ArticlePublisher preview available

The uneasy place of equity in higher education: tracing its (in)significance in academic promotions

Springer Nature
Higher Education
Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Throughout the West, efforts to achieve equity for students in higher education have met with mixed success. Much extant literature focuses on the position and perspectives of students in relation to this wicked problem: our research turns the spotlight onto the role of academic staff. In an effort to understand equity’s mixed fortunes more forensically, this article offers a case study from a research-intensive university in Aotearoa New Zealand. The study outlines the current context of ideas about equity in national government and institutional policies, then traces the life of those ideas inside one particular yet ubiquitous institutional process: the promotion of academic staff. Promotion is a potent moment of academic subject formation where, in order to participate, individuals must account for themselves as promotion-worthy through presenting a comprehensive dossier in response to a detailed set of norms. Our research explores the extent to which institutional promotion processes suggest the necessity of an “equity-active academic subject” as well as the kinds of equity-active subjects who emerge. Our analysis of institutional documents and interviews with colleagues involved in promotion decision-making processes suggests that, despite an inevitable institutional rhetoric of commitment to equity, the concept occupies an uneasy, even risky, place in the academic promotion process, and that responsibility for equity remains largely stuck to equity bodies. This small study contributes to a deeper understanding of the obstacles—contradictions even—equity faces within university culture.
The uneasy place of equity in higher education: tracing
its (in)significance in academic promotions
Mark Barrow
1
&Barbara Grant
1
#Springer Nature B.V. 2018
Abstract
Throughout the West, efforts to achieve equity for students in higher education have met with
mixed success. Much extant literature focuses on the position and perspectives of students in
relation to this wicked problem: our research turns the spotlight onto the role of academic staff.
In an effort to understand equitys mixed fortunes more forensically, this article offers a case
study from a research-intensive university in Aotearoa New Zealand. The study outlines the
current context of ideas about equity in national government and institutional policies, then
traces the life of those ideas inside one particular yet ubiquitous institutional process: the
promotion of academic staff. Promotion is a potent moment of academic subject formation
where, in order to participate, individuals must account for themselves as promotion-worthy
through presenting a comprehensive dossier in response to a detailed set of norms. Our
research explores the extent to which institutional promotion processes suggest the necessity
of an Bequity-active academic subject^as well as the kinds of equity-active subjects who
emerge. Our analysis of institutional documents and interviews with colleagues involved in
promotion decision-making processes suggests that, despite an inevitable institutional rhetoric
of commitment to equity, the concept occupies an uneasy, even risky, place in the academic
promotion process, and that responsibility for equity remains largely stuck to equity bodies.
This small study contributes to a deeper understanding of the obstaclescontradictions
evenequity faces within university culture.
Keywords Academics .Faculty.Policy analysis .Promotion .Student equity.Tenu re
Higher Education
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0334-2
*Mark Barrow
m.barrow@auckland.ac.nz
1
Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
... ECSs are typically encouraged to be involved with science communication as an activity crucial to developing the next generation of scientists by improving scientific literacy within the public domain outside of academia (Kompella et al., 2020;Kerr, 2021). The motivations to engage with these activities can conversely be ascribed as constraints, as they are associated with the provision of public engagement activity that is identified as low cost or of lesser value, and the mentoring of ECSs by mid-career scientists is devalued in many cases (Barrow and Grant, 2019;Hillier et al., 2019;Kompella et al., 2020). The potential for the exploitation of their labor merits discussion and can be contextualized within the broader concepts of pedagogic frailty, particularly as ECSs constitute the most numerous proportion of researchers in higher education (Kinchin and Francis, 2017;Lahiri-Roy et al., 2021;Pownall et al., 2021). ...
... The impact of overwork as structural inequality endemic in academia arguably has repercussions on the mental health of science communicators, indicating a clear link between the mental well-being of academics and their perceptions of work demands. The prominence of research and public engagement demands is recognized, which suggests the approach to these aspects of academia in terms of the potentially negative consequences of exploitation and overwork, with evidence that these effects are most pronounced amongst marginalized (minoritized) groups (Barrow and Grant, 2019;Guidetti et al., 2020;Hernandez et al., 2020;Wheaton, 2020;Caltagirone et al., 2021). ...
... The visibility of minoritized groups through public engagement is crucially important to breaking down stereotypes (Weingart and Guenther, 2016;Guertin et al., 2022). However, the assumption that minoritized groups must hold key responsibility to counter these affects through active, open, and visible engagement predisposes marginalized groups to exploitation as communicators who are expected to provide institutionally led public engagement activity to counter prejudice and be equity-active (Barrow and Grant, 2019). Equity of marginalized groups in higher education is problematic, and global discourse signifies a range of perspectives that can be adapted to fit cultural and social priorities. ...
Article
Full-text available
Science communication is an important part of research, including in the geosciences, as it can (1) benefit both society and science and (2) make science more publicly accountable. However, much of this work takes place in “shadowlands” that are neither fully seen nor understood. These shadowlands are spaces, aspects, and practices of science communication that are not clearly defined and may be harmful with respect to the science being communicated or for the science communicators themselves. With the increasing expectation in academia that researchers should participate in science communication, there is a need to address some of the major issues that lurk in these shadowlands. Here, the editorial team of Geoscience Communication seeks to shine a light on the shadowlands of geoscience communication by geoscientists in academia and suggest some solutions and examples of effective practice. The issues broadly fall under three categories: (1) harmful or unclear objectives, (2) poor quality and lack of rigor, and (3) exploitation of science communicators working within academia. Ameliorating these problems will require the following action: (1) clarifying objectives and audiences, (2) adequately training science communicators, and (3) giving science communication equivalent recognition to other professional activities. In this editorial, our aim is to cultivate a more transparent and responsible landscape for geoscience communication – a transformation that will ultimately benefit the progress of science; the welfare of scientists; and, more broadly, society at large.
... One major shift is marked by educational reforms of the late twentieth century which aimed to strengthen links between education and economy (Stratford, 2019). These reforms have profoundly influenced higher education institutions' goals and policies, compelling universities to operate in ways inflected with increasing market rationale, emphasising economic impact, global rankings, intake of international students and research audit (Barrow & Grant, 2019;Stratford, 2019). ...
... They reflect the external expectations of universities enshrined in New Zealand's Education and Training Act 2020, which states that 'a university is characterised by a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially at a higher level'. Other government policies related to equitable educational provision, student success and so on also have an influence (Barrow & Grant, 2019). Each of these has a direct effect on the formulation of the Standards and the way in which our participants might interact with them. ...
... However, as C2 explained with his own experience of failure, contributing to the three areas may not necessarily lead to career progression (see also Barrow and Grant (2019) for the complexities and uncertainties of academic promotion). Therefore, many participants read beyond the Standards, interpreting and refining the academic truth game as a researcher game prioritising research, perceiving it as having higher stakes in an institution with a culture of pursuing research excellence and international rankings (Stratford, 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Whilst many studies have explored academic identity construction, very few take a comparative perspective to examine the various ways of constructing academic identities within and across different disciplines. This paper analyses a key policy document used for evaluating academics’ performance along with semi-structured interviews with 37 academics from Chemical Sciences, Medical Sciences, Nursing and Education working in a research-intensive New Zealand university. The use of Foucault’s theoretical construct of games of truth provides a novel perspective to investigate the ways in which academics in different disciplines play the academic ‘game’ and how this might affect their construction of an academic identity. Our analysis suggests that the path into academia is a key factor in their trajectory of academic formation. The study suggests three types of ‘valid’ academics. It problematises the standardised definition and evaluation of academics and offers contextualised, multiple, dynamic and agential understandings of being and becoming set up through the interplay of forces arising from disciplinary, institutional, professional and personal spheres.
... ECS typically are encouraged to be involved with science communication as an activity crucial to developing the next generation of scientists by improving scientific literacy within the public domain outside of academia (Kerr, 2021;Kompella et al., 2020). The motivations to engage with these activities can conversely be ascribed as constraints as they are associated with the provision of public engagement activity that is identified as low-cost, or a lesser value, and in many cases the mentoring of ECS by mid-career scientists is devalued (Hillier et al., 2019; 370 Kompella et al., 2020;Barrow and Grant, 2019). The potential for exploitation of their labor merits discussion and can be contextualized within the broader concepts of pedagogic frailty, particularly as ECS constitute the most numerous proportion of researchers in higher education (Kinchin and Francis, 2017;Lahiri-Roy et al., 2021;Pownall et al., 2021). ...
... The impact of overwork as structural inequality endemic in academia arguably has repercussions on the mental health of science communicators, indicating a clear link between the mental wellbeing 375 of academics and their perceptions of work demands. The prominence of research and public engagement demands is recognized, which suggests the approach to these aspects of academia in terms of the potentially negative consequences of exploitation and over-work, with evidence that these effects are most pronounced amongst marginalized (minoritized) groups (Caltagirone et al., 2021;Wheaton, 2020;Guidetti et al., 2020;Barrow and Grant, 2019;Hernandez et al., 2020). ...
... Geoscience, amongst all STEM disciplines, has the lowest percentage of minoritized students and professionals which underlines this equity 385 gap and the importance of the visibility of minoritized groups through public engagement is crucially important to breaking down stereotypes (Guertin et al., 2022;Weingart and Guenther, 2016). However, the assumption that minoritized groups must hold key responsibility to counter these affects through active, open and visible engagement pre-disposes marginalized groups to exploitation as communicators who are expected to provide institutionally-led public engagement activity to counter prejudice and be equity-active (Barrow and Grant, 2019). ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Science communication is an important part of research, including in the geosciences, as it can benefit society, science, and make science more publicly accountable. However, much of this work takes place in “shadowlands” that are neither fully seen nor understood. These shadowlands are spaces, aspects, and practices of science communication which are not clearly defined and may be harmful with respect to the science being communicated or for the science communicators themselves. With the increasing expectation in academia that researchers should participate in science communication, there is a need to address some of the major issues that lurk in these shadowlands. Here the editorial team of Geoscience Communication seeks to shine a light on the shadowlands of geoscience communication and suggest some solutions and examples of effective practice. The issues broadly fall under three categories: 1) harmful or unclear objectives; 2) poor quality and lack of rigor; and 3) exploitation of science communicators working within academia. Ameliorating these will require: 1) clarifying objectives and audiences; 2) adequately training science communicators; and 3) giving science communication equivalent recognition to other professional activities. By shining a light on the shadowlands of science communication in academia and proposing potential remedies, our aim is to cultivate a more transparent and responsible landscape for geoscience communication—a transformation that will ultimately benefit the progress of science, the welfare of scientists, and more broadly society at large.
... While departments have attempted to address these inequities by increasing the diversity of those who hold power (i.e., faculty, department chairs), without attending to concurrent changes in symbols and structures, this often results in furthering inequities by tokenizing and burdening minoritized faculty and students (Barrow and Grant, 2019;Settles et al., 2021;Wanti et al., 2022). ...
... In other words, institutions prioritize financial profit over educational outcomes (McPherson et al., 1993). Consequently, faculty are pressured to minimize their efforts in equity-oriented activities (e.g., spending time on service work, introducing equity-oriented teaching practices, redesigning departmental or institutional goals) (Sabagh and Saroyan, 2014;Barrow and Grant, 2019). However, stakeholders can work to reorient these incentives to foster a culture that prioritizes equity in student success. ...
Article
This essay deconstructs definitions of success in STEM higher education across four stakeholder levels using the Four Frames model for systemic change. We identify three key bottlenecks that preclude systemic change and discuss opportunities for change agents to leverage these to increase equity in STEM higher education.
... From an academic or faculty member's point of view, getting a promotion to a professorship is a remarkable achievement that elevates his or her status in the academic field (Azman et al., 2016). Barrow and Grant (2018) identify promotion as a compelling moment of academic subject formation where, in order to participate, individuals must account for themselves as promotion-worthy through presenting a comprehensive dossier in response to a detailed set of norms. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Career advancement must be based on merit, according to the universal norm. However, faculty members continue to express their dissatisfaction with the existing promotion policies and practices, highlighting issues like ambiguity, lack of transparency, inconsistent implementation, and the overall fairness of the evaluation process. This study aimed to explore the intersections of promotion policies with the research habitus and the distribution of different forms of capital in two higher education institutes in the United Arab Emirates. Methods Data were gathered from a purposively selected sample of faculty members using semi-structured interviews in addition to key policy documents at both institutes. Results and discussion Using Bourdieu’s notion of habitus, capital, and field, the study identified key characteristics of the research habitus and how it shapes perceptions towards aspects of competitiveness and collegiality as practiced in the research world. The study also examined potential relationships between research habitus and promotion policies. Finally, the study explored capital distribution in the research field and identified some of the undisclosed aspects of the promotion world, highlighting areas like prior education, affiliations, professional experience, cultural background, ethnicity, and social networks as some of the factors that may play a role in the promotion outcomes. The findings of the study can be used to offer an additional layer of understanding some hidden rules of academic research fields and capital distribution in light of institutional policy development and enactment. Such understanding can be used to make recommendations on how existing challenges can be addressed to improve perceptions of the clarity and fairness of faculty promotion policies and encourage more transparent practices.
... not just equal opportunity and access but also equal outcomescf. Angervall and Beach 2020; Barrow and Grant 2019). Some advocate the need for short-run policies such as the adoption of gender quotas in promotions processes where the percentage of women promoted should at least equal the percentage of women at the grade below. ...
Article
Using UK data supplied by universities, this paper confirms that women academics earn less than men, even after controlling for a range of covariates. Despite narrowing after 2004/05, the observed (unconditional) pay gap was still −0.089 in 2019/20, while the conditional pay gap was relatively unchanged remaining at around −0.050 in 2019/20. The results are consistent with the literature on why pay gaps might occur, with the key disparity occurring when women face a higher cost of investment and statistical discrimination, linked to bias, to achieve promotion. That is, the results presented here suggest that earnings gaps are significantly reduced when grade-balanced gender sub-groups are compared, suggesting conditional wage differences are more likely due to bias rather than any inherent differences in (research) productivity.
... It is recognized that there exists an imbalance in the representation of these sub-groups at higher grades in universities, and there are difficulties in ensuring recruitment and promotions adhere to an approach based on meritocracy (Nielsen, 2016) and the associated need for greater equity (i.e., not just equal opportunity and access but also equal outcomes-cf. Angervall & Beach, 2020;Barrow & Grant, 2019). As Scott (2020) notes, ''diversity is going to a party and inclusion is being asked to dance. ...
Article
Full-text available
Statistically robust evidence that the pandemic (C19) has had an adverse impact on academic research carried out in Universities is limited. The new results presented are based on a survey of Business School academics who were entered into the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 assessment of research quality, confirming that C19 had a major effect during the March to September 2020 period on research activities. In terms of which sub-groups of staff have been most affected, the largest negative effects are associated with those (almost all female) staff who took paternity/maternity leave during the 7-year REF period; followed by female staff, those (mid-career researchers) in the Associate Professor grade, then staff classified as “other white ethnic” (as opposed to White British). The implications of this for equality, diversity, and inclusion are likely to be significant, as is discussed when looking at what universities might do to overcome the negative impacts of C19.
Article
Full-text available
This research aimed to investigate how teachers promote equity in the classroom and how students experience equity in the classroom in the Akuapem South Municipality of Ghana. The study adopted Freire's (1970) concept of critical pedagogy as its theoretical framework and employed a qualitative case study approach with purposive sampling of 8 teachers and 16 third-year students from various classrooms in four schools. Data was collected through interviews and observations and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings revealed equity issues within the study schools, with students facing various forms of inequity. Teachers promoted equity mainly by avoiding foul language in the classroom and creating interactive classroom sessions. Recommendations included equity training for teachers and students, counselling support, creating inclusive classrooms, and reducing class sizes to support a more inclusive environment.
Chapter
The redesign of academic career frameworks aims to respond to the increased complexity of academic roles. The nature of the academic role is discussed in this chapter, with reference to the substantive activities that make up a role as well as to career stages. Discussion about academic identities follows. Roles and identities overlap partly; both evolve over time. Academic identities have been the focus of a substantial body of literature and have been explored through various theoretical lenses and methodological approaches. This chapter highlights contributions to the identities debate which are of immediate relevance to the discussion about academic career frameworks. Drawing on an illustrative analysis of publicly available career framework documents in UK universities, the chapter highlights key features of these frameworks and links discussion to academic identities. It uses teaching expertise and excellence to signal a potential lack of consistency in how institutions interpret these criteria. It notes the varied ways in which academic citizenship, collegiality, and collaboration are integrated and rewarded on different pathways in different frameworks. It looks at the way documentation and information are organised and presented to make expectations for each pathway and career stage transparent.
Chapter
The pace of change of academic career frameworks varies within and across national higher education systems. Trailblazing institutions have introduced frameworks that speak to their core ethos and mission, and support academics to use a broad range of expertise for the benefit of students and wider communities. Other institutions are at different stages of framework development and maturity and may be grappling with design and / or implementation decisions. This chapter puts forward 12 principles, abstracted from theoretical, conceptual, and empirical literature in various national contexts, to guide the framework redesign process flexibly and lead to context-specific solutions that draw critically and constructively on good practice in the sector. The chapter then looks in turn at three aspects that have particular relevance to the way in which frameworks bed into a specific institutional context. The role of senior sponsors in the pathway redesign process; promotion criteria and decision-making panels; and HR input into pathway design and implementation. It is premised on the view that successful frameworks are the result of collaborative efforts and benefit from policies and processes which support alignment between individual aspirations and institutional ambitions. It is also premised on the view that academic career frameworks evolve in time.
Chapter
Full-text available
Widening participation in higher education (HE) is now a key ambition of government policy in many countries around the globe. For most OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations, expanding HE provision is the policy instrument for producing more knowledge workers, needed to gain a competitive advantage in the global knowledge economy, particularly in the wake of losing industrial economic dominance to China, India and other rapidly developing nations (Spence, 2011: xv). In addition, the World Bank and other transnational politico-economic organizations now tie their financial support for developing nations (e.g. in Africa and Asia) to the expansion of HE (Molla & Gale, in press), as a way of achieving poverty reduction and economic growth (World Bank, 2002). For nations with a social inclusion agenda, HE expansion is also justified in terms of increasing the participation of traditionally under-represented groups, although achieving expansion in OECD nations is itself increasingly reliant on being more socially inclusive. Universal participation (Trow, 1974; 2006) has become the new social imaginary for HE (Taylor, 2002; Gale & Hodge, in press), similar in scope and significance to the introduction of compulsory schooling in the mid 1800s.
Article
Full-text available
Academic (or educational) development is a relatively recent project in universities. In Aotearoa New Zealand there were two waves of foundation for academic development, separated by almost 20 years, during which time much in national and international higher education had changed. This article draws on empirical and archival data to propose that shifts between the two waves give insight into the changing mechanisms of governmentality at work for academic staff in higher education. In a particular case, the emergence and consolidation of a culture of student evaluation of teaching is used to illustrate how academic development has been implicated in those shifts. In the earlier period, from a marginal location, a more pastoral mode of power relations between the academic developer as an institutional change agent and the academic staff they worked with is evident, with an emphasis on voluntary participation from the latter. By contrast, in the later period, academic development has moved closer to the institutional centre and is participating in more disciplinary forms of power relations in its efforts to shape academic conduct towards certain ends. In this shift, a technology that was initially created and implemented by academic development for one purpose was ultimately taken up by the institution for quite another: it became part of the audit machine. While our data come from a particular case of practice within local national context, the cautionary tale offered here has salience for other academic development practices and other countries where academic development has had a similar story.
Article
Full-text available
Background The proportion of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in U.S. academic medical centers has remained almost unchanged over the last 20 years. Some authors credit the "minority tax"¿the burden of extra responsibilities placed on minority faculty in the name of diversity. This tax is in reality very complex, and a major source of inequity in academic medicine.DiscussionThe ¿minority tax¿ is better described as an Underrepresented Minority in Medicine (URMM) faculty responsibility disparity. This disparity is evident in many areas: diversity efforts, racism, isolation, mentorship, clinical responsibilities, and promotion.SummaryThe authors examine the components of the URMM responsibility disparity and use information from the medical literature and from human resources to suggest practical steps that can be taken by academic leaders and policymakers to move toward establishing faculty equity and thus increase the numbers of black, Latino, and Native American faculty in academic medicine.
Article
Full-text available
The term equity is ubiquitous in Australian education policy and evolves amidst ongoing debates about what it means to be fair in education. Over the past three decades, meanings and practices associated with equity have reflected broader shifts in advanced liberal governance, with equity being reframed as a ‘market-enhancing’ mechanism and melted into economic productivity agendas. In this paper, I argue that an emerging, yet, under-examined policy tension is the view that secondary schools are capable of being equitable, whilst simultaneously acting as adaptive service providers, tailoring education to different students and local markets. A dilemma here is whether or not schools should ‘tailor equity’ or whether tailoring equity is indeed antithetical to equity in so far as it implies unequal provision. To explore this tension, I draw upon fieldwork from ethnographic research in two socially and economically disparate government secondary schools in suburban Melbourne, Australia. In doing so, I explore how equity is enacted and governed by educators, how forms of equity at each school relate to versions of equity in policy and the extent to which each school tailors equity to its local community.
Book
Preface. Introduction: A Thousand Masks. 1. Influences Upon Foucault. 2. Liberalism and Liberal Education. 3. Personal Autonomy as an Aim of Education. 4. Education and Power. 5. On Education. 6. Personal Autonomy Revisited. 7. Doing Philosophy of Education. Conclusion. References. Index of Names. Index of Subjects.