To enter Higher Education the student sometimes needs to move. What are the characteristics of those who move?

In the big picture, the direction of the mobility is typically from less populated regions to the urbanised regions (HSV, 2011), and mobility is more common among women than men particularly in the early 20s (SCB, 2011). One explanation for women’s greater likelihood for mobility is that they to a greater extent study at higher education. People with ample resources, such as private means and networks, have traditionally been mobile (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). In addition, socially privileged students have been ready to move also when higher education institutions have been within commuting distance from their home, thus to make the best educational choice to gain and reproduce their family capital (Kivinen, et al., 2001). A move to a more prestigious institution or to a more prestigious study programme is less of a hurdle for them, it is even more or less expected (Clayton, Crozier, & Reay, 2009). Among higher education students who are less mobile are young students who still live within the parental home and wish to do so. Less mobile are also the mature students who have a family of their own (Wikhall, 2001). Even though Sweden is considered a gender equal country, women still carry the main responsibility for the family (Holth, Jordansson, & Gonäs, 2012), which clearly restricts their mobility.

We are interested in a comprehensive understanding of the mobile versus the stationary students. In relation to the dichotomy “movers” or “stayers”, individuals can be grouped into different modalities, a “summation” of different distinguishing characteristics, such as gender, social class, age, and region of origin.

We are influenced by reproduction theory and intersectionality (Acker, 1990; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; McCall, 2005). Those who occupy advantaged positions strive to continue to do so, and mobility can be a mean to recreate or improve the family position.   

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender and Society, 4(2), 139-158. doi: 10.1177/089124390004002002 Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture (2 ed.). London ; Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage in association with Theory Culture & Society Dept. of Administrative and Social Studies Teesside Polytechnic. Clayton, J., Crozier, G., & Reay, D. (2009). Home and away: risk, familiarity and the multiple geographies of the higher education experience. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 19(3-4), 157-174. doi: 10.1080/09620210903424469 Holth, L., Jordansson, B., & Gonäs, L. (2012). Gender and the Division of Labour in a Swedish Context. In M. Jansdotter Samuelsson, C. Krekula & M. Åberg (Eds.), Gender and Change. Power, politics and everyday practices (pp. 75-94). Karlstad: Karlstad University Press. HSV. (2011). Universitet & högskolor. Högskoleverkets årsrapport 2011 [Swedish Universities & University Colleges - Annual Report 2011]. Stockholm: National Agency for Higher Education. McCall, L. (2005). The Complexity of Intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3), 1771-1800. SCB. (2011). Inrikes omflyttning [National relocation]. Retrieved 28 Jan, 2014, from http://www.scb.se/Statistik/BE/BE0101/2010A01L/Inrikes_omflyttning.pdf