Support for part-time study and disabled students: consultation analysis - technical annex

Appendix A: Additional method and analysis information

Strands 1 and 2 - Public consultation and stakeholder engagement

Two sets of consultation questions were live from 26 June to 9 October 2025.

Consultation questions for students, potential students, parents and carers

In total, 524 people responded to the student consultation. In this report, we refer to this as the ‘student consultation’, and to those responding to these questions as ‘student consultation respondents’.

Consultation questions for the Higher Education and Further Education sector, training providers, third sector and interested organisations

In total, 57 stakeholder consultation responses were received. In this report, we refer to this as the ‘stakeholder consultation’, and to those responding to these questions as ‘stakeholder consultation respondents’.

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the two sets of consultation questions on Citizen Space from Strand 1 and notes from stakeholder engagement hosted by the Scottish Government as part of Strand 2. A complete analysis report has been provided separately. We would also direct the reader to review full responses on Citizen Space, where permission to publish has been granted.

Quantitative analysis

The student consultation questions contained 23 closed questions, and the stakeholder consultation had 16 closed questions. A full breakdown for each question, including a breakdown by each type of respondent answering, is provided in Appendix B and C. Not all respondents answered every question. To compare across sub-groups, this report presents the results of the closed questions based on those who answered each question. For clarity, each results table shows:

• The percentage of respondents from the total sample who selected each response (grey row).
• The number and percentage response among those who answered each question, broken down by respondent type (rows including and under “All answering”).

Please note that:

• Percentages have been rounded to 0 decimal places.
• Row percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
• In both sets of the consultation questions, the sample size for some groups is small. We advise that data based on fewer than 30 respondents be treated cautiously and as indicative only.

Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis identifies the key themes across responses to each question. The research team developed a draft coding framework based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. During the coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

The student consultation contained 16 open and seven ‘other specify’ questions, and the stakeholder consultation had 22 open and one ‘other specify’ question. Reflecting the number and knowledge of respondents, it will be impossible to detail every response in the full analysis report; some, especially organisations, shared lengthy submissions reflecting their specific subject matter expertise.

All themes, including views shared by small numbers of respondents, are identified as part of the analysis process; a view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority. Similarly, all responses have an equal weighting. We recognise this means a response from an individual has the same weight as the response from an organisation which may represent many members, but this approach ensures all views are presented.

Considerations when reviewing this document

Public consultations invite everyone to express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population, and this is important to keep in mind when exploring the information emerging from the consultation.

All the analysis in this report is based on those answering the respective questions and is therefore not representative of all students or stakeholders.

The response rate to each question varies across the two sets of consultation questions. The main reason for this variation is that not all questions apply to all respondents. For example, a question about support for Higher Education (HE) students may not apply to a Further Education (FE) student, and a question about support for disabled students may not necessarily apply to a part-time student.

However, it is important to note that respondents were able to answer any question, and it is likely that many have responded based on their own personal experiences. This has resulted in instances which may appear inconsistent. For example, a HE student may answer questions about support for FE students, as they had previous experience of this before moving to HE. Similarly, a FE student may comment on support for HE if they investigated or applied for a HE course or support for HE, but were not eligible. In the stakeholder consultation, some questions were directed at those representing or working for education providers, but were also answered by other respondents, for example, individuals with experience of supporting part-time or disabled students. Analysts have not edited any data, and the closed question data presented in tables is as provided by respondents.

When reviewing the analysis in this report, we would ask the reader to consider:

• Where differences between the views of different respondent types were evident in qualitative responses, these have been noted. If no specific differences are highlighted, then a theme was raised by a mix of respondents. This is particularly the case with prevalent themes, which, by their nature, typically need to be raised by a larger number of different types of respondents.
• Many qualitative questions in the consultation allowed respondents to elaborate on the views they recorded at the closed questions. However, not all respondents chose to comment, with those who did providing varying levels of detail. The qualitative analysis can therefore only be based on the information provided by those who commented.
• Similarly, qualitative comments do not always align with the results of the quantitative questions. For example, respondents may have expressed support for a proposed approach in the closed question but caveated their support or suggested areas for improvement in the open question.

Strand 3 - Qualitative research with students

Research objectives

The Scottish Government commissioned Craigforth to carry out independent qualitative research for strand 3 of the consultation on the support for part-time study and disabled students. The overall aim of the research was to capture the views of former, current or prospective part-time students, distance learning students, and disabled students (full and part-time) on:

• The student financial support and other non-financial support available for FE and HE part-time and distance learning study, and
• The student financial support and other non-financial support available to full and part-time disabled students undertaking FE and HE study.

Fieldwork approach

Qualitative fieldwork was conducted over a 5-week period from mid-October to mid-November 2025. This was based on individual or paired interviews, primarily conducted remotely via audio or video, although in-person interviews were offered (and taken up by 2 of the 37 participants).

The research sought to engage students across a range of cohorts related to their study (for example, full and part-time, distance learner and on-campus, FE and HE) and experience of support (for example, disabilities or health conditions, widening access characteristics). On this basis, a purposive sampling approach was used that sought to recruit research participants against an agreed set of sampling targets.

Recruitment channels were focused on dissemination of research materials via stakeholder organisations working with students across key target groups. These included 20 national and regional organisations working with and/or representing students across target student groups.

A range of materials was produced to support this process, including:

• Web-based content and flyers explaining the purpose and scope of the study and inviting students to contact Craigforth if they wished to participate.
• An easy-read research information sheet and privacy notice for potential participants.
• A student information sheet to provide signposting and links to sources of support, where participants felt this would be helpful.

A link to an online expression of interest proforma was provided for potential participants to register their interest in the research. Across all materials, Craigforth’s email and freephone contact details were provided for students to request participation directly or to raise any queries regarding the research.

Strengths and limitations of the approach

Specific strengths and limitations of the research approach are summarised below.

Strengths

A key aim of the study was to provide an opportunity for students to contribute their in-depth views and experiences around student support. The qualitative interview approach has proved effective in enabling students to share their experiences in detail, with the semi-structured interview format also allowing participants to raise additional issues.

The targeted recruitment approach sought to secure participation across key student groups. As the table below shows, this approach was able to include participants across all target groups. This is reflected in research findings which represent a diversity of experience across education sectors, needs groups and demographic cohorts. It has been particularly important to include those studying across FE, HNC, undergraduate and postgraduate courses – although, as noted below, securing participation from FE students within the study proved challenging.

Limitations

The study scope differed from Strands 1 and 2 of the consultation and was intended to gather feedback from a limited number of students. This was also reflected in the study timescale, which allowed for only a 5-week fieldwork period.

Participant recruitment information was shared through established networks and contacts, including a dedicated Project Support Group as part of Strand 3, to promote the research and maximise opportunities for students to take part. However, the timescales set out above were a limitation for the study and may have had an impact on the number and range of students engaging with the research. For example, the shorter timescale may have impacted the ability to reach potential participants to engage with the research.

The number of FE students in particular was lower than across other sectors. Feedback from these students demonstrated that many are balancing study with work, caring and other commitments. As such, the shorter study timescale may have limited participation. This has also limited scope to consider specific experiences and views around Additional Support Needs for Learning Allowance (ASNLA), which is only available to FE students below HNC/HND (Higher National Certificate / Higher National Diploma) level. As a result, feedback around financial support was most commonly related to DSA.

The study scope and timescale may also have limited ability to include prospective students in the research. All study materials made clear that the research was open to current, previous and prospective students, and participants included individuals at varying stages of study. However, the recruitment channels available to the study were primarily focused on current students and may have had more limited scope to reach prospective students.

Profile of participants

A total of 37 students were interviewed for the research. The study aimed to gather qualitative feedback from a diverse range of participants but, like the consultation questionnaires on Citizen Space, was not expected to be representative of the wider student population. This was reflected in the recruitment approach which sought to include research participants across a range of key groups of relevance to the research objectives.

The table over the page provides information about the profile of students interviewed across the three primary research cohorts – disabled students, those studying part-time and distance learners. Key points to note regarding the specific student groups represented are:

• There was considerable overlap between some student groups, including across the three primary cohorts. For example, the 11 part-time students included 10 who were studying via distance learning, and 9 with a disability. As a result of this overlap, figures may not be cumulative.
• Students participating in the research were asked to identify whether they had a disability, health condition or illness that has lasted or is expected to last 12 months or more. Of the 37 research participants, 33 indicated that they had a disability or health condition. This included 20 individuals with a physical disability or health condition, and 25 with a neurodevelopmental condition and/or mental health condition that affected their studying. Interviews indicated that many of those with a physical disability, mental health and/or neurodevelopmental condition had been in contact with disability support services through their college or university.

Interview questions

All students taking part in the research were asked a core set of questions, and these are summarised below. Disabled students and those with additional learning needs were asked further questions about any specific adjustments and/or support provided. Interviews were semi-structured in form and varied in length, dependent on each participant’s circumstances and experience - most were 45-60 minutes.

1. Overview

a. What financial support do you currently access connected to your studies?

b. What non-financial support do you currently receive that helps with your studies?

2. Choosing to study

a. What affected decisions on study, for example deciding on full-time or part-time/distance learning?

b. Did the financial and other support available affect your choice of method of study?

c. How aware were you of the financial and other support available for different types of study?

d. Did you get information on available support before choosing your studies?

e. How easy or difficult it was to get the information?

3. Current studies

a. What is helping you to study now? (Financial and non-financial support)

b. What (if anything) is limiting or making it more difficult for to study?

c. Is there anything that is especially difficult or challenging?

4. Support from college or university

a. How do you find dealing with your college/university? (For example, the admissions process, day-to-day since enrolling, support services)

b. Were adjustments and/or a support package needed before or after you started your studies? Have they been implemented by your college/university?

c. If adjustments have been implemented, what do you think about them and the difference they are making?

d. If adjustments have not been fully implemented or have been delayed, how has that affected you and your studies?

5. Financial support

a. Does the financial support you get cover your fees and study costs?

b. If your financial support does not cover your fees and costs, how are you managing any shortfall?

6. Improving support

a. What practical changes could have helped you or could help others to study?

b. Is there anything that your college/university does to support students that you think others could learn from?