Diversity and inclusion in development studies
Our vision is for development studies to be a vibrant, diverse discipline offering critical thinking from a wide range of views. As part of this vision, we have undertaken a race audit of development studies within the UK and, based on our learnings from this, are now engaging in further work. The aim is to arrive at a fuller understanding of one aspect of equality, inclusion and diversity within UK development studies, with the intention of extending this in future to other dimensions of diversity.
What we have done so far
In early 2023 the DSA hired a research associate to analyse the racial profile of staff within development studies departments via a small pilot study. We tested the feasibility of different information sources and approaches including the Higher Education Statistics Agency, (HESA), Freedom of Information requests and the efficacy of both individual and institutional surveys. We then rolled out a survey using HESA categories in early 2024 to obtain a more comprehensive picture of the sector. We recognised the limitations of this categorisation scheme but hoped it would make it easier for institutions to respond as it’s the most widely used.
What we have learned so far
Although response rates were lower than expected, it’s clear that white academics predominate in the sector (59%) and this is particularly true at higher levels: 69% of Professors were white, reflecting the findings of a recent report on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) in the social sciences: summary data report (Academy of Social Sciences, March 2024). There is qualitative evidence (e.g. Rollock, 2021) that the competitive and unsupportive environment within UK Higher Education, alongside the high incidence of micro-aggressions such as not made to feel like an equal colleague, being patronised, excluded or ignored in meetings, processes and decisions; being over burdened with work and other engagements; lack of acknowledgement of efforts, alongside other arbitrary and exploitative treatment) , often causes academics of colour to leave the sector. This means that work on ensuring equal access for students of colour at the PhD stage needs to continue into support around the first academic appointment and securing of a permanent contract.
What we will do next
We secured partial funding from the Academy of Social Sciences Equality Diversity, and Inclusion grants scheme for a three-part programme to address the retention and progression of academics of colour. The first component involves running workshops with early career academics of colour from different UK regions to better understand their needs and generate a support network. We will then provide training to Heads of Department/School and other senior colleagues to address structural barriers to progression. Finally, we will use qualitative methods such as documentary review, key informant interviews with Heads of Centre and EDI specialists and group discussions with an advisory board to understand EDI best practice of DSA members (for example, SOAS, who have appointed half of the black academics within our sample).
What’s informing our work
The workshop component builds on Generation Delta which supports PhD students of colour (Generation Delta (leeds.ac.uk) through student workshops on three different themes (Access; Retention; Careers). These are followed by roundtables with staff in those institutions to discuss findings and draw out structural issues. The student workshops have built community and lead to bespoke interventions such as bringing in trainers to address lack of confidence, which was a barrier articulated by the participants.
Generation Delta has shown that a robust support network can be generated via a programme of workshops and could be key in supporting retention within the PhD programme, timely completion, and progression into graduate-level employment. Our project extends the scope of Generation Delta to early career academics (ECRs), since the literature suggests that the point at which most academics of colour drop out is when they are in a job but don’t feel they are progressing or are moving from one job to another.
The training component will use Active Bystander training which was developed by the Royal Economic Society (RES) to create attitudinal change (Be the Change: The Role of Active Bystanders, Royal Economic Society). An important barrier to the progression of academics of colour is the attitudes of senior colleagues on recruitment panels or acting as line managers. RES believe Active Bystander training can also work with colleagues who effectively act as institutional gatekeepers. We plan to pilot this, as, if effective, it will have a high level of impact, due to the influential roles held by these individuals (not just in recruitment, but in supporting individual colleagues of colour and creating an enabling environment). Following our pilot, we will collaborate with RES on a joint event highlighting the strengths of this approach and its potential for application across sectors.
The final component, using qualitative methods to understand EDI best practice of DSA members, will address great variation across our sample in terms of both the numbers and the level of seniority of colleagues of colour. While there were some patterns, for example, greater diversity in London institutions, there were other examples such as in Bath where positive outcomes in terms of diversity were being achieved, even though the demographics of the surrounding area were very different. We believe that looking at different types of institutions, including both ones that are world-leading in supporting academics of colour and ones that are doing better than would be expected, will help us understand the key factors in creating environments that support improved wellbeing and progression. There are studies of individual institutions, but few comparative studies. None of the studies are specific to the development studies sector, which attracts international scholars of colour, but does not attract as many UK students of colour , reducing the potential pool of academics of colour in the future.
Examples of good practice we have identified
Good practice that we have identified in the early stages of our race audit include the following:
- bespoke training for staff and students (e.g. SOAS’s race and belonging module for all students, King’s Active Bystander training for staff), alongside specific training for members of appointment panels and managers,
- active networks/fora (e.g. SOAS has a career development forum for staff of colour),
- regular reporting within a clear structure of accountability (e.g. SOAS report against the proportion of Black academics on permanent contracts, Black and women of colour in senior leadership, and ethnicity and gender pay gaps)
- targeted scholarship programmes, including but not limited to Sanctuary scholarships, and
- explicit commitment to broaden the representation of under-represented groups, including in the curriculum (Arshad, 2021 characterises this as ‘to situate the histories and knowledges that do not originate from the West in the context of imperialism, colonialism and power and to consider why these have been marginalised and decentred’).
In combination, these practices create an ecology where early career academics are more likely to flourish. Alongside this information, which can to some extent be gleaned from institutional websites, leading organisations have micro and meso level initiatives that account for their success. The qualitative component will allow us to understand what they are doing, why it is working, and most importantly what other institutions would need to know to apply the approach successfully.