Addressing the diversity principle–practice gap in Western higher education institutions: A systematic review on intersectionality

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Tessa Lukkien, Trishna Chauhan, Lilian Otaye-Ebede
{"title":"Addressing the diversity principle–practice gap in Western higher education institutions: A systematic review on intersectionality","authors":"Tessa Lukkien,&nbsp;Trishna Chauhan,&nbsp;Lilian Otaye-Ebede","doi":"10.1002/berj.4096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Extant research has focused on the barriers faced by minority faculty in academia. Despite outward notions of commitment to diversity, higher education institutions remain largely exclusive to anyone who does not prescribe to the ‘ideal’ faculty. Recently, more attention has been given to minority faculty who possess intersectional identities, highlighting their increased marginalisation. Equality, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) initiatives have been identified as a primary enabler of supporting minority groups, yet research on intersectionality and its operationalisation into practice is relatively scattered across disciplines. To provide an evidence-based analysis and integration, this article systematically reviews the literature on intersectionality in the context of higher education using common intersectional categories. We systematically reviewed and thematically summarised key findings of 38 empirical studies conducted from 1990 to 2022, in which key recommendations related to EDI were identified. Recommendations were categorised into three levels based on where the onus for action lay: individual, organisational and institutional. Through an intersectional lens, our paper provides theoretical insights into the problematic nature of power and critiques of EDI initiatives. While we provide practitioners with tangible recommendations to redress intersectional inequality in academia, we heed caution on being overly reductionist and contend there is no single solution, delineating the importance of context in applying recommendations. Future research is needed to empirically evaluate the operationalisation of intersectionality vis-à-vis adopting a praxis lens.</p>","PeriodicalId":51410,"journal":{"name":"British Educational Research Journal","volume":"51 2","pages":"705-736"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/berj.4096","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.4096","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Extant research has focused on the barriers faced by minority faculty in academia. Despite outward notions of commitment to diversity, higher education institutions remain largely exclusive to anyone who does not prescribe to the ‘ideal’ faculty. Recently, more attention has been given to minority faculty who possess intersectional identities, highlighting their increased marginalisation. Equality, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) initiatives have been identified as a primary enabler of supporting minority groups, yet research on intersectionality and its operationalisation into practice is relatively scattered across disciplines. To provide an evidence-based analysis and integration, this article systematically reviews the literature on intersectionality in the context of higher education using common intersectional categories. We systematically reviewed and thematically summarised key findings of 38 empirical studies conducted from 1990 to 2022, in which key recommendations related to EDI were identified. Recommendations were categorised into three levels based on where the onus for action lay: individual, organisational and institutional. Through an intersectional lens, our paper provides theoretical insights into the problematic nature of power and critiques of EDI initiatives. While we provide practitioners with tangible recommendations to redress intersectional inequality in academia, we heed caution on being overly reductionist and contend there is no single solution, delineating the importance of context in applying recommendations. Future research is needed to empirically evaluate the operationalisation of intersectionality vis-à-vis adopting a praxis lens.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Educational Research Journal
British Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The British Educational Research Journal is an international peer reviewed medium for the publication of articles of interest to researchers in education and has rapidly become a major focal point for the publication of educational research from throughout the world. For further information on the association please visit the British Educational Research Association web site. The journal is interdisciplinary in approach, and includes reports of case studies, experiments and surveys, discussions of conceptual and methodological issues and of underlying assumptions in educational research, accounts of research in progress, and book reviews.
×
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