This review provides a critical appraisal of the measurement of students’ social class and socioeconomic status (SES) in the context of widening higher education participation. Most assessments of social class and SES in higher education have focused on objective measurements based on the income, occupation, and education of students’ parents, and they have tended to overlook diversity among students based on factors such as age, ethnicity, indigeneity, and rurality. However, recent research in psychology and sociology has stressed the more subjective and intersectional nature of social class. The authors argue that it is important to consider subjective self-definitions of social class and SES alongside more traditional objective measures. The implications of this dual measurement approach for higher education research are discussed.

The proportion of higher education students with disability is increasing. We know there is institutional variation in retention and performance of higher education students with disability, and there is a need to understand the reasons for this. This exploratory national study examines supports and adjustments provided by universities, including the role of disability practitioners, influence retention and performance of students with disability. The study uses a mixed-methods approach. National equity retention and performance data are analysed by higher education institution. Qualitative data on institutional policies and practices collected from a purposive sample of Australian higher education institutions are then analysed. Findings from the study include identification of factors linked to retention and performance of students with disability, including different types of disability.

In her recent contribution to the British Educational Research Journal, Pauline McClenaghan identified the link between social capital and community development, particularly community development education, as a core area where scholarly and policy interests overlap. She concluded that the concept of social capital is unable to grapple with the complex social divisions that characterise contemporary Europe. The authors of this article question her account on three main grounds: the definition of social capital, which they hold is overly narrow, and does not deal with what Woolcock calls the ‘linking’ role of social networks; the presentation of the theoretical foundations of community development, which they believe is flawed in certain key respects; and a lack of clarity in the relationship between the research and the findings reported. The authors then present their own theoretically informed account of social capital as a means of understanding the role of community development, the challenges that it can face and the role of adult education for community development.

This paper presents the results of a large Australia‐wide survey which collected farm financial information and information about changes to farm‐management practices, as well as information about education and training, and a smaller survey of farmers who attended one of three training courses for farmers. The paper considers the relationship between education and training outcomes at macro and micro levels. At the macro level, education and training as well as prompts for change are considered, while at the micro level the influence of training on changes to practice is examined. Education and training enhance farmers’ ability and willingness to make successful changes to their management practice. The training program is generally only one of several factors which influence participants to make changes in their practice. Training events are opportunities for interaction between participants and with expert trainers. This interaction assists in altering values and attitudes toward new practices.