Facts, figures and frustrations: the challenges of a national conversation of race disparity

Many providers analyse student race data, for example recruitment, success and progression, to determine race equality gaps to tackle. But if you have a major campaign to raise awareness of an attainment gap for Black students at your institution, how does this affect recruitment of Black students? Does it further entrench deficit assumptions and approaches by teachers and assessors? Does it increase stereotype threat within the students themselves? The Equality Challenge Unit has recently examined reactions to the Cabinet Office’s ‘Ethnicity facts and figures’ site and asks: what lessons for HE?

In August 2016 the Prime Minister announced a ‘race disparity audit’, the findings of which were intended to influence government policy in tackling instances of racial disparities. The audit’s main output, the ‘Ethnicity facts and figures’ website together with a summary of findings, has been made available.

The Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) has engaged with the fierce debate stimulated by the audit, both nationally and within higher education, and has recently published an interesting blog on this debate. Although geared to HE, their comments are just as relevant to all education providers. In their blog, for example, the ECU said:

‘Firstly, it is important to note that there is very little data on higher education currently available on the government site; …most ethnicity data on higher education is held, published or analysed by bodies like HESA, ECU in ECU statistical reports (based on HESA data, and with the latest due in November), UCAS, OFFA and others…We hope progress might be made to the ‘Facts and Figures’ website in the future by linking or signposting to external data sources to make them more publicly accessible.’

‘One of the most common responses to the audit – particularly from those who are already involved in seeking racial justice – was ‘so what?’ For many, a concerted effort from leaders to put time and resources into more data gathering can be frustrating when the challenges have been well known by many for some time. Action, rather than further awareness-raising, has been called for by many including the NUS…For higher education, this is an important reminder for institutions to make the best of information already available; to communicate very clearly how and when data gathering will turn into action; and to be innovative in reducing delays, whether that be through more ‘action research’, or knowledge exchange with other institutions.’

‘When racism is embedded within organisational cultures, new activity to address concerns can elicit accusations of ‘tokenistic’ engagement, or using data collection to distract and delay action. In particular, launching new data to support ‘diversity work’ whilst continuing other policies and practices which might perpetuate inequality will sometimes be perceived as hypocritical, reactionary or disingenuous. Within higher education, senior leaders especially can consider how to ensure their motivations, communications and self-reflections are authentic, and mindful of the histories not only of their institution, but of the academy as a whole, and the wider societal structures we sit within. …Some commentators have stated that whilst data on racial inequalities is welcomed, the framing of this data within discussions of ‘racial justice’ may serve to increase racialized divisions within communities, rather than as a tool to achieve ‘inclusivity’.’

‘Should we be talking openly about racial inequalities or not? While some remain critical of bringing such inequalities into open debate, we are mindful that there is much research stating that avoidance of discussing race can obstruct or even exacerbate work for racial equity…We believe that underrepresentation in both academic and professional leadership, as well as significant challenges within student attainment, need to be acknowledged directly.’

A further critique of publication of the audit points out that providing data on differential outcomes can decrease trust and engagement of ethnic minority people with those services and so exacerbate the problems. It is worth considering this carefully in the higher education context. For example, if you have a major campaign which raises awareness of an attainment gap for Black students at your institution (even with a clear action plan), how does this affect recruitment of Black students? Does it further entrench deficit assumptions and approaches by teachers and assessors? Does it increase stereotype threat within the students themselves? These are important questions to ask, and highlight the importance of communicating the intentions of new projects and discussions on race. However the questions are not themselves barriers to action within any one institution, particularly as this is a shared national challenge for higher education. Instead, we can need to be alert to how continued engagement with students and staff can inform new strategies and closely monitor and refine outcomes.’

‘As we go forth in to the new academic year, the audit is a reminder that data on race is powerful – but only part of a story.’

You can read the full ECU blog here

You can access the ‘Ethnicity facts and figures’ website here