The study aims to contribute to the ongoing international discussion on FGS social integration by examining the unique and shared experiences of FGS in Russia.

Our research is grounded in the theory of social integration in higher education, which considers integration as  a key determinant of student success (Tinto, 1993). Social integration defines as the formation of friendships through positive communication, which results in social support (Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017), enhances students’ educational mobility and persistence (Hamilton & Cheng, 2018).

Existing studies confirm that some students benefit more from social integration. So for FGS it plays a crucial role in their success.. Pascarella et al. (2004) highlight its influence on developing critical thinking, writing skills, and a sense of control over academic achievements. Kuh et al. (1997) and Terenzini et al. (1996) demonstrate that classroom involvement benefits FGS more than their continuing-generation counterparts, fostering peer relationships and collaborative learning. Additionally, Stebleton et al. (2014) and Cheong et al. (2021) argue that peer communication boosts academic self-efficacy, motivation, and a sense of belonging, which, in turn, positively impact university persistence.

Despite these advantages, FGS often struggle to establish social networks (Mcdossi et al., 2022). Their reduced participation in university life leads to greater social isolation, lower retention and graduation rates (Wilbur & Roscigno, 2016), and weaker labor market entry due to lower accumulated social capital (Rivera, 2015). There are several reasons for such isolation. First, financial constraints that often force some FGS to balance work and study that leads to their reduced availability for socializing and participation in study groups (Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007). Second, individual characteristics such as study habits and GPA (Katrevich & Aruguete, 2017). Third, the differences in the backgrounds and life experiences of FGS compared to their non-FGS peers may create barriers to natural social integration (Lukina, 2023).

Research also demonstrates that in spite of the unique features of the Russian context characterized by high levels of parental involvement in children's education, specific university admission procedures, and social attitudes towards higher education in general, most results regarding FGS from other national contexts are relevant for Russia (Tarasova et al., in print). This suggests that while the ways to social integration may vary, the major challenges and benefits of social integration for FGS are consistent across different national contexts.

Thus, this study explores the differences in social integration of first-generation students (FGS) in comparison with their continuing-generation counterparts. Specifically, we investigate the factors that hinder or facilitate their ability to build social networks and establish peer relationships. The primary research question is:

How does social integration differ between first-generation students and traditional students?

Our empirical base is the longitudinal study Models of Student Educational Behavior and Their Relationship with Academic Success Indicators, conducted at nine Russian universities. The first wave took place in autumn and winter 2022, followed by a second wave in autumn and winter 2023. Data collection was conducted via Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI). The final sample consists of 1,067 respondents from seven universities, who participated in both waves. To identify FGS, we used questions about the education level of their parents (mother/stepmother and father/stepfather). Students were classified into two groups: those whose parents had no higher education and those with at least one parent holding a higher education degree. This classification was chosen based on theoretical considerations—students with at least one parent with higher education exhibit characteristics similar to those whose both parents have a higher education degree (Ishitani, 2006). In the final sample, first-generation students constitute 20% of the respondents, while the remaining 80% come from families with at least one parent holding a higher education degree. Regarding the distribution across fields of study, math major accounts for 15%, engineering for 58%, social science for 9%, and humanities for 17%. The sample consisted of 52% men and 48% women. To measure social integration, we utilized scales assessing friendship levels at university and study collaboration. These scales were developed and validated as part of the Student Behavior at University concept (Maloshonok & Vilkova, 2024). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was applied to reveal the factors of students’ social integration. Additional variables related to social integration included the number of new friends and the ability to seek help from them, as well as whether students encountered difficulties in forming friendships with their peers. In the analysis process, we first applied Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to identify the factors related to students’ social integration. Then, using the Mann-Whitney test, we examined whether there were differences in the levels of friendship and collaborative learning between FGS and non-FGS. We also used the chi-square test to identify differences in other variables. Next, to analyze the factors contributing to the social integration of different types of students, we built several linear regression models. The dependent variables were the level of friendship at the university and study collaboration. For each dependent variable, we created two separate models: one for FGS and another for traditional students with at least one parent holding a higher education degree.

PCA confirmed the factor structure in our sample, identifying two factors related to friendship and collaborative learning. Friendship refers to students forming close relationships with classmates that are not directly tied to academic activities. Study collaboration, on the other hand, involves engaging in discussions and group work with peers on course-related topics. Our findings indicate no significant differences between FGS and traditional students in terms of friendship or study collaboration. However, we found out that FGS do not perceive collaborative learning as a means of forming deep social connections. At the same time, the rise of meaningful social connection among traditional students increases the level of study collaboration. Regarding the number of friends, FGS tend to establish more friendships during their first year of study. Nevertheless, their perception of difficulty in forming these connections significantly hinders their overall social integration. At the same time, this perception of difficulty does not appear to affect friendship formation among traditional students. Building social connections seems to occur more naturally, without being influenced by concerns about the complexity of the process. This may be related to cultural differences among FGS and traditional students. FGS enter higher education as “outsiders,” unfamiliar with the norms and rules of this environment that are well known and understood by their more privileged peers (Sennett & Cobb, 1973; Lehmann, 2009). Such students may be more concerned about “not fitting in,” which, as a mindset, can indeed hinder the formation of new social connections.

Katrevich, A. V., & Aruguete, M. S. (2017). Recognizing challenges and predicting success in first-generation university students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 18(2), 40–44. Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among firstgeneration college students in the United States. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861-885. Pascarella, E.T., Pierson, C.T., Wolniak, C.G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249–284. Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences. College Student Journal, 36(1), 3-11. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wilbur, T. G., & Roscigno, V. J. (2016). First-generation Disadvantage and College Enrollment/Completion. Socius, 2. Mcdossi, O., Wright, A. L., McDaniel, A., & Roscigno, V. J. (2022). First-generation inequality and college integration. Social Science Research, 105, 102698 Rivera, Lauren A. 2015. Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Próspero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First Generation College Students: Motivation, Integration, and Academic Achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(12), 963–975. Lukina, A. (2023). Educational trajectories of first-generation students as a case of inequality in higher education. Voprosy Obrazovaniya (Educational Studies), 2023(2), 133–160.