Over the past few years, most higher education institutions have implemented institutional strategies for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), including policies, action plans, commitments and more (Campbell, 2021; Tamtik & Guenter, 2019).

At the present time, institution officials are taking stock of the human and financial resources required to carry out this work in a structured and sustainable way (Campbell, 2021).

Insufficient funding to support DEI initiatives, in particular, is a major barrier to the deployment of action plans in institutions (Universities Canada, 2019). Furthermore, many offices dedicated to advancing DEI in colleges and universities are led by a single person, whereas institutions that have built an actual team are more likely to make specific, proactive recommendations to management (Tamtik & Guenter, 2019).

At the Heart of the Mission of Higher Education

As spaces dedicated to education and social transformation (Amboulé Abath, 2022), higher education institutions have an “institutional responsibility” (McNair & al., 2020) to apply DEI principles.

Colleges and universities are institutions founded on principles that underpin DEI, including that knowledge advances through the exchange of ideas coming from diverse voices (Campbell, 2021). Higher education institutions also have a responsibility to question existing knowledge (Scott, 2020).

As early as 1998, in its World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) made its commitment to implementing the mission and function of higher education explicit concerning the ideals of access and equity:

“Access to higher education for members of some special target groups, such as indigenous peoples, cultural and linguistic minorities, disadvantaged groups, peoples living under occupation and those who suffer from disabilities, must be actively facilitated, […]. Special material help and educational solutions can help overcome the obstacles that these groups face, both in accessing and in continuing higher education” (UNESCO, 1998, p.4).

In the province of Québec, higher education institutions must take responsibility for DEI, in line with the values put forth by the ministère de l’Éducation and the ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur in terms of inclusion, openness to the diversity of peoples and needs, universality, accessibility, equity and equal opportunity (Fonds de recherche du Québec, 2021). 

The mission of the ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur is to offer to the greatest number of students accessible, flexible educational pathways adapted to their needs, enabling them to acquire the knowledge and skills they need to succeed personally and professionally, and to participate actively in Québec’s economic, social and cultural development

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur (2022)

To that end, this mandate must be seen as a shared responsibility: every college or university community member has a role to play, starting with management. This institutional and structuring view makes it possible to engage everyone’s responsibility — managers, teachers, professors, professional and technical staff, students and interns — toward common goals, the main outcome of which is student success.

Higher education institutions must ensure that, as part of their educational pathway, each individual receives the resources and the means to create the right conditions for success, while respecting their rights, identities, experiences and needs (Amboulé Abath, 2022).

Therefore, all staff and students must be involved in the cultural changes linked to DEI policies. However, even leaders with the best perspectives may end up failing without the support of community members, especially those from marginalized groups (Barnett, 2020).

What should an institutional DEI policy include? Here are some of the areas of intervention and sectors of activity that should be included (Doutreloux & Auclair, 2021b). This list illustrates the crosscutting nature of DEI issues in institutions as well as the need to share responsibilities among its various components.

Physical environment: accessible facilities, safety, etc.

Communications: displays representative of diversity, inclusive writing, inclusive Web standards, etc.

Research: diversified research teams, methodologies that include a variety of viewpoints, useful and accessible spin-offs for minority groups, etc.

Student services: diversified activities, psychosocial services that take into account the diversity of identities, collaboration between services, respect for the duty to accommodate, etc.

Employee services: mentoring program, job placement program, respect for the duty to accommodate, etc.

Pedagogy: teaching and evaluation methods that take into account the diversity of profiles and the variety of needs, etc.

Governance: presence of minority or historically discriminated groups in decision-making positions, including the board of directors, etc.

Staffing: application of the equal employment opportunity program, hiring processes that are free of bias and adapted to the needs of applicants, equitable evaluation grids and aptitude tests, postings that reach out to targeted groups, etc.

Admission: services that can be accessed remotely, support throughout the admissions process, accessible information, accurate placement tests, etc. (Doutreloux & Auclair, 2021b).

The Importance of Inclusive Leadership: the Necessary Involvement of those Concerned

Image title : Inclusive Leadership Image of a colourful six-piece puzzle. One of the pieces is in the process of attaching itself to the rest of the pieces. Think of the puzzle pieces as people around a table.

In order to fully shoulder their institutional responsibility, the administration of educational institutions must assume a leadership role capable of mobilizing their college or university community (Magnan & al., 2018).

Inclusive leadership means co-constructing institutional DEI strategies with certain groups that make up the student population. Dialogue is not just part of the process; it is a crucial element of inclusive leadership (Roper, 2019). When leaders ignore the importance of collaboration and co-construction in the implementation of DEI, many people see themselves as invisibilized (McCauley & Palus, 2020).

Adopting a dialogue-based approach allows for a better understanding of the nature of the problems and inequalities experienced as well as of the particular issues at stake in terms of recognition. For instance, members of the First Peoples express how uncomfortable it can be to be included as a marginalized group among many others, irrespective of their legal status and history of colonization (Table de travail sur les réalités autochtones de l’Université du Québec, 2022).

Inclusive leadership can also have a transformative reach beyond the organization, by suggesting social changes aimed at social justice and deep-seated structural transformations (Doutreloux & Auclair, 2021a). This type of leadership recognizes the need for an organization to fundamentally redefine its identity, vision and strategies in order to co-construct new, more inclusive structures and processes (Hansen & al., 2021).

Inclusive leadership also possesses a self-critical capacity for introspection: do current governance structures contribute to maintaining inequalities in higher education (Hansen & al., 2021)? Do the actions undertaken hide structures that perpetuate inequalities in access to higher education (Scott, 2020)? Are the preferred DEI initiatives based on “ready-made solutions” observed in other large organizations, regardless of the particular institutional context (ibid.)?

In this regard, the “equity lens” model (Suarez & al., 2018) allows relevant questions to be asked throughout the decision-making process:

Questions for the Adoption of an Equity Lens

These introspective questions can guide the co-construction of institutional DEI strategies with college and university community members who belong to marginalized groups.

Image title: Questions for the Adoption of an Equity Lens In the centre, we see a light bulb and around it, different categories of questions. What Category (1 question): What do I want to implement? Why Category (2 questions): Do the data reveal any discrepancies between certain sub-groups? Why do these discrepancies exist? How Category (4 questions): How can I make sure that the change equitably addresses the issues and needs identified? How can I minimize my blind spots in the decision-making process? How can I help reduce existing discrepancies? Have I made sure to involve a wide range of people upstream and downstream? How much Category (1 question): Are the resources at our disposal invested equitably? Who category (3 questions): On whom will the planned change have a positive impact? Are there groups for whom the planned change could have negative impacts? Who will be directly or indirectly affected by what I want to implement? Data category (1 question): Do I have data disaggregated by sub-group to make basic observations, understand the issues at stake or identify differentiated needs and impacts? Inspired by Suarez & al. (2018) and questions from Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA Plus) (Government of Canada, n.d.).

Courses of Action for Shared Responsibility

The courses of action identified below are part of a structuring view aimed at a shift from mandatory accountability (required in particular by federal research funds) to taking responsibility in higher education communities, where all members have a role to play.

Regarding the management of DEI offices in institutions

  • Assign clear, realistic mandates to those responsible for developing and deploying DEI action plans.
  • Increase the number and ensure the sustainability of human and financial resources dedicated to implementing, monitoring and evaluating DEI action plans (Campbell, 2021).
  • Focus on the creation of “communities of practice” for teachers and professors, enabling the sharing of resources as well as facilitating the transfer of knowledge and DEI best practices.
  • Create an institutional guide on the meaning of key DEI terms to establish a common understanding (ibid.).

Regarding governance

  • Consider the team responsible for rolling out the DEI action plan as a major partner in the decision-making process (Hansen & al., 2021).
  • Appoint a member of the senior management team with the explicit mandate to oversee the development of institutional DEI strategies. 
  • Diversify decision-making bodies in terms of ethnocultural origin, gender, socioeconomic background and more (Barnett, 2020) so that solutions do not just reflect the vision of people from the majority.
  • Involve all stakeholders in the valorization of DEI, including managerial staff, professors/teachers, professionals, technicians and students (Mercer-Mapstone & al., 2021).
  • Leverage institutional services, such as libraries, as well as administrative, pedagogical, material and financial services, in the development and adoption of inclusive practices (Fonds de recherche du Québec, 2021).
  • Prioritize certain actions based on institutional contexts and realities (e.g. regional or urban) to give the plan greater relevance and ensure better mobilization.

Regarding human resources

  • Review staffing and human resources management processes: Is the hiring process (how resumes are sorted, the use of evaluation grids and aptitude tests) free of bias and prejudice? Do hiring conditions exclude certain people from the outset? Are certain groups systematically absent from applications, and if so, how can this be remedied through more proactive measures (Doutreloux & Auclair, 2021b)?
  • Prioritize the hiring of people from minority groups in decision-making positions to diversify processes, ensure proper management and engage in dialogue.
  • Directly target certain minority groups when posting jobs and hiring, in accordance with applicable laws and programs.
  • Allocate professional development resources for all staff to ensure a basic understanding of DEI issues (Hansen & al., 2021).

Regarding the evaluation of practices

  • Set up mechanisms to monitor the implementation of action plans (Fonds de recherche du Québec, 2021).
  • Allocate human, financial, time and material resources to develop a space to share DEI best practices (Universities Canada, 2019).
  • Adopt a cautious attitude when choosing monitoring indicators and targets to avoid them being designed and determined solely by the majority group and contributing to the reproduction of inequalities (Scott, 2020).

Regarding future research

  • Document how the DEI plans were designed, implemented and welcomed by the different groups that make up the college or university community (Tamtik & Guenter, 2019).
  • Document the evaluation and impact of DEI measures and practices (Tzoneva & Gulian, 2020).
  • Improve intersectional data analyses by disaggregating institutional statistics according to different marginalized groups (Universities Canada, 2019).
  • Continue researching the relationship between institutional DEI strategies and student access, perseverance and success.

References

Amboulé Abath, A. (2022, may 11). Les pratiques inclusives et équitables en contexte de diversité socioculturelle : De quoi s’agit-il au juste en enseignement supérieur? [communication orale]. 89e congrès de l’Acfas, Québec, QC.

Barnett, R. (2020). Leading with Meaning: Why Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Matters in US Higher Education. Perspectives in Education, 38(2), 20‑35.

Campbell, A. (2021). Equity education initiatives within Canadian universities: promise and limits. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 25(2), 51‑61.

Doutreloux, E. & Auclair, A. (2021a). Rapport d’enquête sur l’expérience étudiante en lien avec l’équité, la diversité et l‘inclusion. Service de recherche et de développement pédagogique du Cégep de l’Outaouais.

Doutreloux, E. & Auclair, A. (2021b). Repenser le système éducatif pour plus d’équité, de diversité et d’inclusion : un pari possible? Le Réseau ÉdCan.

Fonds de recherche du Québec (2021). L’université québécoise du futur : Tendances, enjeux, pistes d’action et recommandations.

Gouvernement du Canada (s. d.). Module 4 – À quoi ressemble l’ACS Plus « en action »? Examen de l’ACS Plus dans les collectivités fonctionnelles.

Hansen, M. J., Keith, C. J., Mzumara, H. R. & Graunke, S. (2021). Developing and implementing an institutional research office diversity, equity, and inclusion strategic plan. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2021(189‑192), 93‑108.

Magnan, M.-O., Gosselin-Gagné, J., Charrette, J. & Larochelle-Audet, J. (2018). Gestionnaires et diversité ethnoculturelle en milieu scolaire : une recherche-action/formation en contexte montréalais. Éducation et francophonie, 46(2), 125‑145.

McCauley, C. D. & Palus, C. J. (2020). Developing the theory and practice of leadership development: A relational view. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5).

McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M. & Malcolm-Piqueux, L. (2020). From equity talk to equity walk: Expanding practitioner knowledge for racial justice in higher education. Jossey-Bass.

Mercer-Mapstone, L., Islam, M. & Reid, T. (2021). Are We Just Engaging « the Usual Suspects »? Challenges in and Practical Strategies for Supporting Equity and Diversity in Student-Staff Partnership Initiatives. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 227‑245.

Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur. (2022).Plan stratégique 2021-2023. Gouvernement du Québec.

Roper, L. D. (2019). The Power of Dialogue and Conversation in Higher Education. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2019(163), 15‑28.

Scott, C. (2020). Managing and Regulating Commitments to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education. Irish Educational Studies, 39(2), 175‑191.

Suarez, C., Anderson, M. R. & Young, K. S. (2018). The Changing Roles and Contributions of Campus Diversity Offices and Their Influence on Campus Culture. Metropolitan Universities, 29(1), 64‑76.

Table de travail sur les réalités autochtones de l’Université du Québec (2022, march 22). L’université et les Peuples autochtones : défis de l’inclusion et enjeux de reconnaissance [vidéo]. Université du Québec.

Tamtik, M. & Guenter, M. (2019). Policy Analysis of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Strategies in Canadian Universities – How Far Have We Come? Canadian Journal of Higher Education / La Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur, 49(3), 41‑56.

Tzoneva, T. & Gulian, T. (2020). Les enjeux de la réussite scolaire des étudiants issus de l’immigration au cégep. Les Cahiers de l’IRIPI, no 3, 55-63.

Universités Canada (2019). Équité, diversité, et inclusion dans les universités canadiennes : Rapport sur le sondage de 2019. Universités Canada.