Institution level awarding gap metrics for identifying educational inequity: useful tools or reductive distractions?

Equity is increasingly seen as a core value for higher education systems around the world. (In)equity is often measured through construction of achievement gaps, quantifying the relative outcomes of two populations of students. Institution-level gaps are embedded in the policy landscape of HE, becoming performance metrics in their own right. These gap metrics increasingly inform the actions of governments, regulators, institutions and educators. This theoretical article scrutinises the technical and conceptual construction of achievement gaps through using the dominant UK conception of the institution level degree classification ‘awarding gap’. Drawing on Adam’s Equity Theory of Motivation, Rawls’s Distributive Justice and the Capability Approach as theoretical perspectives, I highlight multiple structural weaknesses in the conception of the awarding gap. I illustrate the implications of this metric by analysing simulated awarding gap data for a fictional institution, and through the perspectives of five idealised stakeholders. I identify multiple technical and theoretical limitations of the institution level awarding gap metric, including examples where the threshold-based nature of the awarding gap fails to capture statistical differences between groups, thereby undermining its utility in identifying inequity. I call on the sector to develop metrics that more accurately capture (in)equity of outcomes and align better with theoretical frameworks, thereby creating more powerful explanatory metrics that can inform meaningful action.