NICHE: Navigating Institutional Constraints in Higher Education – Strategic Admissions, Market Niches, and the Social Dynamics of Access at Durham University

Abstract

This thesis investigates Durham University’s centralised undergraduate admissions policy, introduced in 2019 as a strategic response to market and policy pressures for increased widening participation. Framed within theories of Organisational Ecology and The Blau Space, the research explores how elite institutions like Durham are positioned and maintained within a social niche by their audience.

The study analyses 229,217 undergraduate applications made to Durham between 2010 and 2023, drawn from UCAS Provider Extract (PERS) records. These include applicant demographics, contextual flags, predicted grades, and acceptance decisions. Data cleaning excluded incomplete records, overseas applicants, and Covid-affected entry years to ensure comparability. Using multivariate logistic regression and a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) approach, the research evaluates the effects of the 2019 policy on application, offer, and acceptance patterns, controlling for socioeconomic background, ethnicity, and school type.

Findings show that since the introduction of centralised admissions, contextual applicants have become significantly more likely to receive offers and slightly more likely to enter Durham. However, these effects are uneven across departments, and firm-choice acceptance rates remain largely unchanged. Some departments, particularly those designated as “selecting,” continue to present barriers for contextual applicants. Moreover, while more offers are made, contextual students are increasingly placing Durham as an insurance option rather than a first choice, limiting the reform’s overall impact on the entrant pool.

While centralisation improved procedural fairness and institutional coherence, it did not alter the social forces shaping applicant behaviour. Durham remains a selective, high-status institution that attracts—and is perceived as catering to—students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and independent schools.

Limitations of this research include incomplete contextual flag data, self-reporting errors around socio-economic status, and the subjectivity of departmental classifications. The study demonstrates that although contextual admissions aim to advance social mobility, student choices rooted in unwritten social codes can sustain elite reproduction, counteracting operational reform. It concludes that widening participation policy must address the social logics of choice, demanding a re-evaluation of metrics and genuinely attainable goals.