LSE GROUPS

for undergraduate students

 

An immersive, engaging and unique learning experience [for] students.

Between 2011 and 2025, LSE undergraduates were invited to join LSE GROUPS, a two-week full-time research experience at the close of the academic year.  

LSE GROUPS places students from different degree programmes to choose a question to investigate, and design and carry out a whole small-scale research project. Groups write  an academic paper in just two weeks, and present their findings at a conference on the final day.

"Freedom to choose what to study. Greater independence. Learning by doing. More contact time than undergraduate studies!" 

‘LSE GROUPS was the key factor that drove me to pursue my own research with an undergraduate dissertation, so thank you very much for your work on that project and for providing me with my first opportunity to conduct academic research!’

'I felt stuck in my box. LSE GROUPS allowed out-of-the-box thinking which I’ll carry everywhere.'

LSE GROUPS 2015 - Visions for the future

Our theme in 2025 was visions for the future. 

How will AI, new technologies and innovation shape our societies? How will we confront the global challenges of climate change and inequality? And, after an historic year of elections, will our political reality change?

LSE GROUPS 2025 conference - final programme

Group 1: You, me ... and AI: The impact of AI on romantic interpersonal relationships

Emma Lidzey, Riona Wiles, Preksha Bhansali, Suchir Joshi, Shantanu Shukla, Vishal RR, Odi Aneji

Group 2: Knowing but not acting: Exploring the disconnect between environmentalism and AI consumption

Vrinda Parekh, Suha Farook, Satyasree Vangoor, Mahira Haque, Phool Ashraf, Charikleia Giagkozoglou, Vera Povaiah 

Group 3: Fading Green Trust: To what extent does a political candidate's stance on sustainability influence the voting preferences of university students in London?

Cecília Zamboti Pessoa, Dharma Couture, Francesca Carol Mossa, Jianggaowa Zhu, Laliythkumar Saravanan, Hayashi Shinichiro

Group 4: Entry Granted, Future Denied: How have changes in UK visa policies from 2024 onwards affected thejob prospects and employment experiences of international students?

Cherry Chen, Coco Du, Jiayi Li, Sarah Onifade, Hitaarth Rahejaand Atticus Stephenson.

Group 5: Mobile Finance and Food Security: Evaluating the Positive Externalities of M-PESA in Kenya

Alexandre Trad, Ananya Bhushan, Junhao Yang, Sebastian Higuera-Milenov,Siqi Chen, Yunhan Wang

Winner: Most impressive methodological rigor, and popular prize

Group 6: Deepfakes On Trial: A Mixed-methods Study of Student Perceptions and Regulatory Concerns about Non-consensual Deepfakes

Anastasiya Popelo, Ann Yi Ngai, Hana Reid, Hanbhin Seon, Cezara-Teona Zaharia

Winner: Most persuasive delivery

Group 7: An “Island of Strangers"? Effects of the Anti-immigrant Rhetoric on the Well-being of International Students at LSE

Manan Agrawal, Raphael Del Aguila, Amal Khan, Rory Merritt-Shears, Xin Yi Mu

Group 8: From Tweets to Tomorrow: The Effectiveness of Reform UK’s X Presence and Its Implications for Future UK Populist Electoral Strategy

Maya Townley, Jaiveer Singh Madan, Karam Khanna, Wen Juin Ng, Quincy Jules Tan, Hanbing Chen

Winner: Most creative and ambitious project

Group 9: Closer to Washington, Further from Paris: Does Alignment with the US affect Countries’ Green Investment post US-Praxit?

Leena Safareeni, Aahan Kandoth, Dante D¨orr, Yun Xi Simone Lim, Daria Zorina, Yong Xin Chai

Winner: Best paper

Group 10: Donating Left, Polluting Right? The Impact of Corporate Political Leanings on Environmental Performance

Abraham Tharakan, Avinash Mysore, Heison Cheng Hei Chan,Hui Kong, Siyu Lu, Sudha Jagatheesh Jayanand, Zixi Wang

 

LSE GROUPS 2024 - Power and politics

Our theme in 2024 was power and politics. What’s happening in this political moment, and why? How can we use social science tools to investigate? How does power operate, within the political arena and beyond it? Is power in London and the UK more ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’?  

 LSE GROUPS 2024 final programme 

Student research papers

Group 1

'Men talk about roads'  The Relationship Betwen Gender and Budget Allocation in Local Politics in England and Wales

Carola Ducco, Su Yesildere, Khushi Vajpeyi, Aahan Kandoth, Rowan Miller and Jiner Dai

Winner: Most creative and ambitious project

Group 2

Strings Attached: A Cross-National Analysis of Aid Conditionality and Regime Type in Sub-Saharan Africa

Imane Belrhiti, Cheng Hei Chan, Aidan Cross, Ziyu Huang, Shutian Li, Akhmet Maidan and Mariam Sardzhveladze

 

 

Group 3

People, Perception and Protest: A mixed-method study of student perspectives at the London School of Economics

Amber Amir, Arjun Rajan, Ayaan Haneef, Irini Saha, Wan Yi Lim, James Farrow and Riyaa Agarwal 

Winner: Most persuasive delivery, and popular vote

Group 5

Power to the students? An Intergenerational Study of Perceptions of Poitical Agency at the LSE

Chengyilin Ye, Daniel Piper, Ellie Flaherty, Stefania Filipaviciute, Vivien Kos and Yuki Kimura

 

 

 

Group 6

 

(Non)-Belonging to india: Investigating the Impact of BJP's Populist Discourse on Sense of National Identity in Students at LSE

Nandita Rohit Mulay, Joy Zihan, Derin Bohaci, Mahira Haque and Myroslava Kondrashova

 

Group 7

 

Battles Beyond Borders: Investigating the Effect of the US-China Trade War on Favourability of Trump

Priyadarshan Logeswaran, Oli Kowalska Ahmed, Sophie Hau Yin Fung, Leena Safareeni, Linxuan Wang and Yilin Wang

Winner: Most impressive methodological rigor

Group 8

 

Polls and Profits: An Analysis of Share Price Performance of Companies Funding Winning US Presidential Parties

Flore Charbit, Hong Li, Shiqi Chen, Jessie Fung, Hassan Duffaydar and Leon Madakbas

Winner: Best paper

 

 

 

LSE GROUPS 2023 - Connections

The theme for GROUPS in 2023 was connections

It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one destiny, affects all indirectly.” 
― Martin Luther King Jr. 

Student research papers

Group 1:

'The North Remembers': Comparing student perceptions of public transport services in the Midlands and the North of England to London

Vi Epshtein, Chen Yan Hao, Songting Huang, Valli Vasanth and Asmitha Yakkala 

Group 2:

Determining Factors in Friendship Group Formation: A Mixed Method Study on Undergraduates in London

Daniel Halm Alvarez, Lamisa Chowdhury, Sumayya Manji, Amaan Shamsi and Qianrui Zeng

Group 3:

Digital Dating: the impact of dating apps on the experience and perceptions of social connection and relationships among LSE students

Mahliqa Ali, Harry Quantrill, Yuxin Sheng, Jessica Squibb, Linxuan Wang and Yu Han Wang

Group 4:

What us the impact of social media on public perceptions of veganism? - A mixed method study

Kyumin Lee, Mohamed Ahmad Mughal and Maya Townley

Group 5:

LinkedIn, the new Instagram? Assessing the increasing non-professional use of the social media platform amongst LSE students 

Azeem Ahmed, Janset An, Edward Bowles, Crystal Hardy and Yiting (Joyce) Lee

Winner: Best presentation

Group 6:

Beyond code: Unpacking the impact of Generative AI on student interpersonal dynamics in Higher Education

Adam Ahmed-Mekky, Jiarui Cao, Yunyan Huang, Tian Jin and Qianyi Zeng 

Group 7:

Mind the Perception Gap: LSE Community's Perceptions and Experiences of Crime in the London Underground

Yisheng Deng, Yunfei Feng, Devya Goenka, Arjun sanghera, Jianing Shao and Navin Vithana

Group 8:

Web of lies: An experimental exploration of the effect of in-person social connections on misinformation

Daniel Seymour, Hagan Alford, Khushi Vajpeyi, Max Rosenfeld and Weixiao Guo

Winner: Popular prize

Group 9:

Trust nobody: To what extent does interpersonal trust correlate to the interest in and action of Cryptocurrency investment? 

Cai Hui Lien, Gracie Coulwill, Hei Tong Tang, Jiaxi Hu, Prachi Pachisia and Shanaya Kapoor

Winner: Best paper

LSE GROUPS 2022 - Resilience and London's 'new normal'

Our theme in 2022 was resilience and London’s 'new normal'. How can a city, an industry, or a community be resilient? After times of crisis, what stays stable, and what changes?

Student research papers

Group 1:

United we Stand, Divided we Fall?: Analysing the atomization of British society across World War I and the COVID-19 Pandemic 

Group 3:

The Race to Recover: Exploring the factors affecting the economic resilience of different ethnicities during the COVID-19 pandemic in London

Group 4:

No New Normal: A Quantitative Study of the Resilience of Support for Climate Policy Among London Students in the Face Of Rising Living Costs

Group 6:

#ShutdownLockdown: Compliance or Non-Compliance? A mixed/multi-method analysis of decreasing tendencies to comply with lockdown restrictions in the UK

Winner: Best paper

Group 7:

She-Cession or She-Covery? The impact of COVID-19 on the gender wage gap in industries using different work modes (hybrid or in-person) in the UK

Group 8:

How do traits of introversion or extroversion influence the adaptation of LSE students to online learning?

Winner: Popular prize

Group 10:

To Strike or Not to Strike? Industrial Action and Workplace Resilience: Evidence from the LSE 

Group 11:

The Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on diversity in friendship groups: negative effects of COVID restrictions on LSE students

Winner: Best presentation

Group 12:

Experiencing London’s Digital Divide: An analysis of online learning among different socio-economic groups during the pandemic

 

LSE GROUPS 2019 - The future of work

Our theme in 2019 was the future of work. From night-bus commuting to universal basic income, how does labour (or the lack of it) shape our lives? 

 

GROUPS 2019 research papers

 

Group 1

GROUPS 2019 - Group 1 research paper

How will online platforms facilitating the gig economy shape the UK healthcare sector in the near future?

Group 2

GROUPS 2019 - Group 2 research paper

Cracking the enigma of the hidden labour market: an analysis of the role of social and professional networking sites in the job-seeking process.

Winner: Best presentation and popular vote

 

Group 3

GROUPS 2019 - Group 3 research paper

The Interplay of Ageing Population and ICT.

Group 4

GROUPS 2019 -  Group 4 research paper

Work hard – Play hard: The meritocratic narrative amongst London undergraduates.

Group 5

GROUPS 2019 - Group 5 research paper

Minds at Work: How can a universal basic income alleviate mental health problems caused by automation and work in the gig economy?

Group 6

GROUPS 2019 - Group 6 research paper

The STEM transition gap in the UK: Why women opt out of STEM careers after graduation?

Group 7

GROUPS 2019 - Group 7 research paper

Training for the Future: A Sector-Based Approach to the Analysis of the Relationship Between Automation and Training.

Group 8

GROUPS 2019 - Group 8 research paper

Gig it yourself: The impact of gig work on incidence of training cost in Australia, 2001-2017.

Group 9

GROUPS 2019 - Group 9 research paper

Survival of the Fittest: Artificial Selection in Recruitment How does the increasing use of artificial intelligence in the recruitment process influence candidate experience and behaviour?

Group 10

GROUPS 2019 - Group 10 research paper

Relationship between the share of women GPs and patient satisfaction: a case for gender equality∗ in the future healthcare workplace.

Winner: Best paper

 

LSE GROUPS 2018 - Belongings

 This year’s theme was Belongings, a topic which touched on ownership, allegiance, place and identity. 

 

Stairwell collective shot - final dayIMG_9216 v3

GROUPS 2018 research papers

 

IMG_20180608_150912

 GROUPS 2018 - Group 1 research paper

Happy to be somewhere in the middle? Belonging among second-generation Chinese immigrants in London 

Winner: Best presentation

 

IMG_20180608_150759_1

GROUPS 2018 - Group 2 research paper

Crossrail in the counties: a case study of place identity in Brentwood, Essex.

 

IMG_20180608_150842

GROUPS 2018 - Group 3 research paper

 ‘They know me, they know me not’: investigating the influence of departments on student sense of belonging to LSE

 

IMG_9195

GROUPS 2018 - Group 4 research paper 

Munching your way to integration: the making of a diverse community at LSE

Winner: Best paper

 

IMG_20180608_151011

GROUPS 2018 - Group 5 research paper 

Hello loneliness my old friend: exploring factors affecting loneliness at LSE

Winner: Popular vote

IMG_20180608_111620

GROUPS 2018 - Group 6 research paper 

Expectations vs reality: a comparative study of the LSE’s discourse and students’ perspectives on the LSE community

 

IMG_9182

GROUPS 2018 - Group 7 research paper 

“It’s about loving Chinese”: Exploring the impact of language on Chinese students’ sense of national identity

 

IMG_9181

GROUPS 2018 - Group 8 research paper 

An investigation into the mismatch between self-identity and stereotypical image of affiliated LSE department

 

 

LSE GROUPS 2017-18 - Beveridge 2.0

The theme for 2017-18 (an additional GROUPS opportunity, conducted during term-time) was Beveridge 2.0.

In 1942, the Beveridge Report scrutinised British society, and laid the foundation for the welfare state. The report identified five dangerous ‘giants’: Poverty, Squalor, Idleness, Ignorance and Disease. Seventy-five years later, are the giants still strong? Is the welfare state the best way to defeat them?

Findings were shared at a concluding conference.

 

 

LSE GROUPS 2017 - Uncertainty

The 2017 theme was uncertainty. How can social scientists study change and instability? How do individuals and communities live with uncertainty? 

2017 Conference Programme 

Student research papers

Group 1 - To Gamble or Not to Gamble:  An empirical research into LSE students’ risk-taking behaviour and their performance on negatively-marked MCQs in EC102 exam 

Winner: Best presentation and popular vote

Group 2 - Too little too late, useless words? An Analysis of the Impact UK Threat Levels have on the Public Perception of their Safety

Group 3 -  Public perceptions amongst Londoners following terrorist attacks in the UK in early 2017

Group 4 -  Heuristics, Uncertainty and Terrorism; Estimations of the Likelihood of Fatality due to Terrorist Events -  Do people overestimate the likelihood of fatality due to terrorist events?

Group 5 - Fear and Anger: How does the emotionalisation of news reports affect perceptions of terrorism risk?

Group 6 -  Apprentices of automation: adapting career paths to ever-smarter machines  

Winner: Best paper

Group 7 -  To Vote or not to Vote: Does uncertainty in public opinion affect political engagement in US Presidential elections?

Group 8 -  Brexit matters? Different Brexit Scenarios’ Impact on Undergraduates’ Decision to Pursue Postgraduate Study in the UK

Group 9 - The Truth Behind Fake News: Insights into the perceived trustworthiness of news and its link to policy decisions

Group 10 -  Brick-and-Mortar Barriers:  The Impact of Uncertainty Avoidance on Purchase Probability under Personalized Pricing

Group 11 - #Hashtags and Bullets: Mapping Citizen Journalism and unarmed U.S. Police Shootings

Group 12 -  All lime and salt, no tequila: questioning the impact of Trumpian uncertainty on Mexico’s economy

LSE GROUPS 2016 - Poverty and inequality in London

The theme in 2016 was poverty and inequality in London.

The LSE GROUPS project ‘Hipsters and spikes: mapping gentrification and defensive architecture inTower Hamlets’ won the Booth prize at the LSE Research Festival. 

Have a look at a film that we commissioned to document the experience of students who took part in GROUPS in 2016: 

 

Student paper abstracts  

Group 1 - Inequality in elite places: The experience of routine workers at the LSE 

Bashir Ali, Nadim Choudhury, Laura Ehrich, Jinchong Ho, Haowei Li, Reyss Wheeler

This paper explores the experiences of non-academic support staff at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). There has been much research on low paid workers in London, but this research paper seeks to outline whether the working environment has an impact on one’s perspective of the inequality they face. The LSE is an interesting institution to study in this respect, as it exudes immense privilege, yet maintains a strong verbal commitment to equality and has in the past been held to account for falling short of this commitment. Since the work of front-line, manual labour staff is often rendered invisible, at a prestigious institution like the LSE, they often become the face of the inequality. Surveys and on-campus ethnographic observations of LSE’s cleaning, catering, security and other support staff were used to inform in-depth interviews. Our findings suggest that staff are generally satisfied in their working environment and with their pay. The majority do not express feelings of inequality - but there may be issues about work hierarchies and inclusion. Some suggestions for how the LSE can further improve the experience of its lowest-paid staff will be put forward.

Group 2 - Displacement and disenchantment: a longitudinal analysis of social housing provision in Earl’s Court

Hari Chitnavis, Hanumanth Karri, Helen Broad

This paper proves that there has been a statistically significant decrease in social housing in Earl’s Court over the past 15 years, particularly in relation to the rest of London. Additionally, through qualitative analysis, this study finds considerable evidence of potential future displacement of social housing tenants due to the Earl’s Court Regeneration Scheme. We conclude that a reduction in social housing is due to a lack of availability not a lack of need with regards to social housing. Our results are indicative of a mismanaged social housing system, which has led to distrust and social tension between local authorities and community members. Under proposed regeneration schemes, the wait for new “affordable” housing to be completed would force current social housing tenants to leave due to lack of feasible interval housing. This leads to an increase in people looking toward private rented housing which only further lowers their income after rental payments, causing them to fall further into poverty. Earl’s Court is a present day example of such circumstances.

Group 3 - Overcoming educational inequality: An examination of the perceptions of Teach First

Jessica Pandian, Rachel Lim Pei Yi, Mohamed Hidayat Al Rahman, Jivan Navani, Puneet Minocha, Yun Zhang

This paper explores third-party attempts to alleviate educational inequality in London by focusing on the Teach First scheme. To provide a background of the rationale behind Teach First, a review of the existing literature on the relationship between education and poverty was carried out. In addition, visual analysis of the scheme’s promotional material as well as in-depth semi-structured interviews with current applicants were conducted. This enables the critical analysis and comparison of the perceptions of the Teach First scheme and the realities experienced by those who have applied and/or have taught with the initiative. Our results suggest that potential teachers in the Teach First scheme perceive it as being conducive to achieving educational equality. However, the largely selfinterested and non-altruistic motivations of our participants illustrate the disparity between the aims and reality of Teach First. Moreover, the underlying factors that contribute to educational inequality tend not to be addressed by the scheme due to the multidimensional nature of poverty and inequality. Consequently, this paper suggests that the Teach First scheme needs to be modified in order to align the values of its participants and the organisation.

Group 5 - WINNER - BEST PRESENTATION and POPULAR PRIZE - Hipsters and spikes: mapping gentrification and defensive architecture inTower Hamlets

Tatiana Pazem, Sofia Lesur Kastelein, Sally Park, Robert Clark, Xinyang Li

Within the context of London’s extensive redevelopment and rising poverty rates, “gentrification”, debates around redevelopment and who it should serve have gained widespread attention. Existing literature considers the role of defensive architecture in the context of securitisation of urban space, positing gentrification as a possible driving force behind this phenomenon (Petty, 2016). Gentrification here is understood as the “production of urban space for progressively more affluent users” (Hackworth, 2002). Defensive architecture, such as ground-level metal studs, is an aspect of urban design intended to render public spaces “unusable in certain ways or by certain groups” (Petty, 2016). This paper offers a pioneering attempt to link these two phenomena and contributes new empirical evidence to the debate. This research investigates the relationship between gentrification and defensive architecture. Using ArcGIS, it maps defensive architecture and ‘indicators’ of gentrification in the borough of Tower Hamlets. It then looks for qualitative causal links using questionnaires to examine its community impact. The research then explores the ownership, usage and perceptions of the social space in which defensive architecture is located, to answer questions about how and why urban design can be used to perpetuate social exclusion. Early-stage analysis indicates some relationship between hostile urban design and gentrified areas, tentatively suggesting wealthier owners of public space seek to discourage its use by less-wealthy individuals.

Group 6 - WINNER - BEST RESEARCH PAPER (TIED) - Coming in from the cold: A case study of community engagement in tackling fuel poverty

Chenxu Fu, Vitaliy Komar, Rebecca Rose, Usama Shoaib, Lay Sheng Yap

Despite the government’s top-down policies to reduce fuel poverty, the number of households considered fuel poor remains persistently high. This paper aims to assess the potential of local intervention in reducing fuel poverty through community-centred initiatives such as the Winter Warmth and Healthy Home campaigns. These schemes have been put in place within Kensington and Chelsea so that policy trickles down to the fuel poor through community-specific networks. Qualitative data was collected from different stakeholders within the network. This ranged from the use of semi-structured interviews with a host of national and local charitable organisations to surveys with borough residents. Through analyzing the interactions and relationships between stakeholders, the strengths and shortcomings of the networks were identified. Our findings indicate that information dispersed via local organisations is more commonly trusted and acted upon by the fuel poor. The deeper connection between the community and these organisations also allows identification of households vulnerable to fuel poverty; many of whom would have otherwise been missed by government policies. However, we recognize that there are coordination obstacles between national and local groups which create disparities in the support available to the fuel poor in different regions. Overall, a model of community-led initiatives has to be complemented with the strengthening of local networks and national support.

Group 7 - Degrees: the key to social mobility? The role of credential inflation in reinforcing inequality through employment

Neethi David, Fahmi Farid, Zhaobin Guo, Andrew Ying Han Loh, Hanqing Zeng

The London Effect has seen increased equalisation of educational qualifications across income and ethnic groups, causing London to be perceived as an extremely socially mobile city. However, evidence shows that equalisation of education has not translated into real social mobility. We hypothesize that credential inflation exists in London. Therefore education is insufficient in ensuring social mobility through employment, proposing a multitude of alternative factors which reinforce inequality in employability. By conducting semi-structured interviews with Londoners and social organisations within two London Boroughs, and through quantitative analysis of the London job market and the qualifications of its workforce, our study confirms our initial hypothesis. To analyse our data, we have coded the interviews according to broad themes, and constructed the Credential Inflation Index (CII) as a measure of the level of credential inflation in London and the UK. We find that saturation of higher education and heightened job competition cause qualifications to be worth less when finding a job. This in turn causes social capital due to family background and soft skills to become more important in the job market, causing household inequality during one’s educational years during to become more noteworthy in determining an individual’s employability when entering the workforce.

Group 8 - Can money buy access? Intersectional analysis of income and disability in London transport

Tong Li, Nathan Gu, Mahnoor Mir, Yash Salunkhe, Selin Esen, Szabolcs Botond Perniczki Bozsing, Tom Breheny

Mobility impaired individuals typically face lower incomes and restricted access options, hindering socio-economic engagement. Previous studies mainly focused on the contrast between the travel experience of the abled and disabled community. This paper aims to examine whether income divergence results in intra-group differences in travel experiences of the mobility-impaired community in London. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were conducted employing indepth interviews, surveys and focus groups to explore the travel experiences of individuals with mobility impairments. This paper incorporates the views of the mobility impaired population and experts. The findings demonstrated that high income cannot enable individuals to mitigate transport access issues. In addition, the extent to which the mobility impaired community within London is constrained in their transport access depends on a variety of factors, especially the severity of disabilities. The above factors produce a complex and nuanced picture. This paper complements existing research by assessing the impact of household income on the transport experiences of the mobility-impaired community in London.

Group 9 - Inequality in elite places: The experience of routine workers at the LSE

Bashir Ali, Laura Ehrich, Reyss Wheeler, Haowei Li, Nadim Choudhury, Jinchong Ho

This paper explores the experiences of non-academic support staff at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). There has been much research on low paid workers in London, but this research paper seeks to outline whether the working environment has an impact on one’s perspective of the inequality they face. The LSE is an interesting institution to study in this respect, as it exudes immense privilege, yet maintains a strong verbal commitment to equality and has in the past been held to account for falling short of this commitment. Since the work of front-line, manual labour staff is often rendered invisible, at a prestigious institution like the LSE, they often become the face of the inequality. Surveys and on-campus ethnographic observations of LSE’s cleaning, catering, security and other support staff were used to inform in-depth interviews. Our findings suggest that staff are generally satisfied in their working environment and with their pay. The majority do not express feelings of inequality - but there may be issues about work hierarchies and inclusion. Some suggestions for how the LSE can further improve the experience of its lowest-paid staff will be put forward.

Group 10 - WINNER - BEST RESEARCH PAPER (TIED) “On the fringes of LSE society?” – The impact of socioeconomic factors on student experience at the LSE

Stefanos Argyros, Sian Brahach, Jimmy Ka Fung Lam, Asia Lawrance, Shirley Wang Jia Ying

This paper aims to assess the impact of students’ socioeconomic background on their experience at the LSE, focusing on sociocultural and economic barriers to achievement and integration. There is a wealth of literature on the impact of socioeconomic background in pre-university education and on post-university career progression. However, past research on inequality at the LSE has mainly centered on ethnic factors, without a commensurate analysis of the role of socioeconomic factors in the student experience. The purpose of this research project is twofold. Firstly, the research draws on surveys (155 responses) and aims to compare the experience of students from a plethora of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Secondly, the survey is complemented by semi-structured interviews (8) with students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, to build a more in-depth understanding of this group’s subjective experiences at the LSE. The findings suggest that perceptions of the quality of teaching and support services at the LSE are similar across different socioeconomic backgrounds. However, students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds appear to be more susceptible to exclusion - i.e. to lie ‘on the fringes of LSE society’, as one respondent put it. These students face distinctive challenges in their efforts to integrate socially and academically at the LSE. The findings of the study indicate the need to develop practical institutional solutions to promote a more inclusive environment for LSE students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Group 11 - Benefit or burden? How Londoners view immigration

Grace Natusch, Mriga Chowdhary and Jialu Li

In this article, we compare the social representations of immigrants in two London boroughs (Hackney and Kensington & Chelsea) differing in income and patterns of immigration. Immigration is currently a salient issue on the public agenda and national discourses on immigration are a prominent area in social science research. However, there is need for more research on the variations of discourse at the local community level. We use the methods of critical discourse analysis (CDA) to uncover what kinds of discursive frames are used in the local media outlets and the popular vernacular in both boroughs. Drawing on qualitative analysis of articles from two local newspapers (Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea Today and Hackney Gazette), we shed light on the variations in the discourse of immigrants and immigration between the two boroughs. We then augmented our findings by conducting semi-structured interviews with people from both boroughs. The social representations found in the popular vernaculars echoed the media discourse in each borough. Our research makes the contribution to conceptualising the link between demographic properties of communities and the discursive frames on immigration that these communities use.