Transcript Equal Opportunities and Managing Diversity compared

Understanding the
Managing/Valuing
Diversity perspective
Judith Foreman
What is ‘managing diversity’?
The concept of Managing Diversity embodies two key
assumptions


The heterogeneity and diversity of social groups discrimination and disadvantage are, therefore,
multifaceted
Organisations can benefit from valuing difference
and managing diversity effectively
Both ideas have implications for organisational change
and professional practice
What is Managing Diversity?



MD is often defined by comparing it with
Equal Opportunities approaches
Some authors claim that MD represents
a ‘paradigm’ shift in equal opportunities
work
Some see MD as an
extension/development of EOP
Equal Opportunities and Managing
Diversity compared – drivers for
change
Equal Opportunities



Externally driven
Rests on moral and
legal arguments
Perceives EO as a
cost
Managing Diversity



Internally driven
Rests on ‘business
case’
Perceives MD
(Managing Diversity)
as investment
Equal Opportunities and Managing
Diversity compared – degree of
integration
Equal Opportunities



Operational
Concerned with
process
Externally imposed –
low ‘buy-in’
Managing Diversity



Strategic
Concerned with
outcomes
Internalised by all
Equal Opportunities and Managing
Diversity compared – perception of
difference
Equal Opportunities
 Difference perceived
as
other/problematical
 Deficit model

Assimilation
advocated
Managing Diversity
 Difference perceived
as asset/richness
 Celebrates
difference

Mainstream
adaptation
advocated
Equal Opportunities and Managing
Diversity compared – focus of action
Equal Opportunities
 Focus on group
discrimination
 Group initiatives

Supported by narrow
positivist knowledge
base
Managing Diversity
 Focus on development
for all individuals
 Universal initiatives
 Individual development

Supported by wider
pluralistic knowledge
base
Different approaches to WP
emerging from research
Academic
Differential
Provision
Transformative
Assimilation
Group-focused
(targeting)
Separation or
compensation
Group-focused
(targeting)
Mainstream
adaptation
Individual focused
Peripheral and
operational
Peripheral and
operational
Central and strategic
Externally driven
Pragmatic
Externally and
internally driven
Origins and application of MD to
widening participation in HE




Private sector
More recent application to public/not for
profit sector
Employment
Generally not as well developed in
relation to customer/client diversity –
especially student diversity
‘Business Case’ in HE


Business case not an approach used in
HE
WP driven by a range of factors
• Govt policy
• Funding
• Institutional mission – social justice
• Market position
Why a Business Case?




Creates internal arguments for student
diversity and WP based on benefits to
institution
HE Sector is partially ‘marketised’, so
‘business’ arguments apply
HE sector is diverse, so not ‘one size fits
all’
Organisational change
Elements of a Business Case





Potential benefits to the institution
Potential costs, risks and barriers
Differential impacts on different
stakeholders
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Can the costs be met?
External Drivers
Internal Drivers
Recruitment
Legislation
Funding and
policy drivers
‘Pool of Talent’
Organisational
Change
Improving T&L
New markets
Ethical drivers Social justice
Reputation
Mission Commitment
Corporate Social
Responsibility
(Access to funding)
Potential benefits to institutions







Increased student numbers
Tapping the pool of talent
Improving teaching and learning
Access to funding
New roles and markets
Complying with legislation
Reputation
Group discussion activity



Which of the benefits would be most
relevant to your institution(s)?
How might these provide a rationale for
further investment in managing student
diversity?
What would be the implications of this
(costs, risks, barriers etc)
Costs and risks





Additional cost of supporting the learning
experience
Costs of low retention
New course development (for new
student markets)
Academic standards
Diverting funding from ‘core business’
Barriers
Internal barriers context specific, e.g.
 Other activities such as research being more
highly valued
 Institutional history and perceptions held by
prospective students (and some staff!)
 Fear of adverse effect on existing student
cohorts
 External barriers, e.g. funding system