Rural-origin students in South African higher education face multiple, overlapping forms of marginalisation that collectively hinder their academic access and success. Despite significant policy reforms aimed at expanding access and addressing historical injustices, the educational paths of these learners are still disproportionately affected by a combination of socio-economic deprivation, linguistic exclusion, gendered vulnerabilities, and technological marginalisation. This systematic review synthesises current empirical evidence to clarify how these intersectional barriers merge to obstruct the educational journeys of rural-origin students in South African higher education. It also critically examines how institutional policies and technological interventions may unintentionally reinforce or potentially alleviate these inequities. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, conducting a comprehensive search across multiple academic databases for studies published between 2018 and 2026. After a rigorous screening and eligibility process, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent thematic analysis guided by Nancy Fraser's trivalent social justice framework. Five overarching themes emerged: The multidimensional digital divide; linguistic exclusion and the devaluation of vernacular knowledge; gendered vulnerabilities and the burden of social reproduction; algorithmic bias and the risks associated with technological solutionism; and governance gaps alongside the failure of participatory parity. The findings revealed that existing equity frameworks inadequately address the structural dimensions of rural marginalisation. Achieving educational equity necessitates a fundamental shift towards intersectionality-aware, context-sensitive institutional policies that prioritise resource redistribution, cultural recognition, and the meaningful representation of students from rural backgrounds in decision-making processes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cele Siyanda Mluleki Kenneth (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: