Within the extension of accessibility of higher education concerning its transfer from massive to almost universal phase (Trow, 1973), the number of non-traditional students attending higher education is increasing (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). One of the results of this growing demographic diversity is the substantial amount of so-called first-generation college students whose parents had not achieved more than a high-school education (Pascarella et al., 2004). In the Czech Republic, first-generation students make up more than 50 % of all university students (Hündlová & Šmídová, 2020).

However, it is known from several studies that first-generation college students have a higher drop-out rate than their second-generation peers (Ishitani, 2006). As in several other countries, Czech tertiary education is experiencing a high rate of university student academic failure (OECD, 2023). According to Tinto (1975), the effective way how to reduce the number of students leaving university before its completion is their appropriate academic and social integration. Reportedly, first-generation students have some difficulties with that integration process (Soria et al., 2013). It has started to be considered the importance of structural and sociocultural factors that may influence student retention and success and shape experiences of the underrepresented groups of students coming from a broader range of family and school backgrounds (Naylor & Mifsud, 2020).

The findings of some researchers show that these students have limited financial, social and cultural resources, receive less parental support in decision making, and more often attend less prestigious institutions (Reay et al., 2005). Futhermore, they are less in contact with the faculty members, less willing to ask for help and rely more on themselves (Yee, 2016). They also earn lower grades, spend more time on paid work, and are less involved in extra-curricular activities (Pascarella et al., 2004). Generally, first-generation college students struggle more with fitting in to a new study environment and identifying with the role of a student due to the incompatibility of their family and institutional habitus (Reay et al., 2005).

Only a few studies highlight that first-generation students may also have a supportive family background (Gofen, 2009), could be motivated good learners and excel at elite universities (Reay et al., 2009), are encouraged to achieve their educational goals by strict work ethic (Lehmann, 2009a) and career potential of university (Lehmann, 2009b) or bring to the higher education their unique cultural knowledge and wealth (Jehangir, 2010) which is the aim of this research as well.

This paper provides an exploration of the meanings, factors, resources, actors, and identities entering and influencing the process of construction and development of student identity of university students whose parents do not have a university degree. It is focused on the process of transition which is accompanied by a change in one's identity and uncertainty in one's social and cultural world (Crafter & Maunder, 2012). Theoretically anchored in a postmodern approach, identity is perceived from the perspective of social constructivist psychology (Burr, 2015; Gergen, 2009).

Within a longitudinal research design, in-depth semi-structured interviews with research participants were taken and complemented by participants choosing photographs taken by them on the topic: “What does it mean to you to be a university student?”. One to three years later, the same participants have been interviewed to find out how the process of construction of their student identity develops during their university studies. The obtained data are processed qualitatively within an interpretative framework using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022). The studied sample consists of 15 first-generation university students between 20 and 28 years of age (8 female and 7 male) attending various universities in the central and southern part of the Czech Republic and studying at different stages of their university programs, with a particular focus on students who have chosen prestigious fields of study such as medicine and law.

The empiric research study has permitted us to show the multiplicity of students' classed and gendered identities which in various ways influence and intersect with their student (even future professional) identity. Two main categories were created during the analysis of the empirical material: “academic path” and “professional orientation”. Within the first of these two, the empirical data has allowed us to explore how first-generation students resist adopting the identity of a motivated good student and create for themselves the identity of a student “on the periphery”. It has allowed as well to underline students' emphasis on their independence accompanied by the fear of failure and the effort to avoid mistakes that are influenced by the experience of success increasing confidence in one's abilities. At the same time, the construction of student identities is supported by involvement in extra-curricular activities that help them construct an identity of an advanced student who has access to insider knowledge. Last but not least, the empirical data has brought to light the importance of other actors in students' surrounding such as parents, teachers, partners, and peers who operate as sources of support in developing educational aspirations and help students in constructing their (future) student identity. The second category dealing with students' orientation to the future profession, has provided insight into students' construction of the meaning of education which is perceived by them mostly as professional training or as preparation for their future profession. Based on that students stress the importance of practice in real work situations that strengthen their identification with the field of study. Their motivation is also increased by the prospect of social mobility and higher social status. In summary, students' construction of student (and future professional) identity is affected by their uncertainty of identification and (in)compatibility of their multiple identities.

Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage. Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd edition). London: Routledge. Crafter, S., Maunder, R. (2012). Understanding transitions using a sociocultural framework. Educational and Child Psychology, 29(1), 10-18. Gergen, K. J. (2009). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Gofen, A. (2009). Family capital: How first-generation higher education students break the intergenerational cycle. Family Relations, 58, 104–120. Hündlová, L., Šmídová, M. (2020). Netradiční studenti a studentky vysokých škol: studie z šetření EUROSTUDENT VII. Praha: CSVŠ. Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 861–885. Jehangir, R. (2010). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45(4), 533–553. Lehmann, W. (2009a). Becoming middle class: How working-class university students draw and transgress moral class boundaries. Sociology, 43, 631–647. Lehmann, W. (2009b). University as vocational education: Working-class students’ expectations for university. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30, 137–149. Naylor, R., Mifsud, N. (2020). Towards a structural inequality framework for student retention and success, Higher Education Research & Development, 39:2, 259-272. OECD. (2023). Tertiary graduation rate (indicator). doi: 10.1787/15c523d3-en Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experience and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249–284. Reay, D., David, M. E., Ball, S. J. (2005). Degrees of choice: social class, race and gender in higher education. London: Trentham Book. Reay, D., Crozier, G., Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Strangers in Paradise’? Working-class Students in Elite Universities. Sociology, 43(6), 1103–1121. Soria, K. M., Stebleton, M. J., Huesman, jr., R. L. (2013). Class counts: Exploring differences in academic and social integration between working-class and middle/upper-class students at large, public research universities. J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, 15(2) 215-242. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education Berkeley, Calif. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Nontraditional Undergraduates, NCES 2002–012, by Susan Choy. Washington, DC: 2002. Yee, A. (2016). The Unwritten Rules of Engagement: Social Class Differences in Undergraduates' Academic Strategies, The Journal of Higher Education, 87:6, 831-858.