Inequalities in Academic Employment and Leadership

Equality and diversity in the context of universities has been extensively studied in relation to students, staff, leadership and communities. Equality in the sector presents an uneven profile for these constituent groups. Higher education remains a less progressive sector in terms of all forms of equality for staff. While most scholars would like to believe that the higher education provides an ideal setting to generate and disseminate new and robust forms of knowledge and to promote well informed social, economic and technological practices which draw on evidence. As such many scholars are under the illusion that the higher education sector offer  a setting which fosters freedom, equality and liberty. Yet, a close inspection demonstrates that the sector is lagging behind all others in terms of its equality provision for staff. Inequalities exist across categories of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation and many others in terms of recruitment, selection, staff development, and conditions and terms of work. The illusion of equality in the sector render inequalities invisible. Proportions of women and minority ethnic people in positions of power remain extremely low. University management has a flavour machismo internationally. Research shows that efforts to combat sexism and racism are often marginalised in the sector which continues to be driven by instrumental logics. 

Managing diversity: the regulation debate

In Britain, we have a rather naive debate on regulation, which is often understood as coercive regulation such as gender quotas, equality duties and anti-discrimination laws. In fact, regulation can take many forms. There is legal regulation, market regulation, industry regulation, organisational regulation, professional regulation and self-regulation of individuals. While the legal regulation is  often what managers refer to as regulation. Market regulation is often referred to as voluntary measures. This naming practice underplays the compulsion and imperatives associated with self-regulation of markets. Other forms of regulation are also often ignored. Therefore, when we talk about regulatory measures, often times, legal regulation is presented as a 'radical option'. Law is often considered an unsuitable route to foster equality. This criticism is wholly unsubstantiated as legal regulations presents a strong reason for organisations to bring in diversity interventions. Yet, it is surprising that the slow pace of change towards equality is not attributed to the failure of market, organisational and individual self-regulation. Narrow framing of regulation of workforce diversity means that slow pace of change is attributed to the failure of legal regulation, when in fact what fail are market and industry regulation. 

Varieties of equality

Equality remains an elusive concept. Vested interests shape the definitions and perspectives of equality. Equality in representation, attitudes, standards, processes, outcomes, opportunities are a few perspectives that we see floating around. Equality in representation appears to be the dominant approach, characterised by an interest in head counts across domains of life and work. Quotas are the most oft cited interventions in this perspective. Equality in attitudes is the approach which borrows psychological concepts to frame equality. As such in studies of this perspective we see a focus biases, attitudes, stereotypes, behaviours and emotions induced by equality and inequality. Equality of standards is concerned with equality in the institutional provisions, policies and actions. This perspective focuses on  design and delivery of institutional interventions and encounters in the main. Equality in processes is a perspective which explores institutional processes and their capacity to generate equality and inequality. For example, processes of recruitment, selection, development, performance and talent management can    examined in terms of antecedents and outcomes. Equality of standards and processes are often less reported by organisations than equal representation. Te primary reason for this can be that the former approaches require institutional changes, while changes in representation may come about without changes to institutions or attitudes. Equality in outcomes is a perspective which is least popular among policy making circles, for similar reasons as above. Equality in outcomes is about receiving the same outcome for equal work or effort. The focus for this perspective is on pay gap, or other discrepancies in terms and conditions of work, promotions, incentives and rewards. Equality of outcomes remains the least popular perspective as it requires combatting of deeply rooted inequalities which lead to uneven distribution of outcomes. Finally, equal opportunities is the most popular of equality perspectives as it is underpinned by liberal stance that equality can be achieved if individuals are given equal chances. This perspective advocates   equality of access to chances and opportunities. Dominance of equal opportunities perspective above all other perspectives is sometimes criticised for being a form of resistance to achieving deeper and more sustainable forms of equality. 

Launching a blog on Equality

I will write down my thoughts, observations and ideas on equality in this blog. Having toyed with the idea of blogging, I finally gave into temptation. Now, I need to start remembering all those important things I once thought I should blog about.