By shining a light on staff disability data gaps in higher education institutions’ Equality, Diversity and Inclusion reports, Dr Eirini-Christina Saloniki, University College London, and Professor Chloe Orkin, Queen Mary University of London, explain why this matters and what needs to be improved.
Higher education institutions are falling short on staff disability reporting
Removing barriers and improving existing practices is crucial for developing more inclusive higher education institutions. (Advance HE)
We know that disabled staff are under-represented in academia relative to the population of disabled people in the UK, and that there is a disability pay gap (Kirk-Wide E.,2023). Disabled staff are also typically less likely to occupy leadership positions in higher education (HE) than non-disabled staff (Emira M., Brewster S., Duncan N. and Clifford A. 2018).
Given these inequities, it seems obvious that higher education institutions (HEIs) would be using their equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives to increase disability representation and inclusion among staff. However, our recent research, funded by the NIHR ARC North Thames and focusing on UK non-private HEIs, raises concerns about EDI reporting on staff disability (Saloniki E., Halvorsrud K., Whelan N., Halim N., George R., and Orkin C., 2024).
Despite the statutory obligation HEIs hold to submit certain sociodemographic data as part of their annual or biennial EDI reports, this information was very difficult to find when it came to staff disability. Importantly, these reports were not always made public and therefore access to staff disability data for people outside these institutions was not possible, thus perpetuating a lack of transparency in public reporting of staff disability data.
Where the EDI reports were openly available, the level at which staff disability data were reported varied widely across institutions and data were presented in very different ways. For instance, some institutions reported separately the percentage of disabled and non-disabled staff as well as those who preferred not to disclose this information or have left the relevant question(s) unanswered. Despite some EDI reports only referencing the overall percentage of disabled staff, with no details on the exact representation of the remaining staff groups, there were still institutions which had no EDI reports available at all.
We did notice that equality monitoring data reporting is more visible among HEIs that engage with equity-focused frameworks, namely the Athena Swan Charter, which supports gender equity, and the Disability Confident Scheme which is designed to encourage employers to recruit, retain and develop disabled people. These HEIs were more likely to have a publicly available EDI report and were twice as likely to provide some information on staff disability than the non-award holders.
Provided that EDI reporting is a means to facilitate disability inclusion and the general advancement of EDI as well as relevant action-planning in HE, it needs to be transparent, consistent and high-quality across the board rather than just a ‘tick box’ exercise (Koutsouris G., Stentiford L. and Norwich B., 2022). A first step towards achieving this type of standardisation that could aid disability inclusion, for example, could be reporting of data on all response categories (ie numbers and percentages of non-disabled/disabled staff, those who prefer not to say, and those that leave the question unanswered or do not know), or providing clarifications on why this kind of reporting might not always be possible (eg collapsed categories to protect participant anonymity and confidentiality).
Why does quality EDI reporting matter?
Creating and managing a diverse workforce is a process, not a destination.”
R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr.
Improving EDI will not happen overnight, but reporting helps track progress.
Collecting and reporting on protected characteristics of staff is an action of commitment and accountability towards tackling inequities and promoting a socially just HE sector. Data collection builds an evidence base, which can be used to track progress and facilitate relevant interventions.
An institutional EDI report is a way of being transparent about this progress, by publishing data about equity objectives and attainment. Achieving charters in frameworks such as Athena Swan and the Disability Confident Scheme is a way of benchmarking performance.
But in short, we cannot improve what we do not know about.
Data collection and monitoring of staff with different protected characteristics in higher education, as legally required by the public sector equality duty (PSED), is an essential step in this improvement process (Advance HE).
Action is needed
Our findings emphasise the importance of having EDI reports openly available and demonstrate that an EDI data reporting framework across institutions is needed. Such a framework will provide support towards a more consistent and standardised approach to reporting across the sector, which could in turn enable evaluation of EDI initiatives with respect to staff disability across HEIs and institutions to understand how to improve in this regard.
With a more consistent and transparent picture on disability in these reports, institutions can more easily understand how they are doing in terms of representation and career progression of disabled staff. This is the first step in beginning to address inequities.
It is also very important for disabled staff to know and understand what the data show and be able to consider these findings – particularly, the findings regarding the under-representation of disabled staff in most senior positions. Disability staff networks are now common in HEIs and transparency around how each institution is doing is useful information for discussion within those networks as a starting point for dialogue.
How should the EDI data reporting framework look?
The answer is not straightforward. Despite existing guidelines on how to collect data, it appears that staff disability data may not be consistently collected across the sector. It is therefore important to identify inconsistencies first before devising systems that would allow for accurate EDI reporting in practice across the sector.
A consultation with EDI representatives in HE and disabled academic and professional services staff might be helpful to shape a possible EDI data reporting framework.
Dr Eirini-Christina Saloniki is a Senior Research Fellow in Health Economics at University College London. She has expertise in economics of disability and economics of discrimination. She has a strong interest in discrimination faced by disabled people in different areas and how such discrimination can be measured and understood using survey data. Find out more about Eirini here.
Professor Chloe Orkin, MBE is Professor of Infection and Inequities at Queen Mary University of London and directs the SHARE Research Collaborative for Health Equity. She has held international, national and local leadership positions including President of the Medical Women’s Federation. She lives with invisible disability. Find out more about Chloe here.
References
1. Advance HE (n-d-a). Improving staff diversity. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/guidance/governance/governance-and-edi/importance-edi-higher-education/improving-staff-diversity
2. Kirk-Wide E. (2023). UK disability statistics: Prevalence and life experiences. House of Commons Library, No 09602. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9602/
3. Emira M., Brewster S., Duncan N. and Clifford A. (2018). “What disability? I am a leader! Understanding leadership in HE from a disability perspective” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(3): 457-473. doi.org/10.1177/1741143216662923
4. Saloniki E., Halvorsrud K., Whelan N., Halim N., George R., and Orkin C. “Staff disability in UK higher education: Evidence from EDI reports” Medican Humanities Published Online First: 04 June 2024. doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2024-012892
5. Koutsouris G., Stentiford L., and Norwich B. (2022). “A critical exploration of inclusion policies of elite UK universities” British Educational Research Journal 48 (5): 878-895. doi.org/10.1002/berj.3799
6. Advance HE (n-d-b). Collecting equality data. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/guidance/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/using-data-and-evidence/collecting-equality-data
