Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Collaborative Project Cohort 1 Report for the University of Exeter

August 2019

J Moody, Senior Adviser

Advance HE

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 2

Contents

1. Overview 3

2. Executive summary of recommendations 4

3. About the Collaborative Project 6

3.1 Membership and Aims 6

3.2 Theoretical framework 7

3.3 Structure 9

4. Key learnings from the project 13

4.1 Institutional strategy and resourcing around EDI in the Curriculum 14

4.2 Staff engagement and professional development 17

4.3 Student engagement, co-production and voice 21

4.4 Curriculum content and design: approaches to innovation, diversity and decolonisation 24

5. Next steps and Ongoing Collaboration 30

5.1 Cohort engagement 30

5.2 Sector engagement 30

5.3 ‘Bridging the gap’ 30

5.4 Support from Advance HE 31

Select Resources 32

Supplementary materials 32

Bibliography 33

Acknowledgements 36

About Advance HE 37

Accessibility 37

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 3

1. Overview In the contexts of increasingly diverse student bodies and continuing inequalities in student access,

experience and outcomes, UK Higher Education institutions are reflecting on the relationships

between their curriculum and wider work on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).

Disciplines, institutions, and professions are considering how their pedagogies and practices might

advance equality, enhance belonging and facilitate student explorations on the nature of knowledge

and their roles in society. Most recently, policy and regulatory focus on ‘gaps’ in academic

attainment, progression and experience between different groups have seen calls for ‘a radical

increase in ambition’1 in approaching structural and cultural change.

The University of Exeter joined the Advance HE Towards Embedding EDI in the Curriculum

collaborative project March-August 2019, in order to make use of outside expertise and resources, to

further embed existing good practice, and to share good practice with partners across the sector.

Specifically, the institution envisioned that this work would enhance the Inclusive Learning and

Teaching stream of work undertaken throughout 2018-19 as part of the Provost Commission to

ensure the institution is “an open, diverse and safe university community for all”. The Commission’s

work sits alongside other university activities and resources supporting consideration of equality,

diversity and inclusion (EDI) in learning and teaching.

This report summarises some key themes, challenges and opportunities from across the

collaborative project, as well as highlighting specific recommendations relevant to Exeter. The

intention of this report is to:

+ Summarise and evidence key learnings from participating in the project

+ Prompt discussion and reflection internally within the institution

+ Provide a foundation for ongoing work

Further opportunities to share good practice and continue collaboration with others are detailed in

Section 5.

1 Office for Students 2018-05-10 . See also Chris Millward, Wonkhe 2018-09-06

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 4

2. Executive summary of recommendations Reflections and analysis of key themes are contained within the main report, with recommendations

for all institutions, as well as specifically for the University of Exeter. Recommendations indicated

with an asterix (*) are highlighted specifically for the University to consider and are expanded on

within the main text.

Recommendations: Institutional strategy and resourcing

1. Ensure institutional commitment to inclusive learning and teaching is explicit in its language, aims

and expectations. *

2. Ensure a clear governance and oversight structure for developing EDI in learning and teaching

which considers work undertaken under different strategies, funding streams and organisational

structures. *

3. Provide dedicated resources to support enhancement of inclusive learning and teaching. This

could include: a role for co-ordination and oversight, short-term research and development, long-

term evaluation capacity, and an ongoing service offering bespoke advice and support for

enhancement within specific departments and disciplines. *

4. A clear path for innovation in learning and teaching: clear permissions, accountability and

recognition.

5. Accountability to all students for inclusive learning and teaching.

Recommendations: Staff engagement and professional development

1. Consider the support, reward and recognition of staff who are advancing EDI in the curriculum:

whether this be leading, supporting or advocating. However, ensure a co-ordinated and central

support and enhancement resource is in place, and be particularly vigilant in ensuring the burden

of work and develop does not fall on staff from marginalised or underrepresented groups. *

2. Seek feedback from staff as to their development needs and preferred approaches: but compare

these to student expectations on ‘minimum’ levels of practice, and pace of change. Consider how

best for the institution to provide a supportive environment, be clear in its aims and positions, and

clarify if and how any monitoring or feedback on practice will be provided. *

3. Ensure senior leaders– and the institution itself – model behaviours around reflexivity and

positionality, and development of their own inclusive practice (including acknowledgement of

where mistakes have been made, or approaches were less successful).

4. Provide regular opportunities for students and staff to come together and discuss expectations

and interpretations of inclusive learning and teaching. *

5. Provide opportunities for staff from across the institution to discuss and develop their practice

(including student support and wellbeing, professional services, library and information services,

personal tutors, programme leads, academic developers, specialist researchers and

practitioners). Include ‘critical friends’ and student voice and evidence wherever possible to

disrupt bias and provide alternative perspectives. *

6. Continue to develop inclusive staff recruitment and promotion process and foster an inclusive

culture, mindful of the diversity of expertise and lived experience of the staff body.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 5

Recommendations: Student engagement, co-production and voice

1. Consider diversification, upskilling and expansion of student representation in learning and

teaching committees, particularly those relating to curriculum approval and development. *

2. Consider the collection and use of diverse student voices on the curriculum and inclusive

teaching practice: for use in staff development session, wider institutional discussions, and in

developing student diversity competency. Support this with wider national and international

research to contextualise the institutional position.

3. Consider the inclusive nature of student contribution mechanisms themselves: for example, the

timing, length and design of meetings; accessibility of documents; creation of safe place for

critical discussion amidst different power structures; the risk of representation fatigue. *

4. Commit to transparency and accountability, rewarding student labour on inclusive curricula and

ensuring appropriated ethical considerations are in place. *

5. Embed student partnership in curricula development from the start of design process: not as an

addition. *

Recommendations: Curriculum content and design: innovation, diversity and

decolonisation

1. Ensure plans for developing curricula are clear on the relationship between structural change (for

example, changing mechanisms around programme design, and programme periodic review)

and staff development and engagement. Consider if a ‘linear’ approach is being taken (building a

foundation of individual and cultural engagement before using this expertise in review processes)

or whether structural and individual change can be developed alongside each other. The chosen

approach will depend on current culture, strategic priorities, resource and timing within the

institution, but should be clearly communicated and supported. *

2. Engage explicitly with student diversity competence and graduate attributes in learning outcomes,

work to embed employability, and resources for staff development.

3. Consider content and design of curricula from the learner perspective, including reflection on the

timing and placement of more diverse and engaging content. For example, if there an

overreliance on diversifying content within optional third year modules or dissertations: what

impact on belonging and retention might this have on first year students? How does the

institutions’ demarcation of which voices and scholarship are ‘core’ and which are ‘optional’

reflect on diverse student identities?

4. Avoid ‘tokenism’ with limited additions to content (‘gender week’) or assessment questions.

Consider intersectional approaches across the curriculum, including a continued critical reflection

on the disciplinary context and future directions in a global academic framework.

5. Ensure transparency on timelines and future direction for change through a clear action plan. *

6. Proactively explore EDI in the Curriculum with PSRBs and other accreditors to ensure a shared

direction and approach and to anticipate opportunities and challenges.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 6

3. About the Collaborative Project

3.1 Membership and Aims

Advance HE invited a small number of institutions- either at the institutional, faculty, department or

subject level – to join a programme to:

+ explore the obstacles to (and opportunities available for) embedding EDI in the curriculum,

developing a picture of institutional/department/subject readiness for change;

+ identify and implement institutional/department/subject-specific EDI approaches to improve

the learning and teaching experiences for their students.

Through participating in the collaborative project Advance HE aimed to support institutions to:

+ Develop a clear picture of what embedding EDI in the curriculum looks like, where the institution currently stands, and current level of institution/department/subject readiness to implement change;

+ Gain first-hand knowledge of how others have implemented and embedded change in relation to EDI in the curriculum, including decolonisation of the curriculum;

+ Receive bespoke, practical support and advice to harness and channel the full expertise of their staff and students; and

+ Be part of a supportive network to understand and address obstacles to embedding EDI in varied curricula.

Table 1 Participating institutions in Cohort A (March – August 2019):

Participating Institutions/Faculties Lead unit or role

Aberystwyth University* Equalities Officer/Strategic Lead for Equality and

Diversity

University of Bedfordshire Principal Curriculum Developer at the Centre for

Learning Excellence (CLE)

University for the Creative Arts (UCA) Teaching & Learning Development Manager

University of Essex Deputy Dean Education (Humanities)

University of Exeter Provost Commission (Teaching and Learning

Stream)/ Dean of Postgraduate Research

University of Lincoln DVC Student Development & Engagement

University of Nottingham #1 (Institutional) Director of Learning and Teaching

University of Nottingham #2 (Faculty of Arts) Director of EDI for School of English/Assistant

Professor

University of Portsmouth Head of Wellbeing and Head of Academic

Development

University of Surrey Professor of Higher Education / Associate Dean Learning and Teaching (Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences)

*Due to extenuating circumstances Aberystwyth University involvement is on a brief hiatus and

expected for completion in 2020.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 7

3.2 Theoretical framework The project approach and theory is developed from Advance HE’s EDI in the Curriculum projects

including the work of Helen May and Liz Thomas (as part of the research and outputs of the Scottish

Funding Council-funded, Higher Education Academy Scotland-led EEDC project2) and the further

development work of Pauline Hanesworth3.

Our approach has been further informed by consultancy and engagement with a range of institutions

across the UK, as well as a range of UK and international literature on inclusive pedagogies and

student experience. We encourage all project participants to share their own project learnings with

the wider sector through future case studies or papers (which Advance HE will be pleased to

signpost).

Throughout this report our default understanding of ‘EDI in the Curricula’ aligns to the following

definition of inclusive practice:

“the ways in which pedagogy, curricula and assessment are designed and delivered to

engage students in learning that is meaningful, relevant and accessible to all.

It embraces a view of the individual and individual difference as the source of diversity

that can enrich the lives and learning of others.”

Hockings, C. (2010) p. 1

This definition draws attention to the possibilities of EDI in the Curriculum work in redressing the

marginalisation or inaccessibility of certain groups and identities within any institution or discipline. It

also notes the wider opportunities to all students – and the academy – in embedding EDI as a source

of enriched scholarship and ‘diversity competence’ of students and graduates. We use ‘diversity

competence’ in this report to refer to:

“the ability to function with awareness, knowledge and interpersonal skill when engaging

people of different backgrounds, assumptions, beliefs, values and behaviours.”

(Hogan 2007, p. 3).

The Advance HE conceptualisation of EDI in the Curriculum (based on May and Thomas 2010)

takes a holistic approach, with 8 key sites of work (below, Fig 1). This consciously aims to widen and

deepen understandings of ‘curriculum’ beyond the most frequently discussed areas of work namely

curriculum content (particularly reading lists), accessibility of materials, and ‘classroom’ practice

The strengths and limitations of this approach and with more specific decolonising approaches are

touched on throughout the report.

It is acknowledged that each institution may have different approaches to conceptualising EDI in the

Curriculum, and its place within existing structures and strategies. These are discussed in Key

Learnings, and examples of alternative frameworks and approaches are detailed in Resources.

While the project engaged with this full range of themes, the report has been structured to focus on

the primary learnings of the project.

2 Higher Education Academy and Scottish Funding Council 3 Hanesworth (2015); (2018)

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 8

Fig 1: Eight Themes in embedding EDI in the Curriculum

3.2.1 Terminology and equality characteristics

Advance HE acknowledges that terminology around personal and group characteristics, identities

and categorisations is historically and culturally situated. As such any terminology will have differing

interpretations and limitations. The term ‘BAME’ for example (for ‘Black, Asian and Minority

Ethnicity’) may reflect current policy discourses and statistical categorisation with the UK higher

education sector. However, its use will be challenged by some and limiting in certain conversations.

Institutions are advised to take careful reflection on their use of terminology, and aim for

transparency in decision making (including where use may vary according to context such as legal,

cultural, academic). For further notes on Advance HE’s current use of terminology on ‘race’ see

https://www.ecu.ac.uk/guidance-resources/using-data-and-evidence/use-language-race-ethnicity/ .

Embedding EDI in the curriculum: THEMES

Institutional management

and co-ordination

Inclusive policies and procedures

Curriculum design

Curriculum delivery

Assessment and feedback

Student engagement

Staff engagement

Learning resources, sites and

environments

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 9

3.3 Structure The project involved four stages, including:

+ Stage 1: Collaborative Network Meeting – Exploring the Theme

+ Stage 2: Institutional Visits – Understanding the Institutional Context

+ Stage 3: Bespoke Interventions – Moving Things Forward

+ Stage 4: Project Reports – Considering Next Steps

A summary description of the stages is included below. Themes and recommendations resulting

from the project as a whole are then discussed.

3.3.1 Stage 1: Collaborative Network Meeting – Exploring the Theme

This full day meeting brought participants together to:

+ Explore the first-hand experiences of others in the sector who have developed work on

embedding EDI in the curriculum

+ Examine different approaches to embedding EDI in the curriculum

+ Explore the practical challenges of changing pedagogy and practice, and how to overcome

them.

Attendees had the opportunity to reflect on experiences from Dr Meera Sabaratnam, Chair of the

Decolonising SOAS Working Group, and Dr Liz Austen and Stella Jones-Devitt from Sheffield

Hallam University. Attendees were also introduced to some of the learning from the EEDC project, as

well as start developing their own ‘change narratives’, and consider institutional readiness for change

and development using Advance HE frameworks.

3.3.2 Stage 2: Institutional Visits – Understanding the Institutional Context

The Stage 2 visits were proposed as ‘messy meetings’ to explore an institution’s context in greater

detail, with the institutional ‘change narrative’ as a touchstone reference. With an on-site consultant

from Advance HE, Stage 2 visit agendas were owned by the local project leads, usually taking into

account availability of key stakeholders (current or future). While a small number of visits focussed

on in-depth discussions with project leads, many used the opportunity to facilitate wider

conversations. Many of the Advance HE consultants noted the implicit ‘permission’ an external visitor

gave to some staff to tackle (or revisit) challenging conversations.

University of Exeter Stage 2 Visit

The Stage Two visit to Exeter permitted Advance HE to engage with a wide range of staff, and

representatives of the Students Guild and was framed around four key conversations:

+ Inclusive Learning and Teaching Sub-Group

Chair: Prof. Andrew McRae

Aims: Communicating and embedding recommendations from the Provost Commission. Making

curricula accessible to all protected characteristics and learning from institutions across the sector

+ Engagement with Social Mobility Conference

Lead: Nicola Sinclair

Aims: Understanding the work of the Centre for Social Mobility, Aims for access and participation and

importance of embedding inclusivity into the curriculum from a WP perspective.

+ Session with DVC Education and Education Leaders

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 10

Chair: Prof. Tim Quine

Aims: Embedding EDI within the upcoming Education Strategy and good practice to adapt from

institutions across the sector

+ Engagement with University Senior Mgmt.

Chair: Prof. Janice Kay

Aims: Delivering cultural change at and institutional level and the University's vision for EDI work

moving forward.

A follow up report was provided (see Supplementary materials) which includes examples of effective

practice surfaced throughout the day. As summary however key themes of discussion included:

+ The wide range of existing initiatives, approaches, resources and expertise at Exeter, with the

question of how to move forward from ‘silo’ working to a co-ordinated, coherent and consistent

approach

+ The opportunities presented by the new Education Strategy to define and champion ‘success

for all’, particularly in reference to intercultural competences. There may be a gap between

conceptions of ‘intercultural competency’ as a teaching professional, and deeper engagement

with inclusive curricula/teaching from across the full range of equality characteristics and both

group and personal experiences.

+ Good relationships exist between pockets of committed students (inside and outside of the

Guild engagement mechanisms) and the university: the aim going forward will be to ensure a

sustainable engagement mechanism for co-working and feedback, particularly beyond the

lifecycle of the Provost commission

+ The opportunities for cultural change inherent in the approach of the Provost commission.

+ The challenge of evidence, evaluation and data in understandings key challenges at more

granular disciplinary/programme level, as well as evidencing and understanding impact.

Some initial priorities were identified as:

+ Embedding and linking the EDI strategy and the Education strategy (more clearly

articulating and exploring opportunities for cohesion)

+ Bridging the gap between the wide range of current resources and daily practice.

(supporting staff engagement and innovation)

+ Considering some threshold concepts (for example, training on white privilege, linking in with

intercultural competence).

The Stage 2 visit and subsequent discussions identified the focus of the Stage 3 intervention, as well

as wider recommendations within this report.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 11

3.3.3 Stage 3: Bespoke Interventions – Moving Things Forward

Stage 3 of the programme provided the opportunity for a bespoke intervention from Advance HE,

with the aim of enhancing, informing or embedding ongoing work within each institution. Key

constraints included the timing of the intervention (June or July 2019) and both institutional and

Advance HE capacity and expertise.

While originally conceived of as a bespoke workshop, Stage 2 discussions identified that institutions

had a range of needs and priorities which could be addressed at Stage 3. Split into high level

themes, key interventions are summarised below (note that some institutions are referenced more

than once, following choices on the split or focus of allocated time):

Table 1: Intervention types

Type of intervention Examples

Training

(development,

enhancement or

delivery)

+ Coaching session on ‘race’ equality and learning and teaching for

future institutional trainers (University of Essex)

+ Provision of external training on EDI in the Curriculum (with focus

on identifying inclusive practices, and deepening understanding

of BAME experiences) (University of Bedfordshire)

+ Development and planning of a ‘self-assessment’ approach to

academic professional development (University of Nottingham

Institutional)

+ Guidance and development on possible structure for staff training

(University of Surrey; University of Nottingham institutional;

University of Essex)

Toolkits and resources + Provision of a bespoke institutional self-assessment toolkit based

on the Advance HE Practitioner Model (UCA)

+ Provision of a bespoke Department level self-assessment toolkit

(based on the Programme Standard and Institutional Framework)

(University of Exeter)

+ Resources database for use in internal training and reference

(University of Lincoln) or discussion of resources and materials

for future development (University of Surrey)

External analysis and

review

+ Analysis of suitability of using Graduate Hallmarks mapping within

curriculum review to embed and further understanding of EDI

(University of Portsmouth)

+ Sample review of modules utilising amended version of the

Programme Standard, with key recommendations (University of

Nottingham Faculty of Arts)

Institutional use of Stage 3 varied in aims. Some took advantage of the opportunity for critical

external engagement – either a ‘fresh pair of eyes’ or an outside facilitator for challenging

conversations. Others used the opportunity for enhanced capacity to ‘get ahead’ on their ongoing

work, particularly in the development of toolkits and resources. For others a consultative approach

was useful: talking through strategy or approaches or barriers.

Going forward, institutions could reflect on this range of interventions, and be mindful of the different

uses of any future resources (time, expertise or funding)

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 12

University of Exeter Stage 3 intervention

The project team considered carefully the range of interventions possible within the assigned time

frame, and determined that a departmental developmental and self-assessment toolkit would be

a useful resource to support departments in adapting and enhancing their practice, likely for an initial

trial purpose.

A bespoke self-assessment toolkit was developed and is included with the Supplementary materials

The toolkit has been provided in a way which means it can be adapted for future use. It includes an

optional rating scale which could be used, for example to understand:

+ Which themes – and within these which indicators – could be prioritised for development at

department level

+ In comparison with other self-assessments, which departments may be ‘further ahead’ on

certain themes and can share their experience, expertise or resources to support other

departments.

+ Which departments (or programmes) may be at a similar stage and could benefit from a

‘buddy’ approach to trialling new approaches or shared discussions.

In debating and discussing scores, the department can also surface any different understandings,

interpretations or expectations which may exist amongst colleagues, or between staff and students.

The scale also demonstrates that the journey towards a fully sustainable approach to EDI in the

curricula is complex, and values any early steps taken, including starting discussions to raise

awareness.

3.3.4 Stage 4: Project Reports – Considering Next Steps

Stage 4 includes the provision of this report and any supplementary materials.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 13

4. Key learnings from the project Throughout the collaborative, Advance HE has supported projects to explore their varied approaches

to understanding:

+ The effectiveness of their approach to EDI in the curriculum (whether at institutional,

departmental, programme or individual practitioner level)

+ Readiness for change and development (culture, resources, capacity)

+ How EDI in the Curriculum is understood in the context of wider institutional strategies (for

example, Equality and Diversity, Widening Participation, or Teaching and Learning)

Across different conversations and approaches within this first cohort, some key cross-cutting

themes and challenges have emerged.

+ Institutional strategy and resourcing around EDI in the Curriculum

Many institutions sought greater consistency of understanding and practice of inclusive teaching and

learning, while acknowledging that this work was taking place within and across different strategic

frameworks (internal and externally driven). This was seen as a key challenge to embedding EDI in

the Curricula long-term, or even understanding current aims and practice.

+ Staff engagement and professional development

All projects acknowledged a need to support teaching and learning practitioners – and other staff – in

their understanding and competencies around inclusive practice in the widest sense (e.g. ‘race’

equality) as well as specifics relating to curriculum design and delivery. Key challenges existed in

choosing a sustainable approach to staff engagement, and ensuring capacity for development work.

+ Student engagement, co-production and voice

There was wide variation amongst the projects as to how students were being supported to inform,

respond or otherwise engage with EDI in the Curricula work, and this is a key area of caution for

ensuring inclusive curricula work is not just sustainable, but sufficiently ambitious to meet the

concerns and needs of learners.

+ Curriculum content and design: innovation, diversity and decolonisation

For a collaboration focussed on EDI in the curricula, the focus on approaching inclusive curricula

content and delivery per se was varied. The role of mechanisms and structures around curriculum

approval, modification and review (and the opportunities for innovation within these) would benefit

from closer attention within many projects.

Further details and recommendations- including reflections for the University are explored below.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 14

4.1 Institutional strategy and resourcing around EDI in the

Curriculum For many projects, pockets of ‘good practice’ (perceived or evidenced) were already present within

the institution. While some of these relate to disciplinary differences and discretion, often work had

been undertaken under different strategies or funding support: for example, work relating to access

and participation plans (or ‘widening participation’ more generally), the Teaching Excellence

Framework (TEF), engagement with attainment/awarding gaps, responses to hate crime or

harassment, or engagement with calls for decolonisation. Work had also been undertaken via

academic development support, through academic scholarship, externally funded catalyst projects,

or in reference to student wellbeing.

Such disparate drivers, ownership and structures of support meant that for many projects, there was

a real challenge of awareness and co-ordination of these efforts. These impacted on consistency

of practice (sometimes viewed in terms of student minimum expectations), and the ability to ensure

‘pilot’ projects or exploratory work became embedded into ‘business as usual’.

4.1.1 Conceptualising inclusion and prioritising need

There was also a consciousness that approaches to policy or practice may be prioritising (or

acknowledging) certain student group identities or needs less well than others. For example, often

there was greater awareness of best practice in meeting certain disabled student accessibility needs

(driven by the specifics of anticipatory and responsive equality duties, as well as funding changes4),

but less awareness of how to approach inclusion of ‘race’, ethnicity and nationality. The latter reflects

the main focus of many of the projects in cohort 1 as it sought to enhance work around nationality

and ethnicity primarily in response to awarding gaps and calls for decolonisation.

A siloed approach to student needs, or ‘hierarchies’ of inclusion, is not unusual within higher

education5, with reasons including: single stream legislative conceptions of equality protections;

policy and regulation priorities; and modes of data collection. However this project highlighted a need

for a reflective approach to intersectionality6, as well as honesty where a strategic decision to

prioritise certain groups has been made.

Stage 2 visits often identified a lack of consistent terminology and understanding across an

institution’s functions, and in policy and practice: particularly around strategic approaches to ‘EDI’

‘Widening Participation’ and attainment (or ‘awarding’) gaps’7. At times inconsistency was evident

even with academics teaching on the same programme, or within project teams.

Where approaches to inclusive learning and teaching were driven by pedagogical research and

reflection, there were also further opportunities for enhancing discussion around the shared (and

differing) aims envisioned under, for example, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Culturally

Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP), and Decolonising and Anti-racist pedagogy 8

4 For recent background and guidance on approaches to inclusion for disabled students see e.g. Advance HE’s

guidance on social and affirmative models (2018) , and case studies. 5 Bhopal and Henderson (2019) 6 Crenshaw (1990); Nichols & Stahl (2018) 7 See e.g. Office for Students and UUK/NUS (2019) 8 See e.g. discussions in Hanesworth et al (2019) and Ono-George (2019),

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 15

In several institutions, student representatives critiqued this lack of ‘specificity’ around EDI within

institutional strategic language, seeing a lack of naming institutional structures of marginalisation or

naming specific groups as ‘evasive’ or homogenising.

From a strategic and operational perspective, for some institutions, this lack of consistent conceptual

frameworks had led to:

+ Multiple projects, initiatives or resource banks aimed at improving the experiences or

successes of the same group of beneficiaries (for example, UK domiciled BAME students),

but with no clear overview of aims, roles, budgeting and resource, or evaluation which

considered the co-dependency of work streams. Often it was individual staff or students who

formed links between different groups out of interest or engagement rather than a structured

co-ordination approach.

+ Silos of work developed by academic and learning practitioners, and others within student

services, often due to leadership and accountability through separate committee structures

rather than cross-disciplinary and cross-institutional working groups. For some institutions

these divisions resulted from - or were exacerbated by – tensions over resources and

approaches to change-management between professional services and academic staff. The

role and relationships with Student Union or Guild varied greatly. Many Stage 2 visits or

Stage 3 interventions saw colleagues coming together from different university functions for

the first time.

4.1.2 Relevant examples for this section:

+ Consultation and collaboration across university structures on inclusive Learning and Teaching

as a strand of institutional reflection and progression (e.g. University of Exeter’s Provost

Commission; University of Essex co-ordination and capacity building for Race Equality Charter

self-assessment process)

+ Leadership under a specific unit (e.g. University of Bedfordshire Centre for Learning Excellence,

the University of Lincoln LEAP structure)

+ Mapping exercises bringing all relevant curriculum and learner focussed work relating to inclusion

into one document: including EDI, widening participation, access and progression, attainment,

Catalyst funded activities, internationalisation etc. (e.g. University of Portsmouth in developing its

extended Change Narrative)

+ An open conversation on understandings and aims of ‘EDI in the Curriculum’, with particular

reference to different understandings between stakeholders and between academic disciplines

(multiple institutions, Stage 2, 3 and ongoing)

+ Agreement of core values and 8 principles in undertaking work on inclusive curricula (also

mapped against Access and Participation targets (e.g. University of Lincoln)

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 16

4.1.3 Key recommendations:

1. Ensure institutional commitment to inclusive learning and teaching is explicit in its language, aims

and expectations.

2. Ensure a clear governance and oversight structure for developing EDI in learning and teaching

which considers work undertaken under different strategies, funding streams and organisational

structures.

3. Provide dedicated resources to support enhancement of inclusive learning and teaching. This

could include: a role for co-ordination and oversight, short-term research and development, long-

term evaluation capacity, and an ongoing service offering bespoke advice and support for

enhancement within specific departments and disciplines.

4. A clear path for innovation in learning and teaching: clear permissions, accountability and

recognition.

5. Accountability to all students for inclusive learning and teaching.

4.1.4 Additional considerations: University of Exeter

A review of draft recommendations from the Provost Commission Learning and Teaching stream, as

well as newly developing institutional strategies suggest room for more explicit engagement with EDI

issues (Recommendation 1), as well as harmonisation. This current context of engagement with self-

reflection and culture change at Exeter may prove a time for a more explicit and ambitious message

of inclusion and (for example) anti-racism, and the role that the curriculum can play in both enabling

and preventing this.

As a priority, the University is recommended to consider its current EDI governance structure

(Recommendation 2) and how and if this is suited to oversight and enabling of EDI in the Curriculum

in all its facets (including but not limited to conceptions of widening participation, access and

participation, retention, internationalisation, safeguarding, wellbeing and equity of outcomes).

The role of both staff development (see below) and curriculum review will be important here, and

clear leadership to students and staff as to how these streams come together (Recommendation 5).

The work of the Provost commission will have aided the ‘holistic’ overview of Exeter’s culture and

honest conversations (as seen during this project), but there remain questions of the future

sustainability of work after the commission’s lifecycle.

Enabling and supporting a culture of honest reflection on different forms of privilege will be a useful

approach going forward.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 17

4.2 Staff engagement and professional development

Staff confidence, competence and development around EDI in the Curriculum were recurring themes

across the projects. Aims and objectives in joining the programme included:

4.2.1 Wider conversations around EDI.

Most projects highlighted a need to establish a stronger understanding and language around the link

between EDI and learning and teaching - amongst staff groups, disciplines and levels of seniority

and experience, as well as a continuing need to challenge complacency9.

A common theme was on ‘bringing conversations together’ from different structures or positions

within the institution, or ‘deepening conversations’ from ‘why’ to ‘how’. However, a majority of the

institutions still noted particular challenges around silence, discomfort and avoidance of specific EDI

related topics, particularly around ‘race’ and ethnicity, which was felt to be hindering progress, and

causing sometimes critical frustrations or relationship breakdowns with international and/or BAME

staff and students

4.2.2 Mechanisms and opportunities for identifying and sharing ‘what works’

Many institutions had unclear or multiple routes for identifying and sharing ‘real life’ examples of

inclusive teaching and classroom practice, assessment and (to a lesser extent) curriculum

content. Where spaces existed this included:

+ Mention in dedicated webspaces, intranet sites, blogs,

+ Discussion in inclusive curriculum seminars, conferences or themed departmental meetings

+ peer reflection and engagement through HEA/PGCertHE and similar professional practice

methods

+ Inclusion in specific academic papers, or external reference documents (such as Access and

Participation Plans, TEF submissions, Athena SWAN Charters).

At the same time many staff noted that they wished for ‘top tips’ or ‘basic guidance’ to be developed

which included specific examples relative to their institution or discipline (see below for further

discussion about identifying and encouraging good practice.)

4.2.3 Guidance on how to approach staff development

Most institutions wished to explore how best to approach staff development on inclusive learning and

teaching in different institutional cultures, disciplinary contexts, and levels of engagement. Priority

areas included consideration of:

9 Consider the approach of the Report of the Diversity Commission of the University of Amsterdam identification

of 5 ideas to be ‘explicitly challenged’ to develop diversity literacy

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 18

+ how senior leaders could be reassured of (or develop) consistency of practice through review and

monitoring;

+ how individual staff could be supported to take ownership of their own development;

+ how the institution could identity and communicate the needs for peer or centralised support;

and the tensions between these positions.

While not generally felt within scope of this particular project, many institutions noted the challenges

and limitations of developing this work with a disparity between the ethnic or national diversity in

their student and staff cohorts10 (particularly referencing role models and authenticity and

reflexivity in diversifying curricula). Some projects also noted the history of additional labour of

engagement and championing which had fallen on a small number of staff who shared the

characteristics of specific student beneficiaries (for example their ethnicity, nationality or LGBTQ+

identity)–acting as ‘diversity workers’ often in addition to their primary roles11. These are important

contexts and challenges for institutions to note, and to consider the relation between this work and

wider institutional efforts around diversifying staff recruitment and ensuring inclusive progression

(and indeed, some of the programmes linked this work to that undertaken by Race Equality Charter

self-assessment teams12).

While some institutions wished to focus primarily on individual ownership of staff development in

relation to EDI in the Curricula, this project did encounter some examples where caution on relying

solely on an individualised approach may be advised. This includes examples of staff who were

confident in their own practice, but who used deficit and othering language, or otherwise

demonstrated some high risks for unconscious bias or unseen privilege. Others identified no need for

change in their own curriculum or practice, whilst the central university or other staff were in receipt

of a high number of formal or informal complaints which were EDI related.

Other staff who had undertaken a great degree of work to develop their practice and/or curriculum

content spoke of feeling isolated, or of frustration at not being aware of other work ongoing by

colleagues: a co-ordinating role here in communicating and collecting evidence of good

practice was often called for.

Some staff spoke of receiving a lack of support (in terms of space, time, or resources) to undertake

a self-assessment process – let alone a development process – and were seeking ‘quick wins’ such

as pre-lecture checklists, ‘what not to do’, or access to other department or faculty’s materials.

The above reflections point to a need for a holistic approach to staff development, including creating

a culture of development and learning around inclusive practice, as well as centralised leadership,

support and provision of resources. To inform the latter, those responsible for inclusive student

experiences and outcomes may need to be clear on expectations and find some mechanism for

oversight in order to identity and target specific areas for development. The level of metricization or

monitoring involved in the latter however is a key point of contention and should be considered

carefully when considering local staff engagement.

10 See e.g. Advance HE statistical reports 2019 (forthcoming); Douglas Oloyede (2018); Bhopal (2019) 11 Ahmed (2018)

12 The Race Equality Charter (REC) aims to improve the representation, progression and success of minority

ethnic staff and students within higher education. For more information see https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-

charters/race-equality-charter/about-race-equality-charter/

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 19

4.2.4 Relevant examples for this section:

Some notable practice which was present or being developed within institutions included:

+ Development of bespoke self-assessment tools at individual, programme, or departmental

level with reflection and development plans (see also those included in Stage 3)

+ Development of centralised support and guidance for staff including online resources, named

‘experts’, internal faculty Equality advisors or champions, and department or faculty specific

‘surgeries’ to support consideration of EDI key performance indicators.

+ Focus on building capacity for innovation through ‘change agents’ (including student change

agents)

+ Development of training sessions focussing on inclusive learning and teaching, and/or

specific equality characteristics or backgrounds such as ‘race’ and ethnicity in learning and

teaching, LGBTQ+ identity, disability, international students.

+ Use of professional development and recognition frameworks (such as PgCertHE, HEA

fellowships, or appraisal and reward systems) to recognise or share good practice.

+ Supporting academic research outputs focussing on internal EDI in learning and teaching

issues (for example, exploring student experiences).

+ Linking EDI in Curriculum project leads with Race Equality Charter self-assessment teams

(e.g. University of Essex), Athena SWAN, Stonewall or other external equality frameworks to

ensure a holistic overview of an institution’s culture and response to specific inclusion needs.

4.2.5 Key recommendations:

1. Consider the support, reward and recognition of staff who are advancing EDI in the curriculum:

whether this be leading, supporting or advocating. However, ensure a co-ordinated and central

support and enhancement resource is in place, and be particularly vigilant in ensuring the burden

of work and develop does not fall on staff from marginalised or underrepresented groups.

2. Seek feedback from staff as to their development needs and preferred approaches: but compare

these to student expectations on ‘minimum’ levels of practice, and pace of change. Consider how

best for the institution to provide a supportive environment, be clear in its aims and positions, and

clarify if and how any monitoring or feedback on practice will be provided.

3. Ensure senior leaders– and the institution itself – model behaviours around reflexivity and

positionality, and development of their own inclusive practice (including acknowledgement of

where mistakes have been made, or approaches were less successful).

4. Provide regular opportunities for students and staff to come together and discuss expectations

and interpretations of inclusive learning and teaching.

5. Provide opportunities for staff from across the institution to discuss and develop their practice

(including student support and wellbeing, professional services, library and information services,

personal tutors, programme leads, academic developers, specialist researchers and

practitioners). Include ‘critical friends’ and student voice and evidence wherever possible to

disrupt bias and provide alternative perspectives.

6. Continue to develop inclusive staff recruitment and promotion process and foster an inclusive

culture, mindful of the diversity of expertise and lived experience of the staff body.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 20

4.2.6 Additional considerations: University of Exeter

This project identified a wide variety in confidence and engagement around inclusivity at Exeter, and

ensuring a ‘step change’ in attitudes through engagement with threshold concepts (such as white

privilege, diversity or intercultural competence, hidden curricula) will be needed in some areas.

However, there are pockets of excellent practice (in substance but also in approaches to

development) across a range of academic disciplines, academic development support, widening

participation, student support, and organisational development (see 5) A key priority will be to bring

together existing resources and map interlinking projects and expertise , in a way that will be useful

for individual staff development, as well as helping departmental and senior leaders identify where

centralised or local resourcing should be prioritised.

The availability of that support must be a key message going forward. This is in addition to valuing

and recognising good practice where it is present (1, 5) whether through discussion of individual

development needs, or public acknowledgement of good practice (including cross-departmental and

cross-functional collaboration). Wider conversations should also be clear on support for innovation

and trialling new approaches

The University may also need to be prepared for ‘push back’ from staff for a corresponding focus on

issues of staff EDI (see 6). Staff inclusion is inherently linked to student inclusion (see above) and the

university may need to consider staff support more widely beyond immediate development needs

and support.

As student cohorts change the University should also ensure that there is a continuing reflection on

staff development needs in response to student expectations (see below).

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 21

4.3 Student engagement, co-production and voice

Projects were almost unanimous in their desire to move forward ‘working in partnership with

students’13. However, the focus on strategic mechanisms for this was varied, as was previous

engagement. We discussed new or alternative ways to embed student voice and feedback into

structural changes or staff development initiatives, above and beyond formal representation (for

example, SU or course representatives). Some key highlights from discussions included:

4.3.1 Student voice and narrative

There was varied provision of opportunities for students to inform inclusive curriculum work through

their personal experiences. We recommend a renewed focus on this, particularly to prevent over-

focussing on quantitative data (for example, progression and attainment data). to identity the

challenges and opportunities as experienced by students. Most quantitative data referenced in work

to date carried a risk of limiting intersectional perspectives, preventing certain experiences from

being noted or noticed (particularly of very underrepresented groups) and potentially perpetuating

deficit models.

While the latter may be mitigated by ensuring data is presented to staff with guidance around

‘interpretation’, it was clear that sharing student voices and experiences provided challenging and

stretching experiences for many staff during this project, particularly when receiving feedback on

previous attempts to improve inclusive practice or culture.

As a source of information however, some projects noted certain colleagues remained dismissive of

such qualitative evidence (such as video or audio interviews, complaints and feedback, and

anonymous interview or focus groups) which they viewed as ‘anecdotal’. This lack of valuing

marginalised or underrepresented lived experience through personal narrative has a particular

history in equality and equity research and may need further discussion and interrogation as a

‘neutral’ theoretical debate14, and on the value of establishing ‘counter-narrative’ against

stereotypes15.

We also noted the value in having localised, contextual comment on the institution, which may

engage some staff more than generalised national trends which can result in distancing behaviours.

The focus on ‘place’ may also be aligned to a renewed sector focus on the ‘Civic University’16. This

can be seen in very specific examples of students designing and undertaking local diverse heritage

trails (University of Exeter) or to a more reflective extent, engagement in the complex and

‘uncomfortable’ histories of a University17.

13 For further exploration see ‘Key research’ and ‘Guidance and teaching resources’ at

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/individuals/strategic-priorities/student-engagement#section-4 14 For discussion of methodological hierarchies see e.g. Cairney and Oliver (2017), Harding and Norberg

(2005), and Moody & Aldercotte (forthcoming)

15 For examples and discussion of counter-narratives see Solóranzo & Yosso 2002; for impact of countering

stereotypes and bias see e.g. Cheryan et al (2015) 16 See UPP Civic University Commission; Bull (2018) 17 For reflection, see the ‘UncoverED project’ at University of Edinburgh which enables student research to

historicise the global student experience at Edinburgh https://global.ed.ac.uk/features/uncovered, or the

‘Uncomfortable Oxford’ project https://www.uncomfortableoxford.co.uk/

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 22

Some video examples which may inspire institutions or prompt discussion are included in our

Resources. Additional tools may include gamification (for example, Open University – Our Journey

tools https://iet-ou.github.io/our-journey/index.html ) , or Digital Storytelling (see the Sheffield Hallam

University STEER blog).

These resources could inform discussion, add depth to staff training, or form as evidence of

impact or need for enhancement. However, authenticity in how the institution engages with such

student testimony is important. Questions to consider include: transparency to all participants on how

their story will be used (in line with research ethics18), consideration as to how the institution will

response to and use material that may appear critical of the status quo (or past efforts)l and how the

institution will authentically respond (actions and not more ‘listening’).

4.3.2 Diversity, and diversity competence, of students informing EDI

discussions

Several project acknowledged that there may be unrealistic expectations on a single – or small

number of - student representatives in course review or approval mechanisms (for example) to

inform discussions around EDI. The (lack of) diversity of student representatives was noted.

Considerations to respond to this could include:

+ ‘EDI in the curriculum training’ for student representatives

+ commitment to wider engagement (for example, bringing in liberation or diversity groups) in

student working groups or focus groups.

+ Consider the use of anonymous or externally-facilitated feedback.

Each institution had its own histories, challenges and success in working with student unions on

inclusive curricula. For some, their SU acted as a ‘key driver’ – if not always a partner – though the

turnover of officers and mandates was often noted as a challenge. Others identified an urgency in

rebuilding trust and a shared sense of direction with their SU, noting current relationships or

mismatches in expectations as a ‘barrier’. Some institutions noted that staff who had undertaken to

enhance EDI within their work felt disillusioned when they received negative feedback for ‘not going

far enough’. This points to a benefit in engaging a wide range of students (in terms of role as well as

intersectional identities), and holding honest and transparent conversations around expectations,

timelines and strategy for change, and working in

4.3.3 Co-design and production

Some projects utilised ‘Students as Change Agents’, ‘curriculum consultants’ or other forms of

participatory action or research to facilitate and add authenticity to work around diversifying curricula

(for example, University of Exeter, University of Nottingham, University of Lincoln).

Others had engaged less formal methods: examples were provided of diversified reading lists at

module level prompted by student feedback and open invitations to suggest future additions. The

latter in particular however comes with a caution around power dynamics and reliance on the labour

of certain students and groups. A strong message from the students we engaged with during the

project include a strong desire for consultation and partnership but with strong resistance to

18 For methodological and ethical considerations see Austen et al (2018) and webinar for QAA Scotland by Dr

Liz Austen (2018) https://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/current-enhancement-theme/optimising-existing-

evidence/webinar-series

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 23

undertaking the responsibility for ‘teaching teachers’ about e.g. LGBTQ inclusive language or

scholarship from the Global south.

4.3.4 Relevant examples for this section:

+ Some institutions are considering consulting with students on their newly developed

individual self-assessment tools for teaching staff, in order to understand and bridge

‘expectation’ gaps

+ Externally facilitated closed session with a number of students to discuss their experiences of

past efforts to ‘decolonise’ and diversify curricula, or develop inclusive language, as well as

their suggestions and hopes for the future. Feedback was then anonymised, themed and fed

into the project team for consideration. (University of Nottingham Faculty of Arts)

+ Collection of student experiences into several internal publications to inform institutional good

practice guidelines on LGBTQ+ inclusion and BAME inclusion. Discussions with teaching

staff identified key gaps to address in how such resources are communicated and

signposted. (University of Essex)

+ Recruitment of student ‘curriculum consultants’ to review module material (University of

Lincoln)

+ Directly engaging with student feedback on diversity of reading lists, language and

terminology around inclusion relevant to the discipline, discussion of positionality of teaching

staff and guest speakers.

4.3.5 Key recommendations:

1. Consider diversification, upskilling and expansion of student representation in learning and

teaching committees, particularly those relating to curriculum approval and development.

2. Consider the collection and use of diverse student voices on the curriculum and inclusive

teaching practice: for use in staff development session, wider institutional discussions, and in

developing student diversity competency. Support this with wider national and international

research to contextualise the institutional position.

3. Consider the inclusive nature of student contribution mechanisms themselves: for example, the

timing, length and design of meetings; accessibility of documents; creation of safe place for

critical discussion amidst different power structures; the risk of representation fatigue.

4. Commit to transparency and accountability, rewarding student labour on inclusive curricula and

ensuring appropriated ethical considerations are in place.

5. Embed student partnership in curricula development from the start of design process: not as an

addition.

4.3.6 Additional considerations: University of Exeter

This area is perhaps the one less explored by Exeter to date throughout the project. It is advised that

close attention be paid to student engagement – particularly (3) and (5) if the institution moves

forward in trialling departmental self-assessment processes, particularly noting previous concerns

about turnover of currently engaged students.

Some of the practice examples above may be useful in prompting reflections on different modes of

student engagement.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 24

4.4 Curriculum content and design: approaches to innovation,

diversity and decolonisation

The Advance HE conception of ‘EDI in the Curriculum’ (Figure 1) and learnings from the EEDC

project note the holistic approach required for successful curricula development and delivery. It was

unsurprising therefore that many of the projects found themselves focussed on issues such as staff

and student engagement, and not solely on, for example, processes of curriculum design, review,

approval, content, delivery and assessment.

The different institutional approaches and frameworks for the projects (see discussion in 4.1)

appeared to influence how much focus is currently being placed on developing inclusive practitioners

and on embedding inclusive structures. We argue that a focus on both is important due to the

limitations and opportunities around staff engagement (see 4.2) as well as opportunities for

innovation (see below).

A wider view will also aid consistency, sustainability, support for individual staff, as well as wider

acknowledgement of responsibility for inclusive teaching and learning (beyond those directly

teaching and assessing, such as library and information services, estates, e-learning, and

placements and study abroad support.

Some areas of focus from the projects in the first cohort to highlight included:

4.4.1 Using frameworks to understand and developing EDI within a

programme or module

A number of frameworks exist to assess or review ‘EDI in the curricula’ (see Resources) at a modular

or programme level (as opposed to through the primary lens of the inclusive ‘practitioner’). Some

projects had already developed versions of these for themselves, others explored the Advance HE

frameworks as themselves, or via bespoke versions.

Frameworks provide many opportunities for the institution in embedding good practice including:

+ A consistent set of ‘standards’ or ‘indicators’: these can help set expectations (from students

as well as programme reviewers or department heads), and provide a clear scope of enquiry

for review.

+ An opportunity for discussion: in deciding on any one framework and its indicators, a

programme, discipline or institution can instigate conversations on a shared interpretation

and understanding of inclusion (particularly on why and how certain approaches benefit

certain groups or identities, and how much discretion and difference exists across multiple

disciplines).

+ Understanding resource and development needs: a framework which is designed to be

supportive can help central co-ordination and oversight of resource (from training, materials,

learning environment development, or workload allocation)

+ Identifying good practice: a regular use of frameworks in review or approval can help to

surface existing good practice or innovative approaches (see below).

+ Cross-stream working: bringing a range of roles and departments together to discuss and co-

ordinate approaches

+ Engaging critical friends: a framework which prompts questions and answers can also easily

bring in an external perspective (external to the discipline, institution, department) or engage

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 25

with specific cohorts to understand specific impacts (for example, representation from

international students, LGBTQ+ students, different ethnic groups, disabled students, mature

students).

Challenges discussed during this project include:

+ Timing and embedding: the question of how and when to use any framework within current

review and approval structures is key. For example, some institutions considered piloting or

targeted reviews with particular programmes where attainment gaps exist or where cohorts

are undergoing rapid change. Others resisted a framework approach as ‘too much’ or ‘at

odds’ with current structures following recent changes to curriculum review processes or

internal restructures. Projects appeared less likely to engage with formally embedding

frameworks into programme approval, renewal, feedback processes.

+ Bespoke frameworks: some institutions felt a framework which was better adapted to their

student cohorts, key challenges, and disciplinary and sector contexts would be more effective

and better engaged with.

+ ‘Stick not carrot’: some institutions were understandably wary of perceptions of course

‘audits’, or ‘ranking’ of inclusivity in the context of current challenges on staff time,

engagement and resources. Discussions focussed on using reviews as developmental

opportunities, and the benefits and challenges of making ‘rating’ optional.

4.4.2 Development in isolation

Colleagues should be encouraged to share their personal and professional narratives in engaging

with structured approaches to curriculum diversification. There appeared a sense across many

projects that staff may be more comfortable in sharing individual reflections to a limited audience

through a ‘professional practice’ lens (e.g. through HEA Fellowships or PgCertHEs), but have fewer

opportunities to discuss the practical and cultural challenges of navigating internal frameworks

(‘working the system’) and sharing their work more widely within the institution. This was felt by some

to be exacerbating the ‘silo’ effect of pockets of good practice.

Indeed, some Stage 2 and Stage 3 engagements made staff – sometimes within the same Faculty or

department – aware of each other’s work for the first time. This included

+ Localised approaches to engaging with student feedback

+ Examples of working with Library staff to diversify reading lists

+ Relevant staff academic publications, internal research, or toolkits

+ Honest conversations regarding positionality and vulnerability (for example, the risk of

‘clumsy’ actions, or ‘making things worse’.)

+ Successful examples of bringing in more diverse speakers and theoretical approaches as

guest lecturers, in order to circumvent challenges of delivering a more diverse curriculum with

a less diverse staffing body, and/or staff without the sufficient depth of academic expertise.

4.4.3 Process and innovation: working with not against internal structures

Related to the frameworks discussion above, was the question of how structural processes enable

and encourage innovation. One project Stage 2 conversations identified the question “If I have an

idea for inclusive curricula change, where do I go for ‘permission’?”, while others pointed to the

length of time required to make changes to curriculum content and assessment. These points may

provide one of the reasons why many of the projects focussed on curriculum delivery and practitioner

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 26

engagement rather than structures as somewhere where change may be effected more quickly, or

piloting more feasible.

While some disciplines noted the additional curriculum restrictions linked to external accreditation

and Professional Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements, others saw these as key

drivers and enablers of good practice, particularly as many internal QA processes had already had to

adapt to incorporating these external needs. Examples included:

+ Professional health courses generating diversity competence in relation to service users, and

interdisciplinary teams (multiple institutions, including University of Exeter, University of

Portsmouth, University of Nottingham)

+ Aligning curricula content with key external ‘values’ related to inclusivity (for example,

University of Portsmouth Business School; University of Lincoln Business School)

+ Engagement and responses to disciplinary contexts such as those with History and

Philosophy (multiple institutions including University of Essex, University of Nottingham)

It is recommended that institutions consider clearly identifying ‘paths to approval’ for innovation, as

well as considering the responsiveness of existing approval and accreditation processes. Few of the

projects in this cohort directly engaged with centralised quality assurance colleagues, so

consideration of the link between EDI in the Curriculum work and key QAA guiding principles for

Learning and Teaching (particularly 3, 4, 6, 7) and for Course Design and Development (e.g. 1, 2, 7)

may be valuable.

4.4.4 Learning Outcomes, Diversity Competence and Employability

The Advance HE Programme Framework notes the importance of learning outcomes in

understanding three areas:

+ How learning outcomes are designed to be relevant, engaging and achievable by all students

+ How those learning outcomes are assessed inclusively

+ How those learning outcomes can embed key EDI themes for all students: for example,

diversity competence, intercultural awareness, and critical enquiry of the powers, biases and

contexts of the discipline.

To aid this some institutions are beginning to map learning outcomes (or other curriculum content) to

key themes or principles related to inclusion, such as Graduate Hallmarks, Student Contracts, and/or

Institutional Values. Such a mapping process as an identifier and enabler of EDI in the curriculum

may rely on the scope and specificity of those values (see above), and the accountability to which

programme designers are held for ensuring they are delivered and interpreted.

Throughout the project we have emphasised the role of ‘diversity competence’ within approaches to

EDI in the Curriculum. This notes the value of exploring EDI to all students: seeing the widening and

deepening of their skills and knowledge as an inherent benefit. Many projects were able to draw links

between this and existing institutional aims or strategies around global employability19 and

intercultural awareness, but not all had done so explicitly. This presents a key link between often

separate strategies around EDI in the Curricula, embedding employability, global (and local)

citizenship and internationalisation.

+ 19 Tran & Pham (2016).

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 27

4.4.5 Co-production and authentic partnership

Mechanisms for student co-production (see above) were considered with varying levels of depth. For

some institutions, the timing of this project may have limited their initial engagement (much of Stage

2 and 3 took place over the summer when many students are absent, and student union staffing

often undergoing change).

Some institutions had noted form the outset however that student partnership was seen as vital in

order to counteract the possibility of deficit models, or experiences or perceptions of ‘targeting’ or

‘doing to’ certain student groups.

4.4.6 Diversity, inclusion and decolonisation

Decolonisation of the curriculum was raised in many of the institutions either as a specific approach

being considered, a key stimulus, or in acknowledgment of conversations ongoing in –in particular –

student activism, teaching practice, and specific disciplines (for example, Philosophy and History).

The distinction between ‘diversification’, ‘decolonisation’ and ‘anti-racism’ has been the subject of

much academic debate20 as well as between student cohorts and staff at national and international

levels. Institutions engaged in – or wishing to engage in – decolonisation as an approach will need to

consider carefully how to approach genuine reflection and change to structures as well as materials

and voice within the curriculum and the institution.

For example, a key challenge to institutions is that ‘decolonisation is more than diversifying a reading

list’. For some institutions, diversifying reading lists has been a key aim or beginning of their work

and discussions, which highlights the need for an honest conversation between where the institution

is currently and where students or practitioners committed to decolonisation wish it to be, and how

that gap can be bridged. Equally there may be internal structural tensions between disciplines or

practitioners as to whether their work is conceived as ‘EDI in the curriculum’ or decolonisation. The

SOAS example of an explicit commitment and approach to decolonisation21 was shared at the

beginning of the project, and may prove a useful reference point.

4.4.7 Reflecting on curriculum changes:

Evaluation of changes to enable and embed inclusive curricula was at discussion stage only at most

projects, or required prompting, with most focussing on reduction in attainment gaps (although some

also noted changes in student feedback processes).

In approaching evaluation, institutions should consider carefully the aims and strategies of their work,

and consider what evidence over time will allow evaluation of steps to reach those aims (potentially

using a Theory of Change model), as well as capacity. In approaching evaluation, institutions may

wish to consider the varied approaches to understanding change and impact in relation to EDI, such

as:

+ The approach of the Office for Students Access and Participation plans towards evaluation

+ The new What Works Centre for higher education, TASO:

+ Discussions on the limitations and challenges around measurements and impact of EDI

initiatives (Guyan & Douglas Oloyede, and Moody & Aldercotte, forthcoming)

20 See for example Rollock (2018); Icaza & Vázquez (2018) 21 SOAS https://www.soas.ac.uk/decolonising-soas/

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 28

+ Self-assessment frameworks and guidance, such as Athena SWAN, Race Equality Charter,

Stonewall.

+ The limitations on relying solely on quantitative data (discussed above)

+ The wealth of academic and practitioner scholarship in the UK and internationally.

+ The role of learner analytics22.

A focus on ‘a curriculum which meets the needs of all students’ as a key outcome of a curriculum

design process – and crucially, review process – could be reprioritised. This involves more than a

‘tick box’ exercise, but could involve:

more embedded prompts within a programme design or review process around different cohort

needs

a ‘consultative’ approach to identifying and developing inclusion within a programme, with informed

experts and diverse student groups (and potential, an external ‘critical friend’)

4.4.8 Relevant example for this section:

+ Discussion meetings with programme leads or Faculty/School leads for learning and teaching

enabled sharing of ongoing local initiatives, work within different strategic frameworks or

funding streams, and individual scholarship, external partnerships (multiple institutions,

including University of Portsmouth, University of Exeter, University of Nottingham Faculty of

Arts)

+ A self-assessment took based on the Advance HE frameworks were adapted for

departmental-level use, as well as with an enhanced focus on inclusive approaches to

national and ethnic diversity The tool also incorporated mechanisms for capturing good

practice, discussion prompts, and action plan templates (University of Exeter Stage 3)

+ An external review of ‘EDI in the Curriculum’ in specific modules to provide substantive

‘critical friend’ feedback and questions, as well as providing feedback on the methods used

(University of Nottingham Faculty of Arts)

+ An external review of how Graduate Hallmarks and Student Charter principles can and have

been used in noting inclusive approaches to programme content, deliver and assessment

(University of Portsmouth)

+ A three-year development plan to enhance a specific module, including phased changes to

programme structure, and set staff responsibilities for reviewing resources and diversity of

referenced reading and scholarship (University of Nottingham: History)

+ Creation of a disciplinary specific resource which includes guidance on internationalising

curricula (UCA https://creativeeducationnetwork.com/internationalisation/)

4.4.9 Key recommendations:

1. Ensure plans for developing curricula are clear on the relationship between structural change (for

example, changing mechanisms around programme design, and programme periodic review)

and staff development and engagement. Consider if a ‘linear’ approach is being taken (building a

foundation of individual and cultural engagement before using this expertise in review processes)

or whether structural and individual change can be developed alongside each other. The chosen

22 Note the Code of practice for learning analytics at JISC https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/code-of-practice-for-

learning-analytics

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 29

approach will depend on current culture, strategic priorities, resource and timing within the

institution, but should be clearly communicated and supported.

2. Engage explicitly with student diversity competence and graduate attributes in learning outcomes,

work to embed employability, and resources for staff development.

3. Consider content and design of curricula from the learner perspective, including reflection on the

timing and placement of more diverse and engaging content. For example, if there an

overreliance on diversifying content within optional third year modules or dissertations: what

impact on belonging and retention might this have on first year students? How does the

institutions’ demarcation of which voices and scholarship are ‘core’ and which are ‘optional’

reflect on diverse student identities?

4. Avoid ‘tokenism’ with limited additions to content (‘gender week’) or assessment questions.

Consider intersectional approaches across the curriculum, including a continued critical reflection

on the disciplinary context and future directions in a global academic framework.

5. Ensure transparency on timelines and future direction for change through a clear action plan.

6. Proactively explore EDI in the Curriculum with PSRBs and other accreditors to ensure a shared

direction and approach and to anticipate opportunities and challenges.

4.4.10 Additional considerations: University of Exeter

The project team can reflect on the approach of any pilots of the departmental self-assessment tool,

to inform (1) and (5) above. Considerations could include:

+ The suitability for different disciplines, modes of study, staff/student cohort diversity

+ The engagement of staff and students: is the tool an enabler or seen as burdensome?

+ Whether the depth and breadth of reflections was sufficient: were a wide range of student

identities and needs engaged with? Was there positive critical engagement and reflection on

practice? How easily were departments able to benchmark and compare each other? What might

be the value of student participation or ‘critical friend’ participation in the work?

Reflections on actions arising from pilots will also be key, and the University is advised to ensure

sufficient resourcing of staff and student expertise to examine these and formulate a clear plan of

action for how it will engage with enhancing inclusive curricula: both for existing programmes and the

process of new development (5). Transparency of this process – including the resources required

and staff time – will be useful in setting realistically timed expectations for both staff and students.

Exeter will be best placed to judge its own pace of change, but should consider how University

systems enable or hinder innovation and change. If the expectations of the regulator, PSRBs, or

current students or potential prospective students (or PSRBs) prove more ambitious than expected,

the University will need to be prepared with mechanisms for more rapid progress.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 30

5. Next steps and Ongoing Collaboration

The University is recommended to take advantage of the optimal timing for ambitious approaches as

for EDI in the Curricula. The institution has the foundation of the self-reflection and holistic overview

of the Provost Commission, upcoming University strategies and its international outlook, whilst the

sector engages with the new OfS approach to Access and Participation, and a growing consensus

on ambitious action around inclusive practice and decolonisation of curricula.

There is a wide range of practice and resources which would benefit from co-ordination by a

dedicated staff member and short term working group from across the university, and which could

then input into a more sustained approach to staff development and student engagement. The

sustainability of this work beyond the Provost Commission, and transparency of oversight, will be key

in ensuring that work becomes embedded practice (and a minimum expectation from all students)

and does not remain isolated in pockets of good practice across academic and professional services.

5.1 Cohort engagement This collaborative project began with a group meeting and discussions.

Some project teams saw then a potential for greater partnership working, and during the project it

has become clear that many have overlap in their resource needs (as seen in Stage 3) as well as

their current good practice and approaches.

This final report aims to bring together common themes and experiences, and it is apparent that

some challenges – and therefore recommendations - are likely to be shared across the cohort.

Project teams are therefore warmly invited to continue discussions, sharing resources and best

practice on the Advance HE Connect platform as a Community of Practice. This could also include

partnership or cohort working around specific recommendations. For access to the forum (private)

see https://connect.advance-he.ac.uk/topics/13931/feed (sign in to Advance HE Connect required)

5.2 Sector engagement We encourage participants to share case studies with the sector, in order to recognise good

practice, but also encourage others to enhance their work further in this area. If you would be

interested in providing a short case study or blog please contact ediproject@advance-he.ac.uk or

jess.moody@advance-he.ac.uk quoting “TEEDIC”

To submit a paper, workshop, ignite talk, or poster to the Advance HE EDI Conference (Edinburgh,

17-19 March 2020) see the Call for Papers (open until 13 November 2019): https://www.advance-

he.ac.uk/programmes-events/conferences/EDIConf20

For the Advance HE Learning & Teaching Conference (Venue TBC, 7-9 July 2020) see the Call for

Papers (open until 17 January 2020) https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/programmes-

events/conferences/TLConf20

5.3 ‘Bridging the gap’ We note that many projects will be using the reflections and recommendations of this report to inform

ongoing plans, budgeting and resource. In reflecting on how some projects had ‘begun to stall’ or

other work had yet to embed, we recommend that institutions:

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 31

1. Consider how to ensure sustainability and development of the project work going forward, and

plan ahead for additional short-term resource (particularly for updating materials for training or

reference), external facilitation or consultation, or coaching of leaders navigating cultural and

procedural change.

2. Embed evaluation early to evidence trajectory: for example, monitoring and evaluation of

participation in training workshops, or engagement with toolkits.

5.4 Support from Advance HE If your project would welcome additional consultation, resources, research or reviews from Advance

HE we welcome your enquiry: Consultancy@advance-he.ac.uk

If your institution is a member of Advance HE we also look forward to supporting you via our

members benefits https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/membership

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 32

Select Resources

The topic of ‘EDI in the Curriculum’ is wide ranging. As a supplement to this report we have

collated a number of select examples, grouped by theme and type (for example) which have

+ informed Advance HE’s work on EDI in the Curriculum

+ surfaced in discussions and work with projects in the first cohort

+ provide examples of varied approaches and considerations from the sector.

In order to engage a wide range of staff, the materials here are varied, including institutional and

practitioner case studies, academic papers, frameworks and media.

It is not intended as an exhaustive list, but aims to provide a foundation for further investigation, and

to complement any existing institutional repositories of research, tools and resources. We

recommend using this list of resources alongside your institution’s Towards Embedding EDI in the

Curriculum End of Project report.

Supplementary materials Alongside this report the following materials developed for the University of Exeter are provided:

+ Select Resources (supplementary hand-out)

+ Stage 2 summary report (previously provided)

+ Stage 3: Self- Assessment toolkit (previously provided)

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 33

Bibliography

+ Advance HE (2019 forthcoming) Equality in higher education: Statistical report 2019

https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/guidance/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/using-data-and-

evidence/statistics-reports

+ Ahmed, S. (2018). Rocking the Boat: Women of Colour as Diversity Workers. In J. Arday & H. S.

Mirza (Eds.), Dismantling Race in Higher Education: Racism, Whiteness and Decolonising the

Academy (pp. 331–348). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60261-5_19

+ Austen, L., Jones, M., & Wawera, A.-.S. (2018). Exploring digital stories as research in higher

education. Social Research Practice - SRA Journal, 7, 271-34. http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-

content/uploads/social-research-practice-journal-issue-07-winter-2019.pdf

+ Austen, L. (2018) Webinar One - Engaging Student and Staff Voices QAA Webinar series :

Evidence for Enhancement https://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/current-enhancement-

theme/optimising-existing-evidence/webinar-series

+ Baily, P & Sclater, Niall (2015) Code of Practice for learning analytics JISC

https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/code-of-practice-for-learning-analytics

+ Bhopal, K., & Chapman, T. K. (2019). International minority ethnic academics at predominantly

white institutions. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(1), 98–113.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1486698

+ Bhopal, K., & Henderson, H. (2019). Competing inequalities: Gender versus race in higher

education institutions in the UK. Educational Review, 0(0), 1–17.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1642305

+ Bull, D (2018) What does it mean to be a 21st-Century civic university? Wonkhe.com Published

18 June 2018. Accessed 1 August 2019.

+ Cairney, P., & Oliver, K. (2017). Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based

medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health

Research Policy and Systems, 15, 1-11. DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0192-x

+ Crenshaw, K. (1990). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence

against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241.

+ Douglas Oloyede, F (2018) Does diversity of staff impact student outcomes in higher education?

Advance HE (pdf)

https://www.lfhe.ac.uk/filemanager/root/site_assets/research_resources/pubilcations/2018-

10_advancehe_staff_diversity_and_student_outcomes_literature_review_v2b.pdf

+ Hanesworth, P. (2018). Standardising Diversity Inclusivity. In N. Auferkorte-Michaelis & F. Linde

(Eds.), Diversität lernen und lehren – ein Hochschulbuch (1st ed., pp. 228–244). Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkjx58.19

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 34

+ Hanesworth, P (2015) Embedding equality and diversity in the curriculum: a model for learning

and teaching practitioners, HEA https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/embedding-

equality-and-diversity-curriculum-model-learning-and-teaching-0

+ Hanesworth, P Bracken, S & Elkington, S (2019) A typology for a social justice approach to

assessment: learning from universal design and culturally sustaining pedagogy, Teaching in

Higher Education, 24:1, 98-114, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2018.1465405

+ Harding, S., & Norberg, K. (2005). New Feminist Approaches to Social Science Methodologies:

An Introduction. Signs, 30, 2009-2015. DOI: 10.1086/428420

+ Icaza Garza, R.A, & Vázquez, R (2018) Diversity or Decolonization? Researching Diversity at the

University of Amsterdam, in Bhambra, G K, Nişancıoğlu, K and Gebrial, D, eds.

(2018) Decolonizing the university. Pluto Press, London

+ May, H; & Thomas, L (2010) Embedding equality and diversity in the curriculum: self-evaluation

framework HEA https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/embedding-equality-and-diversity-

curriculum-self-evaluation-framework

+ Moody, J & Aldercotte, A (forthcoming 2019): Equality, diversity and inclusion in research and

innovation: international review UKRI

+ Nichols, S., & Stahl, G. (2019). Intersectionality in higher education research: A systematic

literature review. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1255–1268.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1638348

+ Office for Students (OfS) Response to ‘manifesto for the new Director of Fair Access and

Participation’ https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/press-and-

media/response-to-manifesto-for-the-new-director-of-fair-access-and-participation/ Published 10

May 2018. Accessed 1 August 2019.

+ Ono-George, M. (2019). Beyond diversity: Anti-racist pedagogy in British History departments.

Women’s History Review, 28(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/09612025.2019.1584151

+ Rollock, N. (2018). The Heart of Whiteness: Racial Gesture Politics, Equity and Higher

Education. In J. Arday & H. S. Mirza (Eds.), Dismantling Race in Higher Education: Racism,

Whiteness and Decolonising the Academy (pp. 313–330). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-

60261-5_18

+ Tran, L. T., & Pham, L. (2016). International students in transnational mobility: Intercultural

connectedness with domestic and international peers, institutions and the wider community.

Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(4), 560–581.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1057479

+ Universities UK and NUS (2019) Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK

Universities: #ClosingTheGap https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-

analysis/reports/Pages/bame-student-attainment-uk-universities-closing-the-gap.aspx

+ Wekker, G, Slootman, M.W, Icaza Garza, R.A, Jansen, H, & Vázquez, R. (2016, January). Let's

do Diversity: report of the University of Amsterdam Diversity Commission. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/1765/95261

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 35

Websites

+ Equality Challenge Unit: Race Equality Charter https://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/race-

equality-charter/about-race-equality-charter/

+ Higher Education Academy and Scottish Funding Council : Embedding Equality and Diversity in

the Curriculum (EEDC) HEA https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/embedding-equality-

and-diversity-curriculum-0

+ Office for Students (OfS) Differences in Student Outcomes

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/differences-in-student-outcomes/

Accessed 1 August 2019.

+ Open University: Our Journey tool https://iet-ou.github.io/our-journey/index.html )

+ QAA Expectations and Practices for Learning and Teaching Guiding Principles

https://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/quality-code/advice-and-guidance/learning-and-teaching. Accessed 1

August 2019

+ QAA Expectations and Practices for Course Design and Development Guiding Principles

https://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/quality-code/advice-and-guidance/learning-and-teaching. Accessed 1

August 2019

+ SOAS Decolonising SOAS Vision (Agreed by Academic Board Nov 2017)

https://www.soas.ac.uk/decolonising-soas/

+ Student Engagement, Evaluation and Research @ SHU Digital Storytelling at SHU

https://blogs.shu.ac.uk/steer/digital-storytelling-

shu/?doing_wp_cron=1566224371.9868741035461425781250 Accessed 1 August 2019.

+ Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in Higher Education https://www.taso-he.org/

Accessed 1 August 2019

+ UncoverEd: A collaborative decolonial research project http://uncover-ed.org/ Accessed 1 August

2019.

+ Uncomfortable Oxford https://www.uncomfortableoxford.co.uk/ Accessed 1 August 2019.

+ UPP Civic University Commission https://upp-foundation.org/civic-university-commission/

Accessed 1 August 2019.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 36

Acknowledgements + Initial programme design and theory: Dr Pauline Hanesworth

+ Contributing Advance HE advisers (Stage 1- 3): Dr Pauline Hanesworth, Tim Hinchcliffe,

Sukhi Kainth, Dr Joan O’Mahony, Clare Pavitt, Kate Lister (Associate)

+ Speakers and Presenters (Stage 1): Dr Meera Sabaratnam, Chair of the Decolonising

SOAS Working Group (SOAS, University of London) Dr Liz Austen, Senior Lecturer,

Research, Evaluation and Student Engagement (Sheffield Hallam University) and Stella

Jones-Devitt, Head of Student Research and Evaluation (Sheffield Hallam University)

+ Stages 1-3: University of Exeter staff and students organising and participating in activities.

Embedding EDI in the Curriculum: Report for University of Exeter 37

About Advance HE Advance HE was formed in March 2018 from a merger of the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU), the

Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and the Higher Education Academy. We have over ten

years’ experience supporting higher education (HE) institutions and research institutes to remove

barriers to progression and success for all staff and students. We provide a central source of

expertise, advice, research and leadership on equality and diversity that drives forward change and

transforms organisational culture in teaching, learning, research and knowledge exchange

Accessibility This report has been provided in two formats: .pdf and .doc, with basic accessibility checks. If you

would welcome this report in alternative formats please contact Advance HE with your requirements

and we will be able to further advise you. We welcome any feedback on the accessibility of this

design or content.

Contact us

+44 (0) 3300 416201

enquiries@advance-he.ac.uk

www.advance-he.ac.uk

@AdvanceHE

(Registered Office)

Innovation Way, York Science Park,

Heslington, York YO10 5BR

First Floor, Napier House

24 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6AZ

Holyrood Park House, 106 Holyrood Road

Edinburgh, EH8 8AS

Advance HE is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales no. 04931031.

Registered as a charity in England and Wales no. 1101607. Registered as a charity in Scotland

no. SC043946. Advance HE words and logo should not be used without our permission. VAT

registered no. GB 152 1219 50.

© 2019 Advance HE. All rights reserved.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of

Advance HE. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any storage and retrieval

system without the written permission of the copyright owner. Such permission will normally be

granted for non-commercial, educational purposes provided that due acknowledgement is given.

To request copies of this report in large print or in a different format, please contact us at enquiries@advance-he.ac.uk