Abstract
My experience as a first-year student at Campus motivated me to research the various student experiences of on-campus residents and commuters. The purpose of the research is to compare the experiences of students who commute and those who live on campus. The project involves doing ethnographic research to acquire the data. I told the participants—my classmates—that they would be gathering information on the subject. Over the course of seven days, I gathered data from the intended audience. Additionally, I used unstructured interviews. They conducted informal interviews with campus residents and commuters to get information on their perspectives (Bihu & Ghafoor, 2020). The price of living on and off campus was the first topic. Time, social support, health, and convenience are other topics that had an impact on home selection.
Introduction
Orientation seems to have happened yesterday. My roommate’s items were on their side of the room when I looked around after unloading my things into my designated rooms. Because I had always thought that individuals meet their greatest friends on university, I recall believing that the person would be my buddy forever. After waiting for hours, I entered the room later that afternoon to find it vacant. My roommate was gone. This caused the perspective to radically alter. I began to wonder whether living on a college campus was really for me. That evening, when I heard other students ecstatically yell, I sobbed to my mother from my bed, feeling as if I had made the wrong choice.
I didn’t start thinking about where I would find someone who would be my buddy forever until the next day when I strolled alone. Troy made a big deal out of his presence on the crowded campus, and just by being there, my loneliness vanished. Troy continues to serve as a living memory of my enjoyable time at Campus. Despite the first trying experience, the joy of finishing high school, the majesty of independence, and the sight of so many people united in their quest for knowledge kept me optimistic. It is evident from my early experience that my departure arrangement had a significant impact on my initial encounter. My desire for a roommate supports the result of Oppewal et al. (2017) that student preferences influence their living situations. The kind of residence that students want is also influenced by factors like cost and transportation (Nash & Mitra, 2019).
My experience as a first-year student at Campus motivated me to research the various student experiences of on-campus residents and commuters. The purpose of the research is to compare the experiences of students who commute and those who live on campus. It could be possible to enhance the experiences of the two student groups by being aware of the difficulties they confront, which would increase the number of students attending Campus. Why do students commute or reside on campus will be clarified by the research. How commuters’ and on-campus residents’ experiences influence students’ life at the school will be another topic of discussion.
Literature Review
The social lives of students have a significant influence on their academic success. Their decisions are influenced by a range of societal concerns, including work and financial circumstances. Thus, the variables have an impact on their decisions. Burnside et al. (2019) investigated the impact of student employment on college life. Their financial position is improved by working as students. Researchers Dumford et al. (2019) looked at how living arrangements and roommates affect students. The authors found that living on campus was linked to improved performance. The authors ascribed the outcome to on-campus residents having access to benefits such as the library and peer dialogues that commuters did not have. The living conditions have an impact on how pupils feel like they belong. For example, according to Dumford et al. (2019), first-year students who lived distance from their school felt less connected to it and less like they belonged. People who remained in the institution, however, reported greater peer belonging.
Derrico (2020) looked into how remaining on campus affected students’ perseverance and performance as well as their goals with regard to housing arrangements. In order to increase equity and educational outcomes, universities should encourage on-campus residence, according to Derrico (2020). However, a lack of finances and other circumstances make it difficult for institutions to provide accommodation to all students. The selection of universities and decision to remain are also influenced by living situations. Derrico (2020) found that people’s choice of campus was influenced by the commute time and the availability of on-campus housing, while Cathcart-Rake et al. (2021) found the same thing.
The obstacles faced by commuter students and on-campus students vary due to the many circumstances that influence each group differently. The conflict theory is one idea that has been extensively researched and is used to explain inequality (Campbell, 2021). One group benefits more than others from the fight among students to obtain the educational and other resources provided on campus (Simpson & Burnett, 2019). Researchers investigate historical and functional elements that could affect people’s access to resources while using the idea. Conflicts define human interaction and affect communication, performance, and other consequences. These conflicts are a result of systemic power imbalances and the few resources that individuals must fight for access.
To analyze the disparities between groups, the conflict theory, especially the critical theory, may be applied. The ideas look for reasons for societal unfairness. The issue of unequal access to resources by groups in society is social injustice. Campbell (2021) criticized the conflict theory used by social justice advocates. Conflict theory, according to Campbell (2021), examines how people try to dominate one another. Additionally, he describes the four presumptions that must be made in order to apply the theory. Campbell (2021) argues that civilizations include individuals whose goals diverge. Conflicts have zero-sum outcomes, which often entail one side winning and the other losing. As a result, the dominant group defeats the minority group. Stakeholders must enact significant reforms in order to promote social fairness. Karl Marx used this idea to further his critique of capitalism, as the author demonstrates. For instance, when capitalists and their workers battle, the capitalists always come out on top. As a result, the theory may be utilized to explain comparable circumstances, such as the performance gaps between various student groups that are faced with various difficulties.
From a conflict viewpoint, several scholars have looked at the many causes of inequality. For instance, Davies (2003) outlined a number of reasons that lead to conflicts, and the dominant groups prosper at the cost of the less fortunate group. For instance, classism and economic considerations may lead to disputes between groups. Minority populations, for instance, must deal with obstacles including inadequate transportation and health concerns in school environments, among other things that negatively impact them. The privileged groups are likewise impacted by the causes, but since the consequences are often less severe, they end up winning. Decisions are impacted by elements like social mobility and insufficient opportunity. As a result, a student may base their decisions about where to study, where to live, and what to study on their financial situation. As a result, commuters may encounter challenges throughout their college years that on-campus students do not, and they may also do worse academically and in athletics. Among other issues, commuters struggle with money, transit, and time constraints.
One viewpoint on the significance of education in civilizations is provided by functionalism. Because of the institutions, individuals are more competitive in their society and have higher levels of literacy. Collins (1971) outlined how conflict and functional views might aid researchers in comprehending the intricate connections between conflicts and education. For instance, some kids are more privileged than others due to issues like violence and a lack of resources. The author also discusses the value of education to society and the reasons why individuals pursue it. The conflict theory also demonstrates how people’s cultures may restrict or support their educational objectives. For instance, pupils’ performance is impacted by health concerns and financial challenges.
Another viewpoint that academics have used to analyze how individuals interact with societies and the meanings they give to events and things is symbolic interactionism. According to Lindqvist et al. (2021), the idea may be used to deal with disputes that emerge between tutors and their pupils in the classroom as well as between the two groups’ members. The hypothesis, according to the authors, may be used to explain how on-campus encounters with norms and events are perceived by students and instructors. Students, for instance, see their homes as havens and university settings as locations where academic achievement may be found (Lindqvist et al., 2021). As a result, how they perceive the numerous events and locations in their collegiate contexts influences how they cope. The meanings that students assign to their experiences and settings can influence their reactions. The sense of helplessness, feeling inadequate, and bad relationships with others in the educational institutions are some of the factors that present in the educational environment and need that students learn to manage. Depending on how they perceive the differences between the home and university settings, students may decide to commute or live on campus. For instance, while being aware of the drawbacks, students may decide to commute because they see their homes as havens due of the presence of family members. The present study’s hypothesis will be used to examine how people’s choices of where to live while attending college may be influenced by various individual experiences, interactions, and symbol interpretations in the campus and home environments.
The two sociological viewpoints provide many methods through which social scientists might investigate social interactions and occurrences. The viewpoints will aid the authors in understanding how students see their homes and campus settings and how this affects how they choose where to reside in the present study. Additionally, symbolic interactionism will demonstrate how students’ choice of residence on campus serves as a coping mechanism. The viewpoints will also aid in choosing the appropriate qualitative techniques.
Methods
The project involves doing ethnographic research to acquire the data. Because I could readily get information on their everyday college life at college, using an ethnographic technique was practical and effective for the research. I immersed myself in the student population to collect the data required to solve the study topic. Students who commute and those who reside on campus both attend my class. To gather information on the experiences of the students, I also employed participant observation (PO) and unstructured interviews.
I told the participants—my classmates—that they would be gathering information on the subject. Typically, researchers must decide whether to use overt or covert participant observation. With covert PO, the researcher gathers information covertly. As a result, after integrating into the community, the researcher gathers data without informing the society being studied. The method’s drawback is that it makes it hard to gather more data after the trial. On the other side, overt observation entails the researcher letting the group know up front that they will be gathering data (Hockey & Forsey, 2020; Spring, 2020). It is simpler for researchers to gather data afterwards since the overt form of participant observation involves more openness.
Over the course of seven days, I gathered data from the intended audience. Their classmates were the study group. On days when lectures started at eight, I made care to be there before everyone else to gauge when different students would come. In order to better understand my classmates and their struggles, I also engaged in talks and other campus activities with them. On the numerous problems affecting the kids, he made notes. For instance, in the evenings, I was able to gather information on their struggles with fare, time, and other constraints by strolling and talking with commuting and on-campus students.
Additionally, I used unstructured interviews. They conducted interviews with campus residents and commuters to get information on their experiences (Bihu & Ghafoor, 2020). What difficulties do you have as a commuter or a student living on campus? I also asked the participants why they commuted and how much it cost them to do so. I also took down the responses from each participant before compiling the information for analysis.
Analysis of Data
Costs of Living
Data were collected in two sets. The first set was from the semi-structured interviews conducted, and the second was for the participant observation. The data from the semi-structured interviews were grouped into the various themes that came up. The first theme was the cost of living. For instance, one of the interviewees was a 20-year-old sociology student who commuted daily to attend lectures. According to her, the main reason for choosing to come from home to the campus daily is that she thought her home was relatively close and that she wanted to save her parents’ money. Therefore, she was dropped by her father, who was an employee close to the campus. Out of the eight interviewees who commuted that I interviewed, five responded that it was less costly for them to live at home than stay on campus. Costs were also a prominent issue about why students stayed on campus. All 12 participants thought that staying on campus was less costly. Staying on campus did not come with the need to travel every day. The costs were especially a serious issue for those whose homes were far from the campus. For them staying in-campus presented the most cost-effective decision that they had. Costs were a very common theme, especially because movement is associated with costs. The findings on cost agree with Davies (2003), who argued that economic factors affected people’s choices in universities.
Social Support from Families
Four participants thought staying home enabled them to meet their families daily. Therefore, they chose to commute to study while living with their parents and siblings. Convenience was another reason for commuting. The reasons students commute from home can be understood using symbolic interactionism (Lindqvist et al., 2021). The theory applies to parents who may prefer their children to stay at home and commute and students who choose to commute and meet their families daily. Living at home is associated with the warmth of families. Therefore, students may stay at home to feel the care and warmth of being with siblings and parents. Staying on campus allows people to interact with scholars and peers (Leung et al., 2021). Hence, it allows them to discuss and generate knowledge during their interactions on campus. Seeking social support from home rather than peers on campus can be explained by the fact that students who see the campus mostly as a center of academic excellence and their homes as warm may prefer to go home after their classes where they meet their families.
Convenience
All the participants who were interviewed said that the distance between their homes or their hosts’ homes and the campus was small. Therefore, it was manageable for them to commute. The participants thought that they could stay home and come to the campus when they had lectures so that they could enjoy both the benefits of being at home and college at the same it. Those who chose to reside on campus thought it more convenient. Twelve of the interviewees stayed on campus. They thought living within the campus worked for them because it allowed them to be around the needed resources. For instance, one 22-year-old claimed that living within the institution allowed them to go to the library until late when it was closed at night. According to her staying at home would not allow her to continue with her study culture. Therefore, even though her home was several miles away, she chose to stay at the Campus campus to have minimal disruptions and utilize resources like the housing, library, and fields for her academic and unacademic needs. The finding agrees with the conclusions of Dumford et al. (2019), who found that the campus settings allow people to access resources that commuters do not access equally and are therefore disadvantaged.
Health issues
Another theme that came up was health. Two of the interviewees commuted because of health issues. It was easy for them to get social support from families and visit their physicians because of their illnesses while in college. Despite the idea that being at home was good for health among commuters, those who stayed also thought staying was good for their health because of their accessibility to the healthcare facility on the campus (Campus University, 2023; Moore et al., 2021). for instance, during the participant observation, I observed three students with chronic illnesses who utilized the campus health centers for their health benefits. The findings agree with conflict theory’s assumption that people usually live with strained resources and struggle to get them. Therefore, people strive to live where they can access healthcare more conveniently.
Time
One factor that the place of residence affected is lecture attendance and time. I observed the commuters and the students who stayed on campus. In the seven days that the observation happened, the eight commuters I observed were likelier to be late than non-commuters. Three out of the commuters were late to class at least twice. Commuters also left campus earlier. For instance, one commuter usually left the campus immediately after classes unless they had a group assignment. Therefore, they had lower chances of benefitting from the available resources. Considering time can be explained by both conflict and functionalism theories. The residences in school allow students to access their education easily (Hughes & Gove, 1981). Hence, on-campus dwellers enroll for on-campus housing to benefit from the function of the housing and the closeness to lecture halls and other resources that are located on campus.
Conclusion
Students’ academic and extracurricular activities are affected differentially by campus experiences outside of lecture rooms, such as housing options and resource availability. The study’s goal was to learn the aspects students took into account while deciding where to reside and how those decisions influenced their performance. The information gathered revealed five key topics. Time, health, expense of life, social assistance, and health were among the issues. Additionally, the majority of students who live on campus felt that it relieved some of the pressure that came with the five variables. Due to health concerns and for social support, commuters choose to remain at home the majority of the time when the distance was small. Why do students commute or reside on campus will be clarified by the research. How commuters’ and on-campus residents’ experiences effect students’ life at the school will be another topic of discussion. The research provides an explanation for the recent sharp decline in campus enrollment as well as reveals how students weigh personal preferences when deciding where to live throughout their time on campus. Applying conflict theories and symbolic interactionism, the research takes a sociological approach to concerns surrounding student housing. Future research must concentrate on particular elements including time, health, and the effects of off-campus living on students. The research was instructive, although it only included one university and had a tiny sample size. Therefore, to assure accurate findings, larger research should incorporate multiple campuses.
References
Bihu, R., & Ghafoor, A. (2020). Using unstructured interviews in educational and social science research: The process, opportunity, and difficulty. GSJ, 8(10).
Burnside, O., Wesley, A., Wesaw, A., & Parnell, A. (2019). Employing Student Success: A Comprehensive Examination of On-Campus Student Employment. NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED605714
Campbell, B. (2021). Social justice and sociological theory. Society, 58(5), 355-364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-021-00625-4
Cathcart-Rake, W., Fowler, B., & Brown, C. (2021). Medical School Campus Choice: Factors Influencing a Student’s Decision to Attend a Rural Regional Medical Campus. Journal of Regional Medical Campuses, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.24926/jrmc.v4i2.3695
Collins, R. (1971). Functional and conflict theories of educational stratification. American sociological review, 1002-1019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2093761
Davies, L. (2003). Education and conflict: Complexity and chaos. https://www.routledge.com/Education-and-Conflict-Complexity-and-Chaos/Davies/p/book/9780415304245
Derrico, C. M. H. (2020). Thriving on Campus: The Role of Residency Type in First-Year College Students’ Intent to Persist (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University). https://www.proquest.com/openview/5debff5031ced15d233e1c34a5ddeb26/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Dumford, A. D., Ribera, A. K., & Miller, A. L. (2019). Where and with Whom Students Live: Impacts on Peer Belonging and Institutional Acceptance. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 46(1).
Hockey, J., & Forsey, M. (2020). Ethnography is not participant observation: Reflections on the interview as participatory qualitative research. In The Interview (pp. 69-87). Routledge.
Hughes, M., & Gove, W. R. (1981). Living alone, social integration, and mental health. American Journal of Sociology, 87(1), 48–74. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/227419
Humphreys, M., & Watson, T. J. (2009). Ethnographic practices: from ‘writing-up ethnographic research to ‘writing ethnography’. Organizational Ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life, pp. 40–55.
Jamshed, S. (2014). Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Journal of Basic and clinical pharmacy, 5(4), 87. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4194943/
Leung, C. W., Farooqui, S., Wolfson, J. A., & Cohen, A. J. (2021). Understanding the cumulative burden of basic needs insecurities: associations with health and academic achievement among college students. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(2), 275-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120946210
Lindqvist, H., Weurlander, M., Wernerson, A., & Thornberg, R. (2019). Boundaries as a coping strategy: emotional labor and relationship maintenance in distressing teacher education situations. European Journal of Teacher Education, 42(5), 634-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1652904
Moore, H. P., Carswell, A. T., Worthy, S., & Nielsen, R. (2019). Residential satisfaction among college students: Examining high‐end amenity student housing. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 47(3), 260-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12298
Nash, S., & Mitra, R. (2019). University students’ transportation patterns, and the role of neighborhood types and attitudes. Journal of transport geography, 76, 200-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.03.013
Oppewal, H., Poria, Y., Ravenscroft, N., & Speller, G. (2017). Student preferences for university accommodation: An application of the stated preference approach. Housing, space, and quality of life, 113–124.
Ploder, A., & Hamann, J. (2021). Practices of ethnographic research: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 50(1), 3-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241620979100
Reeves, S., Peller, J., Goldman, J., & Kitto, S. (2013). Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80. Medical teacher, 35(8), e1365-e1379. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977
Simpson, D. B., & Burnett, D. (2019). Commuters versus residents: The effects of living arrangement and student engagement on academic performance. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(3), 286–304.
Spring, J. (2020). Participant observation and the visibility of learning: Optimising methods for researching free-choice learning at visitor attractions. In CAUTHE 2020: 20: 20 Vision: New Perspectives on the Diversity of Hospitality, Tourism and Events: New Perspectives on the Diversity of Hospitality, Tourism, and Events (pp. 172-178). Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University of Technology. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/INFORMIT.046917840254600
write