In this article, UoM wellbeing researchers partner with Strategic Operational Planning to consider how understanding university student belonging and social support needs could inform and improve future student housing options, in order to promote inclusion, and support university success, particularly for under-represented cohorts, such as regional, rural and remote (RRR) students.
RRR university students face unique barriers to university (NCSEHE, 2017; Nelson et al; 2017). RRR students have become increasingly less likely to enrol at university and more likely to live with extended periods of precarious employment (Chesters & Cuervo, 2022). With inequitable access, and inequitable success supports, those who do participate at university, face barriers to completion (Cuervo, et al., 2019) and are half as likely as their metropolitan peers to receive a university qualification (DEWR, 2022-23). RRR students studying locally at regional universities or regional study hubs have higher representation of disadvantaged cohorts (DoE, 2022), and are also often balancing work, family and study commitments, and are more likely to be studying part-time and online, which are also predictors of withdrawal (DoE, 2024; Cherastidtham, 2018). Those attending metropolitan universities report socio-cultural incongruence, and lack of connection and belonging (McKay & Devlin, 2014).
For those relocating to study, housing and belonging are two factors (among others), that massively impact upon the likelihood of both commencing and sustaining university study. While these two factors are often considered in isolation from each other, considered together they could offer a powerful resource to support RRR student success.
Recent qualitative research by Dr Jacqui Francis and Kelsey Lewis from the Centre for Wellbeing Science at the University of Melbourne, involved interviews with 19 undergraduate university students living in Victoria, and included students living in city-based college accommodation, other types of city-based university accommodation, other types of city based private accommodation, or at home regionally. Interviews were reflexively thematically coded to answer the question: ‘What are the key sources of social support RRR students need to thrive while studying at University?’
Key social support came from a range of sources including home based family and friends, college or student accommodation peers, university or class peers, and clubs (in and out of the university). RRR students needed to perceive satisfying social support from one or more of these sources, where they were living, to feel they belonged.
Belonging is well established as an important factor supporting university student engagement, completion rates, and wellbeing (Baik et al., 2026; Pedler, 2022). Social support in turn is a key factor that supports belonging.
For students who relocated to study in a metropolitan centre, their living spaces were identified as a key factor that either enabled, or acted as a barrier, to students making social connections and fostering a sense of belonging. Most students in college or student accommodation reported feeling a sense of social connection and belonging in their lives, and the sources of connection were primarily with other students. However, this was not universal, with some college or student accommodation students feeling socially isolated due to not fitting in with peers or college culture.
It was clear however those living spaces, matched to student needs, facilitated social bridging and bonding (Calridge, 2018) – bridging and bonding was seen to play uniquely important roles in cultivating social connectedness and belonging at university. Bridging occurs for all students who relocate from their hometowns. They are thrust into a new urban environment and quickly become acquainted with diverse cultural perspectives that expand their identity and worldview. Bonding is essential for relocated students as a means of dealing with the stress of potentially the biggest transition of their lives and identity formation. Bonding experiences differ vastly.
College students tend to form strong in-groups as early as O-Week, the boundaries of which can become near impermeable to students outside of these groups. Students who do not establish themselves in an in-group quickly may continuously struggle to find friends as in-group members lose interest in socializing outside of their group. This may exacerbate the stress of the transition and negatively impact their social wellbeing. Time appears to be of the essence here. Relocated students appear to be more acquainted with bonding than bridging, having grown up in small close-knit communities. This may be a factor in some students’ motivation to form close in-groups, rather than stepping out of their comfort zone and bridging connections with diverse people.
Identified in analysis were ‘shared’ themes as well as the theme of genuine care. Positive bonding experiences were associated with the establishment of student in-groups based on shared experiences, interests and values. Shared experiences involved powerful shared transitional experiences like living with other students, navigating new university experiences together and bonding with other students who had a similar upbringing. Shared interests involved students gravitating towards others who were interested in the same subjects at university or same interests outside university. Shared values involved bonding with students based on shared academic or career-driven values, not overly common at high school, and shared political values that were not endorsed in their hometowns. Genuine care involved the establishment of in-groups based on sincere care, acceptance and mutual respect for one another.
In contrast negative student bonding related to feeling outside of pre-established cliques from high school, or newly established college cliques, or close-knit international student groups. Some students reported feeling disconnected from others due to differences in upbringing. Some students, more introverted in nature, reported a sense of incongruence when trying to fit into highly extraverted party culture, and some struggled with a sense of being an imposter, where academic confidence was low.
Relocation enablers included geographical factors such as having close proximity to campus, financial support, security and safety on campus, familiarisation with the new environment via O-week and/or with family assistance, prior experience living out of home, and bringing sentimental objects from home. Relocation challenges included navigating newfound independence, unfamiliarity, financial costs, the fast-paced urban setting and sudden change in all aspects of life and having a place to live.
Bec Sullivan Manager Strategic Operational Planning at the University of Melbourne provides contextual insights into the housing situation in Melbourne. It is common knowledge that Melbourne housing is tight and housing options for students are limited. Housing doesn’t meet the needs of all students – there is simply not enough diversity in the offering. In some instances, regional students leave tertiary study because they cannot find appropriate housing near their university of choice.
For successful applicants with sufficient financial resources, colleges, other university accommodation, and various private accommodation options exist. Melbourne University Colleges include: Ormand College, International House, Wilam Hall, Queens College, Trinity College, University College, Newman College, St Mary’s College, Janet Clarke Hall and St Hilda’s College. Some target undergraduate domestic students (University College, St Hildas), while others have availability for domestic and international students, and some include postgraduate options. All offer some scholarships between $15k to $40k, and some particularly encourage regional student applicants (Trinity, University College, St Hildas). College accommodation costs in the vicinity of $40k per year including all meals but only provide accommodation for teaching periods. Other Melbourne University apartment-style accommodation include Lisa Bellear House (studio apartment $639 per week), The Lofts at Melbourne Connect, and Little Hall. And beyond that, private providers such as Scape and UniLodge offer studio apartments ranging from $550 to $880per week. Housing affordability remains a significant barrier. Students are at a disadvantage when navigating the private rental market; their applications compete against those with higher income levels and established rental history. This can limit students’ options to Melbourne Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) accommodation, which does not have the same application requirements, and comes at a significant premium. There are ~30,000 PBSA beds near the Parkville campus (CBRE, 2026) – most are premium studio style offerings. While these cater to student preferences for private space, they lack organic opportunities for students to form connections to help students bridge and bond within their new community.
The impact of a lack of affordable housing is far reaching: students find themselves having to work more hours which further impacts their ability to fully engage with their studies and with campus life; they make choices to sacrifice food and social engagements; and they are at a higher risk of academic failure and withdrawal from their program.
Graduate students make up 53% of the student body at the University of Melbourne, yet only 16% of student housing is pitched as being for graduate students. There is no University provided accommodation for families or people with partners. This is a problematic gap, particularly for international or regional graduate research students who need to relocate to Melbourne.
There is a clear gap in service and opportunity laying in wait.
More accommodation that better meets the needs of our diverse student population must factor into greater recruitment success, retainment of students, and successful completion for students. There is an opportunity for university accommodation to communicate a clear value proposition that is distinguishable from other general accommodation. Given the challenges of relocation and positive bridging and bonding for students, accommodation that enables social connection may provide that value proposition that distinguishes university housing from other general housing.
University colleges provide a unique opportunity for students to bridge and bond and to quickly form social connections and a sense of belonging. But these colleges do not meet the needs of all students and have limited capacity with their number of beds.
Consideration of student housing seems like a logical part of the higher education dilemma. In crafting housing options that speak to diverse student values and needs, social connection and belonging may be more effectively tended to, and in caring for the whole person, universities may find their leaking social capital dam wall begins to be patched.
Dr Jacqui Francis and Kelsey Lewis are from the Centre for Wellbeing Science in the Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne & Bec Sullivan works in Strategic Operational Planning, Commercial, Infrastructure & Sustainability at the University of Melbourne.
REFERENCES
Baik, C., Gilmore, A., Ryan, T., Liang, C., Botha, F., & Watson, N. (2026). Uni Student Wellbeing Survey: Summary Report 2025. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne
Cherastidtham, I. et al. (2018). University attrition: what helps and what hinders university completion? Grattan Institute.
Chesters, J. & Cuervo, H. (2022). (In)equality of opportunity: educational attainments of young people from rural, regional and urban Australia. Australian Educational Researcher, 49, 43–61.
Claridge, T. (2018). Functions of social capital–bonding, bridging, linking. Social capital research, 20(1), 1-7.
Cuervo, H., et al. (2019). Post-school aspirations in regional Australia: an examination of the role of cultural and social capital. Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 843–861.
DEWR (2022-23). Annual Report. https://www.dewr.gov.au/about-department/resources/dewr-annual-report-2022-23
DoE (2022). Selected higher ed stats, 2022 student data. www.education.gov.au/higher-education-statistics/student-data/selected-higher-education-statistics-2022-student-data.
DoE (2024). Australian Universities Accord. Summary of the Final Report. https://www.education.gov.au/accord-final-report
McKay, J. & Devlin, M. (2014) ‘Uni has a different language … to the real world’: demystifying academic culture and discourse for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 949-961.
NCSEHE (2017). Successful outcomes for regional and remote students in Australian higher education. Curtin University.
Nelson, K. et al. (2017). Understanding the completion patterns of equity students in regional universities. NCSEHE. https://apo.org.au/node/126621.
Pedler, M., et al. (2022). A sense of belonging at university: student retention, motivation and enjoyment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(3), 397-408.