Fostering students’ sense of belonging in higher education (HE) is widely recognised as key to academic achievement, retention and wellbeing (Ajjawi et al., 2025; Blake et al., 2022). Though complex and multifaceted, belonging is also relational (Gravett et al., 2025), shaped by students’ interactions with people and their environment. Staff can foster belonging in simple yet impactful ways, using everyday interactions as opportunities (Blake et al., 2022). Drawing on Carl Rogers’ (1967) person-centred approach and emphasis on meaningful relationships, this blog post explores network mapping as a practical tool for educators to build relationships and nurture student belonging in higher education.

The emphasis on meaningful relationships is powerfully captured in Rogers’ own words (Rogers, 1992, p. 33):

‘If I can provide a certain type of relationship, the other person will discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change and personal development will occur.’

Rogers invites us to shift from asking, ‘How can I change this person?’ to ‘How can I provide a relationship that this person may use for their own personal growth?’ He identifies three key conditions for building meaningful relationships: genuineness, warm acceptance and empathetic understanding – elements that support individuals in feeling integrated and empowered.

While I recognise that belonging cannot be reduced to relationships alone, network mapping offers a useful entry point. This simple tool reveals key influences, both human and non-human (Ellingson, 2017), opening relational possibilities. In a study with undergraduate sports coaching students, I invited them to create network maps with lines of varying lengths: shorter lines for stronger influences and longer lines for weaker connections (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Sample Network Map

During induction, students created their first maps, prompting conversations about their backgrounds, influences and expectations. The maps, accompanied by discussions, often revealed hidden barriers or support needs. For example, Ann disclosed a possible dyslexia (see figure 2), which led to a referral, diagnosis, and appropriate support. She also spoke about health challenges that later became the focus of her dissertation, turning personal difficulty into meaningful academic work: ‘I’m in pain every day pretty much from injuries and stuff, which I’m sorting out at the minute.’

Figure 2: Ann’s Network Map

During the year, students revisited and created an additional network map during tutorials. These updated maps offered insights into shifts in engagement, identity and belonging. For many, ‘work’ became a more imminent influence. Fadhil, for instance, shared that night shifts were leaving him exhausted, affecting his punctuality and focus: ‘I’ve been late for lectures because I’ve been working … it’s tiring … but I need to work.’

Knowing this helped me avoid assumptions. I adjusted the morning sessions to include more short breaks and opportunities to move and refresh. These small adaptations were often appreciated and contributed to creating a more responsive and supportive environment.

Another student, Ozzy, marked ‘work’ as a significant influence. As we discussed his map, he shared that he had lost his father and was now supporting his family financially as the eldest son. This insight helped me tailor academic support, and even a simple ‘How are you?’ –grounded in what he had chosen to share – often unlocked deeper dialogue.

‘While network mapping alone does not create trust, it offers a valuable lens into students’ lived experiences.’

While network mapping alone does not create trust, it offers a valuable lens into students’ lived experiences. It helped me see them not just as students but as whole individuals shaped by complex networks of influence, family, health, work and more. These insights enabled more empathetic responses and a more relational approach to teaching.

As educators, we need to cultivate environments where students feel genuinely valued, not through conditional regard, ‘I care for you if you behave thus and so’ (Rogers, 1992, p. 283), but through an authentic commitment to unconditional positive regard.

Consider network mapping – not as a fixed solution, but as a way to uncover the evolving, complex relationships that shape student experiences. It may reveal unexpected pathways to connection and belonging.

References

Ajjawi, R., Gravett, K., & O’Shea, S. (2025). The politics of student belonging: Identity and purpose. Teaching in Higher Education, 30(4), 791–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2280261

Blake, S., Capper, G., & Jackson, A. (2022). Building belonging in higher education: Recommendations for developing an integrated institutional approach. Wonkhe & Pearson.

Ellingson, L. (2017). Embodiment in qualitative research. Routledge.

Gravett, K., Ajjawi, R., & Shea, S. O. (2025). Topologies of belonging in the digital university. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 33(2), 597–611. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681366.2023.2256342

Rogers, C. R. (1992). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Constable.