Student dropout remains a major concern in many higher education systems. Based on the classic models developed by Spady and Tinto on the link between social and academic integration and dropout, we propose a refined model to explain dropout intentions – relating to dropout from higher education and dropout from a specific study programme – that more strongly emphasises individual background characteristics (e.g. gender, social origin, and immigration background) and, in addition, considers students’ satisfaction with the institutional support structures.
In theory-oriented sociology of education, the influential Spady–Tinto models of student dropout (Spady 1971; Tinto 1975, 1993) serve as useful concepts in the explanation of HE dropout. These models specifically focus on the academic and social integration of students, and presume that these are linked to a certain commitment towards students’ academic and social environment in educational institutions, as well as having an impact on university dropout as a negative outcome. This theoretical framework has been applied by many scholars and – in its classical or extended versions – proven to still be an adequate tool in the explanation of dropout (e.g. Berger and Braxton 1998; Nicoletti 2019).
While major attention in dropout research has been devoted to integration and commitment (e.g. Piepenburg and Beckmann 2021), many were institutions’ support with regard to their roles in students’ dropout intentions (e.g. Rumberger et al. 1990; Yair, Rotem, and Shustak 2020). Given that many dropout studies are based on administrative and/or single-institution data sources, different types of dropout such as leaving the entire HE system, a HE institution or a specific study programme are often not adequately distinguished (for exceptions, see e.g. Meggiolaro, Giraldo, and Clerici 2017; Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 2016).
The innovative potential of revisiting the Spady–Tinto approach with regard to Luxembourg relates to its nationally and culturally diverse HE system, which reflects a case where the effects of the internationalisation of HE can be observed in a magnified way. First, the student population is highly heterogeneous due to a large number of international students – about 50 percent (2019) – and students who received their university entrance certificate in Luxembourg, but have an immigrant background (more than 20 percent). This interesting HE context allows the relationship between immigrant background and dropout intention to be investigated, given the common assumption that immigrant students’ minority status hampers them in developing a sense of belonging within the HE environment as compared to majority group students (Hurtado and Carter 1997). By contrast, international students’ persistence has either been framed in the light of integration obstacles or, conversely, as a product of being highly motivated, and determined to succeed within the host HE context. Second, the University of Luxembourg as a key HE institution is young (it was founded in 2003). It was launched taking into account different international HE systems, and follows an international, interdisciplinary, and multilingual research university approach (Harmsen and Powell 2018).
Vis-à-vis the indicated research desiderata, our main research questions in relation to the conceptual considerations are how individual characteristics (social origin, gender, immigrant backgrounds) impact dropout intentions – regarding dropout from HE and dropout from a specific study programme – via aspects of commitment and integration, and what role institutional support plays in this.
