). Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus. Journal of
Education Policy, 17(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930210140257
Thomas, L. (2006). Widening participation and the increased need for personal tutoring. In L.Thomas
and P. Hixenbaugh (eds.) Personal Tutoring in Higher Education. Stoke-on Trent: Trentham
Books.
Thomas, L. (2012). Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of
change: final report from the What Works? Student Retention & Success programme. Higher
Education Academy.
Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your Case Study: A Guide for Students and Researchers. London:
Sage.
Thomas, L., & Hixenbaugh, P. (2006) (eds). Personal tutoring in higher education. Stoke-on Trent:
Trentham.
Thomas, L., & May, H. (2011). What Works? Student Retention and Success Programme, London:
Paul Hamlyn Foundation.
Thomas, G., & Pring, R. (2004).Evidence-Based Practice in Education. New York: Open University
Press.
211
Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the
psychological contract. Academy of management review, 28(4), 571-586. doi:
10.5465/AMR.2003.10899381
Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey (2016). Retrieved from:
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/search?e=404&search=student%20student
%20experience%20survey%202016%20res
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
educational research, 45(1), 89-125. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543045001089
Tomlinson, M. (2008). The degree is not enough’: students’ perceptions of the role of higher education
credentials for graduate work and employability. British Journal of Sociology of Education,
29(1), 49-61. doi: 10.1080/01425690701737457
Tomlinson, M. (2010). Investing in the self: structure, agency and identity in graduates’ employability.
Education, Knowledge and Economy, 4(2) 73- 88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17496896.2010.499273
Tomlinson, M. (2017). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 450-467. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856
Tomlinson, M., & Holmes, L. (eds.) (2016). Graduate Employability in Context: Theory, Research
and Debate. London: Springer.
Trigwell, K., & Shale, S. (2004). Student learning and the scholarship of university teaching. Studies
in higher education, 29(4), 523-536. doi: 10.1080/0307507042000236407
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (1999). The Impact of Psychological Contract Violation on Exit,
Voice, Loyalty and Neglect. Human Relations, 5 (7), 895-922. doi:
10.1177/001872679905200703
212
Turnley, W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2000). Re-examining the effects of psychological contract
violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of organizational
behavior, 25-42. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200002)21:1<25::AID-JOB2>3.0.CO;2-Z
UCAS (2013), 2013 cycle applicant figures – January deadline [online]. Retrieved from:
https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/2013-cycle-applicant-figures-
%E2%80%93-january-deadline
UCAS (2016) End Of Cycle Report –December 2016 Analysis and Research. Retrieved from:
https://www.ucas.com/file/86541/download?token=PQnaAI5f
UCAS (2017) 2017 Cycle Applicant Figures – January deadline [online]. Retrieved from:
https://www.ucas.com/corporate/data-and-analysis/ucas-undergraduate-releases/2017-cycle-
applicant-figures-%E2%80%93-january-deadline [accessed 24th March, 2017].
UNESCO (2009) World Conference on Higher Education Final Report 2009. Retrieved from:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001892/189242e.pdf
University of Bolton (2018). Student Support and Guidance. Retrieved from:
https://www.bolton.ac.uk/Quality/SE/Student-Handbook/Student-Support-and-Guidance.aspx
University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) (2018). Student Support. Retrieved from:
https://www.uclan.ac.uk/students/support/study_support.php
University of Manchester (2018). Student Support and Parent Guidance. Retrieved from:
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/parents-supporters/welfare-advice/
The Complete University League Tables (2018). Retrieved from:
https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/
213
Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider researcher while conducting case study research. The Qualitative
Report, 17(29), 1.
Upcraft, M., Gardner, J., & Barefoot, B. (2005).Challenge and support: Creating climates for first-
year student success.
Van Hooff, J. H., & Westall, A. (2016). Enhancing belonging, confidence and academic development
through meaningful Personal Tutoring. Learning and Teaching in Action, 11(2), 27-36.
Vinson, D., Nixon, S., Walsh, B., Walker, C., Mitchell, E., & Zaitseva, E. (2010). Investigating the
relationship between student engagement and transition. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 11(2), 131-143. doi: 10.1177/1469787410365658
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Rousseau, D. M., & Li, M. (2006). Managing relationships across generations
of academics: Psychological contracts in faculty-doctoral student collaborations. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 17(1), 4-33. doi: 10.1108/10444060610734154
Watts, T. E. (2011). Supporting undergraduate nursing students through structured personal tutoring:
Some reflections. Nurse education today 31(2), 214-218.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.005
Wellin, M. (2009). Managing the Psychological Contract (2009) Exact Editions. Retrieved from:
http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/499/634 Chapter 3 and study 2
Wellington, J. (2000). The researcher's role and responsibility, Educational research contemporary
issues and practical approaches. London: Continuum.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process. Review of
educational research, 42(2), 203-215.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
review, 92(4), 548.
214
Wheeler, S., & Birtle, J. (1993). A Handbook for Personal Tutors. Taylor and Francis Publishers, 1900
Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007-1598.
Wilkins, S., Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2012). The decision-making and changing behavioural
dynamics of potential higher education students: the impacts of increasing tuition fees in
England. Educational Studies, 39 (2), 125. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2012.681360
Willig, C., & Rogers, W. S. (Eds.). (2013). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology.
London: Sage.
Wilson, K., Jackman, D., & Kennedy, M. (2009, July). Taking plagiarism personally: negotiating a
psychological contract to enhance the student experience. In The Student Experience,
Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Darwin (pp. 492-499).
Wingate, U. (2007). A framework for transition: supporting ‘learning to learn’ in higher
education. Higher Education Quarterly, 61(3), 391-405. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
2273.2007.00361.x
Wootton, S. (2006). Changing practice in tutorial provision within post-compulsory education. In L.
Thomas & P. Hixenbaugh (eds.), Personal Tutoring in Higher Education. Stoke-on Trent:
Trentham Books.
Yorke, M., Longden, B., Adegbulu, L., Barrett-Baxendale, M., Dunn, D., Eastwood, P., George, H.,
Lim, H., McGillivray, A., Nandi, T., & Riches, S. (2008). The experiences of part-time students
in higher education: a study from the UK. Higher Education Academy.
Zafirovski, M. (2005). Social exchange theory under scrutiny: A positive critique of its economic-
behaviorist formulations. Electronic journal of sociology, 2(2), 1-40.
215
Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological
contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a meta‐analysis. Personnel psychology, 60(3), 647-
680. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x
216
