Keywords
Abandonment, dropout, students, university, indigenous, higher education.
-
Views
-
Downloads
How to cite this article
Quincho-Apumayta R, Carrillo Cayllahua J, Ccencho Pari A et al. University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:641 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Systematic Review
University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review
[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 02 Jul 2025
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Corresponding author:
Raúl Quincho-Apumayta
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information:
Our study is supported by the Universidad Nacional de Huancavelica Peru and FOCAM 03 project.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright:
© 2025 Quincho-Apumayta R et al.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite: Quincho-Apumayta R, Carrillo Cayllahua J, Ccencho Pari A et al. University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:641 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.1)
First published: 02 Jul 2025, 14:641 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.1)
Latest published: 02 Jul 2025, 14:641 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.1)
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Introduction
University dropout (UD) is a multifactorial phenomenon that significantly impacts the educational, social, and economic spheres (Aina et al., 2022; Barroso et al., 2022), with direct repercussions on students, institutions, and the state. Beyond interrupting academic trajectories, it hinders personal and professional development and limits opportunities for social mobility, thereby exacerbating preexisting social inequalities (Herbaut, 2021; Koopmann et al., 2024).
Unfortunately, Indigenous students are more vulnerable to university dropout (UD) due to economic, cultural, and geographical barriers. However, despite its impact, UD in this population has been understudied (Kirby et al., 2020; Loureiro et al., 2024; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021), making it difficult to design effective strategies to mitigate this issue. Several limitations in access to education for Indigenous students have been identified, with economic factors and a lack of resources to sustain their studies being among the most prominent (Bustelo et al., 2023; Mardon & Ahmed, 2023).
Additionally, other barriers that have been analyzed include language, discrimination, and socioeconomic factors (Meneses Pardo, 2011; Rodríguez and Ossola, 2021). These conditions disconnect Indigenous students’ university experience from their cultural and contextual realities, increasing their vulnerability and solidifying a high risk of dropout (Rodríguez and Ossola, 2021; Walton et al., 2020).
Due to the high risk of university dropout among Indigenous students and the barriers they face, consolidating information on this phenomenon is essential (Cruz Pérez et al., 2018; Nelson et al., 2018). However, evidence on the factors contributing to dropout and effective strategies to promote student retention remains limited and fragmented. Therefore, the objective of this study was to consolidate the available information on university dropout among Indigenous populations, analyzing the associated risk and protective factors.
Methods
Search strategy
A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 criteria (Page et al., 2021). Initially, two authors (INITIALS) performed a global systematic search across ten electronic databases: Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, LILACS, Dialnet, PubMed/MEDLINE, Redalyc, Scielo, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Latindex, and CLASE. The search was conducted in English and Spanish between October 29, 2024, and November 30, 2024.
The search strings combined key terms related to university dropout, Indigenous populations, and the educational context. To maximize results, both Spanish and English terms were used. The search string applied was: ALL=((dropout) OR (deserción) AND ("university students") OR ("estudiantes universitarios") AND (indigenous*) OR (indígenas*)). Boolean operators were adjusted according to each database’s search criteria (using “AND”, “OR” “*”, “or” ) to maximize sensitivity and specificity, ensuring the inclusion of relevant studies. Additionally, exclusion filters by study type (full articles or letters to the editor) were applied in databases that allowed it (Scopus, WOS, LILACS, Dialnet, PubMed, and Scielo).
A total of 23,403 records were identified: 21,619 in WOS, 356 in Scopus, 115 in LILACS, 743 in Dialnet, 385 in PubMed/MEDLINE, 16 in Redalyc, 53 in Scielo, and 116 in DOAJ. The searches yielded no results in the Latindex and CLASE platforms.
Eligibility criteria
To ensure the relevance of the studies included, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were established. Studies addressing university dropout or attrition in university students (undergraduate or postgraduate) belonging to Indigenous communities were included. No restrictions were placed on age range, sex, or geographic location, and studies in Spanish or English, published as full and accessible articles, analyzing risk or protective factors related to dropout, were considered. Additionally, studies providing information on dimensions or determinants of school attrition in this population group were included.
In contrast, theoretical studies, such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and literature reviews, were excluded, as well as research focused on non-university school populations or vulnerable populations other than Indigenous communities.
Procedure
The study selection process was carried out in three stages following the PRISMA guidelines (Raúl, 2025). PRISMA flow diagram has been presented as extended data as well (Raúl, 2025; See extended data as figure 1). First, an initial review of the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the 23,391 unique records identified after removing duplicates within each database was conducted. During this stage, 23,271 studies were excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, including 408 articles that did not address a university population, 21,873 that did not include an Indigenous population, 736 that did not focus on the phenomenon of dropout or attrition, and 306 studies of a theoretical or bibliometric nature. In the second stage, 120 articles were selected for full-text review. During this phase, 11 duplicate records across all databases were identified and removed, as they had not been detected in the first stage. Additionally, 86 studies were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria after a detailed full-text review (Raúl, 2025; See the extended data as Table 1). Finally, 23 studies met all the established criteria and were included for analysis and narrative synthesis.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies and demographic information of participants.
Data rxtraction
A standardized format was used for extracting key data, which included information on the general characteristics of the studies (author, year, country, methodological design), participants (educational level, rural context, Indigenous population), risk and protective factors associated with dropout, and methodological approaches used. Data extraction was conducted independently by two reviewers (INITIALS), with discrepancies resolved by consensus with the principal investigator (RQA).
Analysis
For the description of the results, the general characteristics of the included studies were analyzed and described, reviewing aspects such as the country, sample size, proportion of Indigenous students, geographic context (rural, urban, or mixed), and type of institution (public, private, or mixed). To ensure the comparability of the data, absolute frequencies and percentages were calculated. Regarding the age of the participants, some studies only reported age ranges; therefore, it was necessary to calculate the estimated mean age using the lower and upper limits as references. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, quantitative results were synthesized through descriptive analyses. Non-homogeneous or missing data were presented through a narrative synthesis, complemented by tables that facilitate the comparison between studies.
Results
General characteristics of the included studies
This systematic review included 21 records, detailed in Table 1. Most of the studies were conducted in South America (9/21), followed by Central America (4/21), North America (2/21), Oceania (5/21), and Europe (1/21). Among the 226,049 subjects included in the 21 records, only 2,340 corresponded to Indigenous university students, representing 1.03% of the total sample. Of the total records, 2 studies did not provide disaggregated information on Indigenous university populations (De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Kirby et al., 2020; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019). The average age of the participants was 24.19 years, considering only the 9 records that reported this information. In some cases, the age range was adjusted to calculate these values (Bergamaschi et al., 2016; Calegare & Sales, 2023; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Li & Jackson, 2024; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Oliver et al., 2015; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023; Salazar Cóndor, 2022).
In these studies, 63.06% of the participants were men, and 36.95% were women. However, 11 out of 21 studies did not report the sex of the participants (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Loureiro et al., 2024; Lydster & Murray, 2019; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Walton et al., 2020), and only 2 records focused exclusively on Indigenous women (Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021).
Regarding the type of higher education institution, the majority of studies (17/21) were conducted on students from public universities (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Bergamaschi et al., 2016; Calegare & Sales, 2023; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Hearn et al., 2019; Kozlova et al., 2022; Loureiro et al., 2024; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Oliver et al., 2015; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023; Walton et al., 2020), while only one study focused on students from private universities (Lydster & Murray, 2019). Additionally, three records analyzed populations from both public and private universities (Kirby et al., 2020; Li & Carroll, 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024).
In Table 2, the cultural characteristics of the participants are presented. Of the total studies, 4 were conducted in Indigenous communities in Central America (Mexico: Tseltal, Wixarika, Nahua, Mazahua, Purépecha, Otomí; Panama: Ngäbe and Buglé); 2 out of 21 records in North America (Canada: Métis, Inuit, and First Nations); 6 in South America (Colombia: Indigenous peoples of the Amazon; Argentina: Wilchi and Kolla; Chile: Mapuche; Peru: Quechua and Aimara; Brazil: Tuyuca, Tukano, Bará, Munduruku, Yahua, Sateré-Mawé, Tariana, Kaingang, Guaraní, Fulniô, and Juruna; Ecuador: Achuar, Andwa, Kichwa, Sapara, Shiwiar, Shuar, and Waorani); 4 in Oceania (Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders); and 1 in Europe (Russia: Komi-Permyak). Although 4 studies did not report this information (Kirby et al., 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Loureiro et al., 2024; Meneses Pardo, 2011). Regarding place of residence, in 15 out of 21 studies, participants reported living in rural areas (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Bergamaschi et al., 2016; Calegare & Sales, 2023; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 2020; Li & Carroll, 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Lydster & Murray, 2019; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Oliver et al., 2015; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023), while 5 out of 21 lived in both rural and urban areas (Hearn et al., 2019; Kozlova et al., 2022; Loureiro et al., 2024; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Walton et al., 2020). One study did not specify the area of residence (Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023).
Table 2. Cultural characteristics of participants.
Finally, the studies reported a great linguistic diversity. Identified languages included Andean languages (Quechua, Aimara), Amazonian languages (Achuar, Andwa, Sapara, Shiwiar, Shuar, Waorani, Yahua, Tuyuca, Tukano, Bará, Munduruku, Sateré-Mawé, Tariana, Fulniô, Juruna), Southern Cone languages (Mapuche, Wilchi, Kolla, Guaraní, Kaingang), Mesoamerican languages (Tseltal, Ch’ol, Nahuas, Mazahuas, Purépechas, Otomíes, Wixarika, Huichol), North American languages (Métis, Inuit, First Nations), European languages (Komi-Permyak), and dominant languages (Portuguese) (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Bergamaschi et al., 2016; Calegare & Sales, 2023; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Kozlova et al., 2022; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023). In 5 studies, the participants were bilingual (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023); while in 10 records, this information was not reported (De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Hearn et al., 2019; Kirby et al., 2020; Li & Carroll, 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Loureiro et al., 2024; Lydster & Murray, 2019; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Oliver et al., 2015; Walton et al., 2020).
Then, we analyzed the methodological aspects of the studies. According to Table 3, 20 studies examined university dropout at the undergraduate level; of these, 17 out of 20 analyzed a wide variety of university programs (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Bergamaschi et al., 2016; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Hearn et al., 2019; Kozlova et al., 2022; Li & Carroll, 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Loureiro et al., 2024; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Oliver et al., 2015; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023).
Table 3. Methodological aspects of the selected studies.
The identified areas include Education Sciences, Exact Sciences and Engineering, Health, Social Sciences, Humanities, Agricultural Sciences, Administrative Sciences, Economics, Tourism, Arts, Environmental Studies, and Cultural and Educational Development. However, fields such as Architecture, Technology, and Information Sciences had lower representation. The only study that analyzed dropout at the graduate level (Calegare & Sales, 2023) focused exclusively on Education and Anthropology programs. However, three records did not report the participants’ professional fields (Kirby et al., 2020; Lydster & Murray, 2019; Walton et al., 2020).
Regarding the methodologies used, 7 out of 21 studies employed qualitative approaches using semi-structured interviews and observations to explore individual and community experiences associated with dropout (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Calegare and Sales, 2023; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Lydster & Murray, 2019; Oliver et al., 2015; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021). Meanwhile, 6 out of 21 studies applied quantitative methodologies incorporating statistical analyses of institutional databases and surveys (Li & Carroll, 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023). Finally, 8 studies used mixed methodologies, combining interviews with structured data analysis (Bergamaschi et al., 2016; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Hearn et al., 2019; Kirby et al., 2020; Kozlova et al., 2022; Loureiro et al., 2024; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Walton et al., 2020).
Finally, the risk and protective factors associated with Indigenous university dropout were analyzed (see Table 4). First, the prevalence of Indigenous university dropout was estimated at 33.59%, based on data from seven studies that provided this information (Bergamaschi et al., 2016; Loureiro et al., 2024; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023). From these studies, an average Indigenous University Dropout (IUD) rate of 33.59% was estimated. However, 66.67% of the studies did not report this data, limiting the ability to conduct a more comprehensive analysis of dropout rates. The university dropout rate ranged between 20% and 66%, except for a single record that reported a lower rate (Loureiro et al., 2024). Similarly, the demographic variable analysis reported that IUD was higher among women (28.57%), considering data from six studies (Bergamaschi et al., 2016; Hearn et al., 2019; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez Gallegos & Alvites-Huamaní, 2023; Walton et al., 2020); However, in three studies (Loureiro et al., 2024; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019) higher dropout rates were reported among men (14.29%). In this regard, it is important to highlight that 52.38% of the studies did not report sex as a variable associated with dropout (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Calegare & Sales, 2023; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 2020; Kozlova et al., 2022; Li & Carroll, 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Lydster & Murray, 2019; Oliver et al., 2015; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023).
Table 4. Risk and protective factors.
Regarding the risk and protective factors identified in the included studies, economic factors were observed as the main obstacle to university retention, reported in 85.7% (18/21) of the records. Other significant factors include linguistic barriers, present in 47.6% of the studies (10/21), and geographical location, mentioned 33.3% of the time (7/21). On the other hand, another identified risk factor was the lack of social support, reported in only 23.8% of the records (5/21).
On the other hand, among the protective factors, financial support was the most frequent, identified in 76.2% of the studies (16/21), followed by mentoring or academic guidance, reported in 47.6% (10/21), as well as social support, mentioned in 42.8% (9/21). The least frequent factors were cultural reaffirmation and an inclusive environment, both reported in 28.6% of the studies (6/21).
Discussion
This systematic review analyzed 21 studies that examined university dropout among Indigenous students. Most records were concentrated in South America (9/21), followed by Oceania (5/21) and Central America (4/21). South America reported the highest number of studies, reflecting an uneven geographical focus in research on Indigenous populations. Although Latin America has received greater attention due to its historical and demographic relevance (Barragán Moreno & González Támara, 2024; Gutierrez-Pachas et al., 2023), compared to other regions such as Africa and Asia, which show a notable absence of research, limiting the global understanding of the phenomenon (Kukulska-Hulme et al., 2023; Venkatesan et al., 2024).
These trends in the geographical distribution of studies are related to the demographic characteristics of the participants included in them. Of the 226,049 participants analyzed in the studies, only 1.03% were Indigenous students. This figure highlights a significant gap in the representation of these populations in the analyzed studies, indicating a substantial disproportion in the number of studies addressing the issues of Indigenous communities compared to other groups (Alban & Mauricio, 2019; Arias et al., 2024; Munizaga Mellado et al., 2018; Quincho Apumayta et al., 2024; Véliz Palomino & Ortega, 2023).
The average age of the participants was 24.19 years. This finding is consistent with another study that reported a similar age range among university students (Hearn et al., 2019), particularly in regions where higher education is attained later due to socioeconomic contexts and structural barriers (Li & Jackson, 2024; Webb, 2019). However, this average may not accurately reflect the reality of Indigenous students, who often enter university at older ages due to sociocultural or economic barriers (Dadi et al., 2024; Halabieh et al., 2022; Lecy & Osteen, 2022). This suggests a potential bias in the data and highlights the need for more inclusive studies that consider the diversity of educational trajectories within these populations.
Regarding gender, 63.06% of the participants reported in the studies were men, indicating a higher male representation in research on university dropout. This finding aligns with previous studies showing greater male participation in higher education, particularly in Indigenous communities where traditional roles assign men greater economic and labor responsibilities from an early age (Martinez, 2014; Toyon, 2024).
These high rates of male participation in studies on university dropout may be linked to social and economic pressures that push men, particularly in Indigenous communities, to enter the labor market at an early age, affecting their educational continuity (Nguyen et al., 2020; Wilson, 2021). Additionally, factors such as low academic performance, lack of motivation, and limited use of institutional support networks make them more prone to dropping out (Aina et al., 2022; Legault et al., 2006). On the other hand, the lower representation of women could be attributed to several factors. First, the cultural structure governing women’s roles in Indigenous communities (Hill et al., 2024; Ingram et al., 2021). Second, structural barriers that limit their access to and retention in higher education. However, the literature suggests that despite facing greater family and domestic responsibilities that hinder their academic continuity (Blackburn, 2023; Chanana, 1993), women often develop resilience strategies that enable them to overcome these difficulties, which could explain their lower proportion in studies on dropout (Cotton et al., 2017).
These gender inequalities in access to and retention in education are exacerbated in contexts where public education predominates, identified as the most common in 17 of the 21 analyzed studies. Deficiencies in these systems, such as inadequate infrastructure, limited financial support, and cultural disconnection, appear to contribute to high university dropout rates (Goksen & Cemalcilar, 2010; Halabieh et al., 2022; Valencia Quecano et al., 2024). Since public institutions typically serve a higher percentage of vulnerable students, including Indigenous populations (Jorgensen, 2020), these shortcomings create additional barriers that hinder their retention and perpetuate structural inequalities by restricting their educational opportunities (Silva-Martínez et al., 2023). Culturally, the most represented Indigenous communities belong to South America, including the Quechua, Aymara, and Amazonian communities such as the Shuar and Yahua. Colombia, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Ecuador had the highest number of records involving Indigenous populations. Regarding languages, Quechua and Aymara were the most spoken, while other regional languages, such as Tseltal and Guaraní, were also present. The most common fields of study among participants were Social Sciences, Education, Health, and Engineering. The representation of Indigenous communities in the studies reflects the predominant cultural diversity in South America, where these groups face specific challenges in higher education (Cortina & Earl, 2021; Smith, 2024; Van Cott, 2005). Some studies indicated that Indigenous participants were bilingual or had to learn new languages to integrate into educational systems (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023). Evidence suggests that language and cultural identity play a crucial role in educational access and retention and that the absence of Indigenous language programs significantly limits inclusion (Álvarez Díaz & Storey Meza, 2021; Eduardo & Gabriel, 2021; Salmi & D’Addio, 2021). On the other hand, the concentration of Indigenous students in fields such as Social Sciences, Education, and Health may be associated with formative traditions that prioritize disciplines linked to community cohesion and social development (Fonchingong Che, 2024; Gittelsohn et al., 2020; Mosquera-Guerrero et al., 2023).
On the other hand, the findings revealed a predominance of Indigenous students from rural areas in 15 studies (Benitez & Ramírez, 2023; Bergamaschi et al., 2016; Calegare & Sales, 2023; De Gracia Vega & Vega de Martínez, 2024; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 2020; Li & Carroll, 2020; Li & Jackson, 2024; Lydster & Murray, 2019; Meneses Pardo, 2011; Oliver et al., 2015; Rafael Riveros et al., 2024; Rodríguez & Ossola, 2021; Saldarriaga Isaza et al., 2019; Schmidt Araneda et al., 2023); In contrast, only five studies included mixed populations (rural and urban) (Hearn et al., 2019; Kozlova et al., 2022; Loureiro et al., 2024; Salazar Cóndor, 2022; Walton et al., 2020). This trend aligns with the literature, where rural communities are more frequently studied due to their greater exposure to structural barriers such as the lack of educational infrastructure, economic difficulties, and limited technological connectivity (Yu et al., 2024). In this regard, university dropout in rural contexts is primarily linked to economic and family factors, where the need to contribute to productive work often takes precedence over academic continuity (Callejo-González & Ruiz-Herrero, 2024; Guzman Rincón et al., 2023). These factors are further exacerbated by the lack of educational infrastructure, the need for long commutes to institutions, and technological limitations, which restrict equitable access to higher education (Mustafa et al., 2024; Timmis & Muhuro, 2019).
Of the analyzed records, 20 focused on undergraduate education, while only one addressed dropout at the graduate level. This disparity may be due to the limited research on advanced levels, given that economic and academic barriers are more pronounced in the early stages of university education. At the undergraduate level, Indigenous students face higher dropout risks due to economic, sociocultural, and contextual factors (García-Vita et al., 2021; McKinley Jones Brayboy et al., 2015). In contrast, the limited representation of Indigenous graduate students reflects the structural and economic barriers they face from earlier educational levels. Factors such as high costs, lack of financial support, and the absence of inclusive policies affect their access. From a methodological perspective, the studies reflected a diverse approach, with seven based on qualitative methods, six on quantitative methods, and eight using mixed methodologies. These methodological choices respond to different analytical needs in understanding university dropout (Pilcher & Cortazzi, 2024).
Qualitative methods allowed for the exploration of cultural and social barriers from individual perspectives, while quantitative methods identified patterns and trends through statistical analysis of large populations (Cadena Iñiguez et al., 2017; Hussein, 2009; Pilcher and Cortazzi, 2024).
In this context, the studies also identified factors that act as risks for university dropout, with the most frequently reported economic barriers (85.7%), followed by linguistic barriers (47.6%) and geographical limitations (33.3%). These factors reflect structural inequalities and the lack of cultural adaptations in educational systems. Economic barriers stand out as a central impediment, as they limit students’ ability to cover basic costs related to higher education (Mardon & Ahmed, 2023; Perez-Castro, 2024). On the other hand, among the identified protective factors, financial support was the most frequent (76.2%), followed by mentoring or academic guidance (47.6%) and social support (42.8%). These elements have been shown to be effective in reducing university dropout rates, but their implementation is limited and inconsistent, suggesting a need for more comprehensive policies to ensure the availability and accessibility of these resources (Cairney & Kippin, 2022; Salmi & D’Addio, 2021).
Limitations
This study features crucial restrictions which researchers need to view when undertaking assessment of both results and their application range. Methodological differences between the included research studies create major difficulties for analysis. Research methods together with data collection procedures and the list of analytical methods introduce variability which hinders observation of shared results and understanding of established patterns. The wide cultural and economic diversity across geographic areas makes this observation especially crucial for research on Indigenous university dropout. One of the continuous challenges within the studies under analysis involves the insufficient breakdown of data. Many study records failed to include critical variables that identified gender, age and subject majors of participants. The absence of detailed participant data hinders advanced research examinations which restricts scientists from comprehending how various subgroups from the Indigenous population experience dropout variations. Some studies fail to provide information about the student proportion among Indigenous students which indicates limited attention to proper documentation of this population. The territorial distribution of studies in this review appears irregular since different geographic areas show various populations. Most of the research belongs to Latin America and Oceania whereas regions in Asia and Africa lack representation despite their substantial population of Indigenous communities cultural and demographically speaking. The geographical imbalance diminishes the worldwide usefulness of research results and hinders researchers from running multinational studies that could broaden our understanding about this subject. The dearth of investigations regarding graduate-level educational research displays a scholarly trend toward studying primary stages of higher education. Social and economic obstacles that face Indigenous students seem more prevalent in their education level progression. Active research procurement concerning graduate education leads to substantial knowledge gaps identifying the obstacles Indigenous students encounter from beginning to end in their academic journey. Insufficient data about risk plus protective components restricts researchers from achieving a full understanding of what factors lead to university termination or continued academic participation. The collection of non-standardized data hinders accurate identification of optimal approaches to solve these problems despite documenting generic characteristics. Standards for methodological research design and more detailed data acquisition need establishment because these issues affect the current ability to study university dropout or retention in higher education.
Conclusion
Studies demonstrate that multiple factors contribute to university dropout rates among Indigenous populations because such cases represent continuing institutional biases in educational infrastructure. Social along with linguistic and economic barriers function as the main obstacles which prevent Indigenous students from advancing through higher education especially in rural territories where economic struggles combine with minimal infrastructure and limited technology access to worsen these enrollment barriers. Scholarship programs and educational mentoring with financial backing demonstrate their effectiveness in helping retain students during education. A holistic strategy which acknowledges gender differences as well as educational background and location needs to be created because existing implementation measures are inadequate. The elimination of equity gaps requires sufficient financial aid while adding cultural content to class material and providing students with continuous mentorship and tutorial services. The implementation of culturally inclusive admission policies and curricula programs will decrease learning inequalities while supporting higher education persistence and achievement of Indigenous students.
Download
Export To
metrics
| Views | Downloads | |
|---|---|---|
| F1000Research | - | - |
|
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Quincho-Apumayta R, Carrillo Cayllahua J, Ccencho Pari A et al. University Dropout Among Indigenous University Students: A Global Systematic Review [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2025, 14:641 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162508.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Comments on this article Comments (0)