A four-phase model of belonging from students’ accounts

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Updated, 7 September 2026: We have clarified the difference between a proposed model of belonging and evidence that every student moves through a fixed sequence. This review uses the complete abstract and selected publisher passages, not the complete paper.

What the source reports

Gulsah Dost explored students’ definitions of belonging using questionnaire accounts from 290 A-level, undergraduate and postgraduate students in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and interviews with 23 first-year undergraduates. The university context covered three Russell Group institutions.

The author proposes four phases: adaptation, integration, continuum and transition. Participants’ accounts informed themes around being able to be oneself, feeling accepted and sustaining or renegotiating connections. This is an interpretive account of belonging; it is not a repeated-measures test of a universal developmental sequence.

The source has reporting inconsistencies: its abstract describes nine themes while its conclusion says eight, and its limitations describe a qualitative analysis despite mixed-method wording elsewhere. We therefore avoid a precise theme count or a stronger methodological claim. Discipline and institutional selection also limit generalisation.

How to use the model cautiously

Our suggested use is to begin a discussion about what students mean by belonging. Ask which relationships, places or experiences they have in mind, and allow answers that do not fit the proposed phases. Do not assign a student to a stage merely from their year of study.

If you collect feedback at several points, distinguish a change in respondents from a change in the same people. Document which accounts support the interpretation and whose experience may be absent. The separate first-year belonging study used repeated surveys and has its own sample and missing-data limitations.

A model can suggest questions without validating the resulting survey. Before comparing cohorts, review the instrument and what its scores can support; see the review of belonging measures. These are our practical suggestions. The source does not demonstrate that a particular survey schedule, comment-analysis tool or induction change prevents withdrawal.

Reference

Dost, G. (2026). Reimagining belonging: a post-pandemic exploration of student perspectives. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 50(4), 571–610. Published online 5 March 2026. Publisher article.