Securing EDI Futures Toolkit by Nifty Fox Creative

Securing EDI futures toolkit: Stormproofing EDI Research Ecosystems in UK HEIs

Key messages Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) progress remains slow within the UK HE research sector due to the absence of definitive, vigorous objectives across governance and infrastructural frameworks. It is imperative that the EDI research ecosystem (inclusive of research practice, process and management) demonstrates increased agility within this evolving sector while strengthening institutional transparency and distributed accountability. Recommendations include: • a shared, collective approach across Senior Management Teams (SMTs) • more than a regulatory-based EDI approach, characterised by: 1) more customised methods 2) researcher expertise informing institutional practice • EDI priorities spanning all aspects of institutional functioning • a community-based accountability approach including consistent institution-wide communication around progress against EDI priorities • proactive and systematic, rather than reactive and piecemeal, investment

By Karisha Kimone George, Susannah Williams, Natalie Wall and Nicholas Pleace.

Introduction EDI remains a central part of UK HE research sector discourse. Yet, to date, the sector still struggles to show concrete and sustained reductions in inequities as evidenced by persistent gender and ethnicity pay gaps; poor representation in senior leadership roles; and the prevalence of harassment and bullying. The lack of (pro)action and response to social change brings into question the ‘public good’ image of HE institutions, who risk deepening wider societal inequalities and negating their role in driving change. This toolkit is based on a scoping review of EDI information webpages, policy documents, videos, reports and other online materials that were publicly available from 28 UK universities, and interviews conducted with Senior Leaders, Professors and Professional Staff from 12 different HEIs. The research highlights fundamental aspects undermining EDI success including:

fragmented EDI infrastructure (EDI silos)

lack of senior leader engagement

a ‘one size fits all’ approach

an absence of transparency and accountability

piecemeal resourcing and lack of ‘stormproofing’ against financial instability

This toolkit provides practical steps that can be taken to ensure sustainable EDI progress within UK HE alongside suggestions for tailoring recommendations to institutional contexts and priorities.

Core Recommendations Governance Embedding EDI sustainably within the UK HE research sector requires visible and consistent commitment from university-level governance. Otherwise, EDI progress becomes disjointed across Faculties and Departments, leading to piecemeal growth. While the presence of a dedicated senior leader for EDI is becoming increasingly common across UK HE institutions (e.g. the University of Edinburgh), this alone does not guarantee progress. The most effective institutions combined this focused leadership with a shared, collective approach across Senior Management Teams (SMTs), particularly having a senior EDI lead providing strategic direction and coordination, alongside distributed accountability across SMTs driving implementation and impact. Institutional governance must ensure that all departmental and school-level SMTs possess a definitive EDI remit, maintaining accountability within core leadership frameworks.

This strategic responsibility should not sit solely with research committees, as these often lack the requisite resources and authority to drive impactful structural change. Notable best practice included allocating specific EDI responsibilities across senior leaders (e.g. disability, ethnic minority experience), while also encouraging institutions to consider locally relevant priorities beyond statutory characteristics. For example, some universities, including the University of Bradford, have recognised the importance of socioeconomic status (SES) and assigned senior leadership responsibility accordingly. In cases where resources are very limited, the alternative recommendation involves adopting a rotation-based EDI approach where the institution focuses its SMT efforts on a single underrepresented background every year (e.g. a year focused on Antiracism, and a year focused on Disability) - as is seen in the University of West England. Both the approach of EDI responsibility collectively shared across SMTs and the rotation-based EDI approach have been effective. Therefore restrictions due to limited institutional capacity do not preclude maximum impact. However, what remains key for longlasting structural embedding of EDI is that it is integrated into SMT roles. This also prevents inconsistencies across EDI priorities with staff turnover, which stalls progress in many institutions.

Infrastructure It is important to have a sustainable EDI ecosystem, where all teams work together, leading to greater progress than what is achievable in EDI silos. Across the sector, the bulk of EDI work within institutions tends to be siloed with, for instance, teams dedicated to research culture working independently from those managing wider institutional EDI practice. This divorces EDI personnel with the ‘enforcement’ power from those working in other more temporary EDI roles, leading to two core obstacles to EDI success:

Engagement with recommended research culture practice is not mandatory, hindering the level of researcher engagement with the numerous existing resources aimed at important EDI upskilling (e.g. Flourish@Durham, and the University of Sheffield’s Implement EDI principles in research calls checklist). In these cases, EDI skills are mainly developed within individuals who are personally motivated; typically individuals who may have limited power to generate change outside of their own development.

Staff tend to only be mandated to engage with training focused on regulatory EDI requirements. This leads to a ‘tick box’ performative EDI approach, rather than the creation of a genuine sustainable EDI culture that infiltrates all aspects of institutional decisions and daily research practice. However, the solution is not to increase EDI compulsory staff training - this will increase the workloads within an already strained sector. We recommend that institutions instead opt for more than a regulatory-based EDI approach, characterised by: • more customised methods • researcher expertise informing institutional practice • shared communities of practice (CoPs)

Customised EDI approaches When universities tailored EDI infrastructure to target their unique obstacles to EDI progress (outside of regulatory requirements), there were many successes. This is seen in the mainstreaming of decolonisation efforts in the University of Cambridge’s Legacies of Enslavement project which explored its legacies of colonialism and slavery - leading to advancement in the integration of decolonising into research practice through multiple research groups and initiatives, and evidenced by sustained changes in institutional EDI culture by the returning of stolen artefacts, the signing of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, and a continued recognition that more needs to be achieved.

EDI progress can rely on trends in available funding, but it needs to be present when funds are limited. The key is adopting a responsive yet proactive approach to embedding EDI within the institution, focusing on its key obstacles, and tackling these rather than prioritising legal obligations.

A researcher-informed approach Institution-focused EDI research is key for identifying internal and external obstacles and developing potential solutions. It is important to recognise that institutions balance responsiveness to staff and student experiences with regulatory restrictions and frameworks (e.g. the definition of gender). However, when research acted as a bridge between these two, EDI progress was notable. Many research outputs inform EDI research practice within their institutions (e.g. the University of Sheffield, Glasgow Caledonian University, and the University of Plymouth). Though many of these are externally funded (e.g. the INKLUDE project at King’s College London), staff and student annual surveys (e.g. the University of Greater Manchester) can inform institutional practice where institutions lack external funding.

In this case, it was important to have continuous engagement with staff and student lived experiences across all marginalised backgrounds and frequent public and visible institutional recommitment to EDI priorities (e.g. through ‘bitesize’ EDI modules as is seen in the University of Warwick; or regular EDI newsletters with SL reflections as is seen in the University of Leeds). Public and visible commitment to EDI reflects a deeply embedded ‘listening’ culture characterised by open communication and collaborative working.

Shared communities of practice (CoPs) CoPs can ensure effective research-based practice is sector-focused (e.g. the Wellcome-funded Anti-Ableist Research Culture project in Sheffield). CoPs are most effective when developed across institutions (e.g. the EPSRC-funded EDI Hub+), and supported by crossinstitutional communities dedicated to embedding these research-based resources within the HE sector (e.g. the White Rose University Consortium, and the University of Manchester’s Centre for the Dynamics of Ethnicity). CoPs enable comparable progress across the sector, especially when faced with constrained resources. 5.

Transparency Across all institutions, a more developed EDI ecosystem is present when institutional goals and milestones are accompanied by transparent systems of accountability. Without accountability, EDI progress is largely superficial, with for instance very detailed EDI strategies existing alongside oppressive practices. While the presence of clearly-defined goals and milestones led to advances in institutional EDI activity (e.g. the University of Leicester and the University of Sheffield), it was not the defining factor of EDI progress. Rather, accountability in a transparent institution-wide system was the best indicator for sustained EDI progress with the following three features evidencing best practice: EDI priorities spanning all aspects of institutional functioning This moved institutions away from ad-hoc EDI decision-making, enabling a deeper embedding of EDI within the institutional culture. It also ensured that institutions did not rely solely on tick-boxing against the minimal requirements associated with institutional charters (e.g. Athena Swan and Race Equity charters), but had developed firm building blocks to achieve long-lasting change. Several universities have moved towards this approach (e.g. The Open University, and Durham University) and benefit from readily translating good practice across institutional functioning.

A community-based informed accountability approach The most successful institutions embedded institutional EDI priorities into the Performance and Development Review Objectives of all staff, from Vice Chancellors to the most junior levels, making EDI every staff members’ responsibility as is seen in the University of West England. However, this was rare. The dominant approach was to rely heavily on existing accountability structures such as the University’s Board of Governors.

While the former led to far greater EDI progress, the latter proved more effective when the Board of Governors included diverse voices (e.g. those with lived experience of marginalisation) alongside learned experiences (e.g. through the systemic education of those with no experience of marginalisation), or when there were other mechanisms for integrating lived with learned experience (such as in the accountability boards present in King’s College London, Imperial College London and Queen Mary’s University London’s use of Equality Impact Assessments). This reflected an informed accountability approach.

Consistent institution-wide communication around progress against EDI priorities Strategies with detailed systems for updating the wider institutional community were among the most effective (e.g. with staff meetings every 4-6 months and ‘bitesize’ email updates). It was crucial to engage all staff on a semi-regular basis.

Resourcing

Institutions need to evidence commitment with internal funding in line with external funding (e.g. UKRI’s New Individual Eligibility Policy Opens Doors for Diverse Talent and Wellcome’s Accelerator Awards). This can motivate staff to engage more in EDI-informed practice, boost staff morale and reduce staff turnover. Without adequate resourcing, EDI progress is unsustainable. Not all institutions have equitable resources at their disposal, and this is often cited as a factor determining unequal EDI advancement across the sector. In practice, however, progress did not rely on the amount of funding, but on the manner in which resources were used with investment made in a proactive and systematic rather than reactive and piecemeal manner having the most significant impact. This involved stormproofing resource allocation in several ways: Utilising a mix of external and internal funding Effective practice involved a blended funding model to ensure that funds spent led to longterm sustainable change (e.g. the University of Bradford’s Centre for Inclusion and Diversity).

Ensuring that funds spent lead to long-term sustainable change Across many institutions, there were opportunities to apply for funding pots for small-scale EDI projects (e.g. Valuing Voices at the University of York, the Researcher-led initiative awards at the University of Exeter, and the University of St. Andrews’ EDI fund), with some explicitly integrating project findings into institutional EDI practice (e.g. the University of Edinburgh’s decolonised transformations research project). In these cases, impact was sustained through concerted effort to use project outputs to enhance wider institutional practice. This levelling up of impact prevented the duplication of efforts on similar projects across departments and faculties, which is important within institutions that rely on decentralised EDI work. 7.

People While many institutions rely on ‘grassroots’ EDI work to sustain their EDI commitments (e.g. EDI champions at the Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of York), many are ‘voluntary’ in nature. When institutions depended on voluntary EDI efforts, these roles tended to be occupied by minoritised individuals as is seen in the widespread use of EDI staff forums (e.g. Race equality forums, Disability forums). Reliance on voluntary engagement as the backbone of EDI work is problematic as:

1.•

EDI progress then depends on the willingness of line managers

2.• institutional EDI advancement overrelies on minoritised individuals, placing unacknowledged pressure on these staff members

To ensure EDI work was aligned through a collective focus on institutional EDI priorities, best practice invloved: • adequately workloading EDI labour • training line managers to understand the requirements of EDI roles • streamlining communication between key EDI agents across Departments, Faculties and Schools (as is seen in the University of West England)

Contact: karisha.k.george@york.ac.uk or edi-research-centre@york.ac.uk

Scan this QR code to let us know how you’ve used this toolkit in your practice.