When we launched the Inclusive Institutions Framework (IIF), we were clear about our intentions. Frameworks such as Athena Swan and the Race Equality Charter have done, and continue to do, vital work in driving meaningful change for specific groups and protected characteristics through an intersectional lens. The IIF was designed not to replace or rival these, but to sit alongside them, offering institutions a way of drawing together the full breadth of their inclusion work within a single, coherent structure.
Where charter marks go deep on particular dimensions of equality, the IIF takes a wider view, helping organisations ask how all of their EDI commitments connect, where the gaps might lie, and how inclusion can be genuinely embedded across culture, governance and practice. It is a framework for the whole institution, shaped around each institution's own inclusion priorities and context. A year on, our pathfinder cohort is working with it in practice, and what they are telling us is encouraging.
The institutions that joined our first cohort did so for different reasons, but several themes emerge from their feedback. For some, the timing aligned with internal change: a new head of EDI, a refreshed strategy, or a period of organisational review. For others, existing charter mark activity had facilitated notable progress in that inclusion area, and they wanted something that could capture the breadth of inclusion work more holistically. As Dr Siobhán Dorai-Raj of the Earlham Institute explains, the IIF offered "a way of recording and assessing our progress in other types of inclusion and equality work" beyond what existing frameworks provided.
Canterbury Christ Church University joined at a moment when they were "actively exploring ways to embed equity and inclusion across the institution" and found that the IIF "presented the strongest opportunity to achieve our strategic goals." For Abertay University, the appeal was the Framework's ability to "challenge and celebrate existing practices" as student and staff populations continue to evolve.
What has felt most useful
Across the cohort, three things stand out as particularly valued: the self-assessment tools, the one-to-one advisory sessions, and the opportunity to connect with peers.
The self-assessment process has prompted genuine reflection. Luke Millard of Abertay University found that reviewing current practice status "tested the layers of data and action across the institution" in a way that was revealing. At Canterbury Christ Church, the reflective questions and self-assessment tools gave the project team "a way to define and refine the scope" of their work. At the Earlham Institute, working through the Foundations module encouraged a step back to look at "the bigger picture and governance behind our EDI work."
The one-to-one meetings with IIF advisers have been consistently highlighted for institutions on track and for offering a space to test ideas early. This was by design: from the outset, we built the IIF around more regular and proactive engagement than institutions might typically experience with a framework, ensuring that advisory support is responsive to each institution's pace and priorities rather than purely reactive. The cohort sessions, meanwhile, have shown the value of shared learning across very different types of institution. Hearing about challenges common to all organisations, alongside those that are context-specific, has been both grounding and generative.
As the first cohort to work with the IIF, these institutions are doing something genuinely valuable, not only progressing their own inclusion work, but helping us to understand how the Framework can best serve the sector. We are grateful for the openness with which they have shared their experiences, and we continue to work closely with them to evolve and strengthen the offer as it develops.
Shaping thinking across institutions
Perhaps the most significant early impact of the IIF is the conversations it is prompting internally. I have found that working with IIF teams made up of colleagues whose work is closely aligned, but who have traditionally operated separately, has introduced exciting potential for greater strategic alignment and innovation.
A personal highlight has been seeing these colleagues come together, enabling connections and momentum that had previously been difficult to achieve without a strategic framework supporting them. For example, some IIF teams are composed of their EDI leaders alongside research culture and access and widening participation leadership to break down siloed ways of working. At Canterbury Christ Church, it is helping "areas of the university that have not worked closely together before, but have a lot of common goals, connect and have productive conversations about future alignment." At University College Birmingham, engagement with the Framework gave EDI work greater institutional visibility: "The endorsement from Advance HE added credibility, meaning the work is being taken more seriously."
Mark Hall of Canterbury Christ Church University puts it well, the IIF is "enabling conversations, reflection and understanding that support prioritisation of change levers and areas for development."
Looking ahead
When asked what they would say to institutions considering a later cohort, our pathfinders are consistent in their encouragement. Sam Grierson of University College Birmingham describes the IIF as "distinct" from other frameworks because it "encourages you to focus on the issues that matter most in your own institutional context." Haroon Bashir calls it "a timely opportunity to take a more systemic approach, something that is both necessary and, in many cases, overdue."
The next opportunity to join the IIF will be the September 2026 cohort. Institutions interested in participating will be asked to confirm their involvement during the Advance HE membership renewal period, which runs from May to July 2026.