EDI in academic–policy engagement: lived experience of university based knowledge brokers and marginalised academics

Laura Bea, Alejandra Recio-Saucedo
{"title":"EDI in academic–policy engagement: lived experience of university based knowledge brokers and marginalised academics","authors":"Laura Bea, Alejandra Recio-Saucedo","doi":"10.1332/17442648y2024d000000030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nDiscourse surrounding Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) has received significant attention within the UK academy and knowledge brokerage contexts, and more recently within academic–policy engagement spaces (Walker et al, 2019a; Fawcett, 2021; GOV.UK, 2021; Morris et al, 2021). Key players in this space identify the need for diversifying academic participation, as well as diversifying knowledges (GOV.UK, 2021; UK Parliament, 2018; UKRI, 2023). However, conceptual and practical insight on embedding EDI principles (and what they mean in this context) within academic–policy engagement processes is missing.\n\n\nUnderpinned by feminist and decolonial epistemological concepts, this article addresses this gap by outlining strategies, and surfacing ways in which EDI within academic–policy engagement is experienced, conceptualised, understood and considered.\n\n\nTwo parallel qualitative studies, with a total of 20 semi-structured narrative and realist interviews conducted with marginalised researchers (n=10, Study A) and university based knowledge brokers (n=10, Study B), and a rapid literature review. The analysis used a narrative and thematic framework.\n\n\nWe found a want for EDI to go beyond just diversity of people and representation, towards fostering foundational principles of epistemic justice, equitable access, value-driven engagement and plurality. Academics and knowledge brokers reported both negative and positive experiences within this space that related to known EDI issues. We conclude that EDI cannot be standardised across higher education contexts, and emphasise the need for holistic, relational and plural approaches to EDI across academic–policy engagement systems through a value-led, equitable and ethical lens.\n","PeriodicalId":434142,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"36 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2024d000000030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Discourse surrounding Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) has received significant attention within the UK academy and knowledge brokerage contexts, and more recently within academic–policy engagement spaces (Walker et al, 2019a; Fawcett, 2021; GOV.UK, 2021; Morris et al, 2021). Key players in this space identify the need for diversifying academic participation, as well as diversifying knowledges (GOV.UK, 2021; UK Parliament, 2018; UKRI, 2023). However, conceptual and practical insight on embedding EDI principles (and what they mean in this context) within academic–policy engagement processes is missing. Underpinned by feminist and decolonial epistemological concepts, this article addresses this gap by outlining strategies, and surfacing ways in which EDI within academic–policy engagement is experienced, conceptualised, understood and considered. Two parallel qualitative studies, with a total of 20 semi-structured narrative and realist interviews conducted with marginalised researchers (n=10, Study A) and university based knowledge brokers (n=10, Study B), and a rapid literature review. The analysis used a narrative and thematic framework. We found a want for EDI to go beyond just diversity of people and representation, towards fostering foundational principles of epistemic justice, equitable access, value-driven engagement and plurality. Academics and knowledge brokers reported both negative and positive experiences within this space that related to known EDI issues. We conclude that EDI cannot be standardised across higher education contexts, and emphasise the need for holistic, relational and plural approaches to EDI across academic–policy engagement systems through a value-led, equitable and ethical lens.
学术政策参与中的电子数据交换:大学知识经纪人和边缘化学者的亲身经历
围绕 "平等、多样性和包容性"(EDI)的讨论在英国学术界和知识中介背景下,以及最近在学术-政策参与空间内受到了极大关注(Walker et al, 2019a;Fawcett, 2021;GOV.UK, 2021;Morris et al, 2021)。这一领域的主要参与者认为,学术参与需要多样化,知识也需要多样化(GOV.UK,2021;UK Parliament,2018;UKRI,2023)。本文以女权主义和非殖民主义认识论概念为基础,通过概述策略以及揭示在学术-政策参与过程中体验、概念化、理解和考虑 EDI 的方式,弥补了这一空白。两项平行的定性研究共进行了 20 次半结构式叙事和现实主义访谈,访谈对象包括边缘化研究人员(人数=10,研究 A)和大学知识经纪人(人数=10,研究 B),以及快速文献综述。我们发现,人们希望电子数据交换不仅仅是人员和代表的多样性,还能促进认识论正义、公平获取、价值驱动的参与和多元化等基本原则。学术界和知识经纪人报告了在这一领域中与已知的电子数据交换问题相关的负面和正面经验。我们的结论是,在高等教育背景下,电子数据交换不可能标准化,并强调有必要通过价值导向、公平和道德的视角,在学术-政策参与系统中采用全面、相关和多元的电子数据交换方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信