Elsevier

Women's Studies International Forum

Volume 54, January–February 2016, Pages 147-156
Women's Studies International Forum

Gender equality and diversity politics in higher education: Conflicts, challenges and requirements for collaboration

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2015.06.017Get rights and content

Synopsis

One of the most striking transformations in post-secondary education in Germany is the growing orientation towards diversity management. Diversity is a relatively new idea for German institutions of higher education and has, in contrast to the North American realm, no historical roots in equity policies in Germany. Approaches, as will be argued, currently follow either a “heterogeneity” or an “economic” rationale, which are both limited in their effectiveness of addressing inequality beyond gender. This contribution advances a conceptualization of diversity that is tethered to the idea of equity but view gender relations as one of the lingering inequalities. By discussing the practices of gender equality and diversity management at institutions of higher education in Germany together with their theoretical framing, it will be shown that a conceptualization of diversity can benefit from the paradigms of gender in order to establish a consistent strategy of dismantling inequalities in higher education.

Introduction

Diversity is a relatively new idea for those involved in doing equality work in higher education in Germany. In the last few years, calls for the implementation of a diversity management strategy have been growing louder by several actors. After extensive experiences with diversity management in the international realm, the concept had mainly been transposed to the corporate sphere in Germany. Attention to diversity management in the public realm is a newer phenomenon. Especially at institutions of higher education, the call for an acknowledgment of heterogeneity is increasing (Klein and Heitzmann, 2012, Heitzmann and Klein, 2012, Bender et al., 2013, Krempkow et al., 2014). So far a variety of measures are being introduced, which are mainly aimed at increasing the heterogeneity of the student body as well as strengthen competencies among teaching staff to successfully work with such a diverse student body. An overall strategy however, and a well-developed, coherent concept of diversity, is still missing (Wild & Esdar, 2014). To date, there is no agreed upon understanding of the goals, who the target groups are and how a “climate” change, which allows both for more heterogeneity and equity at institutions of higher education, can be initiated.

Gender equal opportunity officers (not only at institutions of higher education) largely distrust the current development. They fear that the issue of gender discrimination and disadvantages of women in academia might receive less attention because of the implementation of diversity management and that they will consequently be allotted fewer resources. They further fear that other dimensions of inequality will be privileged over gender and sex and that women's and migrant's rights, for instance, might clash in some case (Andresen, Koreuber, & Lüdke, 2009). However, some gender equality officers view the challenge of diversity positively and have started to include measures to enhance diversity in their work. They argue that working with a concept of diversity better meets the challenges resulting from several forms of inequality that cross gender, ethnicity, age, disability and class lines (Bender & Wolde, 2013).

A similar dispute regarding the relationship of gender and diversity as categories and related strategies, like gender mainstreaming and diversity management, is taking place among women's and gender studies scholars. The former, the relationship of gender and diversity, is partly addressed in the intersectionality framework. An intersectional approach focuses on gender together with other categories like ethnicity or sexual identity as dimensions of inequality and assesses their relevance and quality in different societal contexts (Knapp, 2005, Lutz et al., 2011, McCall, 2005, Winker and Degele, 2011). The concept exposes power relations in society and creates awareness of the multiple forms of difference and inequality an individual may experience, for instance in terms of their gender and ethnicity. However, intersectionality and diversity are not interchangeable. Diversity also refers to complexity, but it is mainly used in the area of practice and policy making, although it is also used quite differently, as will be clarified shortly. The dominant rhetoric of diversity emphasizes management issues—valuing difference as beneficial; diversity is celebrated (Thomas, 1992; for a critic see Michaels, 2006). Diversity here inherits an instrumental view, as it is connected to the improvement of human capital. As such it follows an economic rationale. Cultural, gender and other perceived differences between groups are valued as competencies beneficial for the organization (Wrench, 2015), as such obscuring—so the critique—unequal power relations in organizations (Prasad, Pringle, & Konrad, 2006). Examples of those hidden power relations at institutions of higher education are ethnic festivals or celebrations of ethnic months, called “colorblind” by critics as they mask discrimination (Henderson & Herring, 2013).

However, diversity touches issues of both equity and inequality. Aside from the emergence of “critical diversity studies”, that contests the dominant economic rationale (Zanoni, Janssens, Benschop, & Nkomo, 2010), attempts to build alternative understandings are also being developed in policy work. Ahmed shows how practitioners at British universities negotiate the meaning of diversity in their jobs: “Indeed, most practitioners describe their work as a question of ‘what works’, of using whatever language works for the different audiences they speak to.” (2007:605).

While there is long-standing experience as well as a sophisticated debate about both the limitations and the pitfalls about diversity in the Anglo-American area (Ahmed and Swain, 2006, Deem and Morley, 2006), a debate in Germany has just begun. Sophisticated research is still missing (Klein and Heitzmann, 2012, Krempkow et al., 2014) and it is still unclear in which direction the conceptual development is heading. Is diversity management suitable for replacing gender mainstreaming or gender equality policy, since gender can be seen as an aspect of diversity and since it is not the only relevant social category, as intersectionality shows? Or do diversity strategies jeopardize existing interest groups such as women and equality officers?

We have to consider that concepts of gender equality and diversity work in higher education are embedded in national (scientific) histories, institutions and educational policies. In contrast to Northern American countries, diversity work in Germany has neither historical roots in social movement or human rights advocacy nor in antidiscrimination policies. It is thus drawn between two rationales. By focusing only on developing the heterogeneity of the student body and by not going beyond that, such policies might end up caught in what I call the “heterogeneity rationale” that concentrates only on questions of representation. Although a number of important inequality problems would be addressed through this rationale, like the limited access to higher education by students from migrant families and so called “first generation” students (i.e. persons to be the first in their family to go to university, it is still a limited approach. Although the actors are different, this approach can be compared to previous liberal groups of the women's movement trying to increase the participation of women in the student body. Neither does it go beyond group boundaries nor does it address questions of inherent structures of exclusion in scientific organizations as part of the myth that achievement is based on merit. Furthermore, this rationale often focuses more on integration in the labor market than on equity or social justice considerations.

The other rationale is the “economic” one, more precisely the “business rationale”. Diversity “sells” and this rationale fits with the rapid transformation of institutions of higher education in Europe into “entrepreneurial universities” (Clark, 1998, Temple, 2012). The business here is the knowledge economy, creating a special danger, as the economic rationale is connected to the “race for excellence” among universities.1 As there is no doubt about the importance of addressing multiple inequalities in the academic realm, the question remains how diversity policies can be pushed forwards.

This contribution aims to further a conceptualization of diversity by focusing on diversity policies at institutions for higher education that are tethered to the idea of equity and social justice but view gender relations as one of the lingering inequalities in higher education. The discussion about diversity management can benefit from developing a conceptualization along the theoretical and practical framing of gender equality work in order to develop a stance towards diversity approaches in higher education, as will be shown in the remainder of the chapter.

After a short summary of the current scope of gender equality in higher education in Europe that shows that a concentration on gender is still unavoidable, I will discuss the various types of approaches to gender equality and diversity management, their characteristics and dispersion, referring to the stages of their development in Germany. I will then identify different principles and practices of gender equality work and contrast them with diversity management. Factors of comparison include the legal framework and the normative notions linked with each approach as well as the epistemological perspectives associated with gender and diversity, as I view these to be the central points when discussing similarities and distinctiveness of the concepts involved. The focus will be on higher education policy in Germany and the European Union. However, the questions involved are generalizable and relevant for other countries as well.

Section snippets

Scope and dynamics of gender (in-)equality at universities

Women's achievements cannot be denied: the percentage of female students and academic staff has increased steadily over the last two to three decades.

The enrolment of female students in tertiary education has currently reached a peak.2 Within the EU-27, three fifths (60.1%) of graduates in 2010 were women. Thus, the ratio changed from 0.87 male students

Characteristics and dispersion of approaches to dismantle inequalities at universities

“Waiting for equality will not work”, as the ETAN-report emphasizes (2000:30). Today, as competition among universities is part of the knowledge market, gender inequality is increasingly regarded as counterproductive. At a conference as far back as 1993 (Logue & Talapessy, 1993), a lack and an under-representation of women in sciences was assessed as detrimental to equity, excellence, efficacy (as the “ageing population makes it essential to target both genders in the shrinking pool of young

Principles and practices of gender equality and diversity management in comparison

One of the weak points of diversity in contrast to gender is that it is unclear which categories it covers. Professionals at German higher educational institutions who address the tasks of gender equality typically refer to the category gender and understand it in its social, historical and cultural form. Policies, nevertheless, often still refer exclusively to women, legitimized by the disadvantages women experience in the current gender order of society. The legal framework for gender

Prospects

Gender equality work and diversity management in institutions of higher education are not interchangeable. Whereas legal obligations and aims are clear-cut for gender equality in higher education, they are not yet defined when it comes to diversity. Whereas the category of gender is dealt with on a well-elaborated theoretical basis, it is not yet clear whether diversity is understood and used in an essentialist or constructionist manner. There is no agreed upon vocabulary and no set of concepts

References (72)

  • J. Acker

    Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations

    Gender & Society

    (2006)
  • S. Ahmed

    ‘You end up doing the document rather than doing the doing’: Diversity, race equality and the politics of documentation

    Ethnic and Racial Studies

    (2007)
  • S. Ahmed et al.

    Editorial of special issue on doing diversity in education

    Policy Futures in Education

    (2006)
  • S. Andresen et al.
  • C. Bacchi

    Managing equity: Mainstreaming and ‘diversity’ in Australian universities

  • C. Bacchi et al.

    Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory

    (2010)
  • S. Beaufays et al.

    Wissenschaftskultur und Geschlechterordnung: Verborgene Mechanismen der Macht

  • S.-F. Bender et al.

    Diversity policies: Implementation mit Brüchen

  • S. Bender et al.

    Diversity ent-decken

  • E. Blome et al.

    Handbuch zur Gleichstellungspolitik an Hochschulen. Von der Frauenförderung zum Diversity Management?

    (2013)
  • U. Brandenburg et al.

    Diversity in neighbouring countries of Germany

  • M. Brouns

    The making of excellence—Gender bias in academia

  • B.R. Clark

    Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organisational pathways of transformation

    (1998)
  • B. Cope et al.

    Productive diversity—A new, Australian approach to work and management

    (1997)
  • L. Daston

    Die wissenschaftliche Persona. Arbeit und Berufung

  • R. Deem et al.

    Diversity in the Academy?

    Staff Perceptions of Equality Policies in Six Contemporary Higher Education Institutions, in: Policy Futures in Education

    (2006)
  • E. Dua

    On the effectiveness of anti-racism policies in Canadian universities: Issues of implementation of policies by senior administration

  • E. Ellis

    European anti-discrimination law

    (2012)
  • Etan

    Expert Working Group on Women and Science. Science policies in the European Union—Promoting excellence through mainstreaming gender equality

    (2000)
  • European Commission

    She figures 2012: Gender in research and innovation

    (2012)
  • European Union
  • European Union

    The EU in the world 2013. A statistical portrait

    (2012)
  • T. Faist

    Diversity—A new mode of incorporation?

    Ethnic & Racial Studies

    (2008)
  • H. Garfinkel

    Studies in ethnomethodology

    (1967)
  • L.B. Griggs

    Valuing diversity: Where from …where to?

  • V.R. Hayles

    Diversity training and development

  • D. Heitzmann et al.

    Zugangsbarrieren und Exklusionsmechanismen an deutschen Hochschulen

  • L. Henderson et al.

    Does critical diversity pay in higher education?

    Politics, Groups and Identities

    (2013)
  • R. Hofmann

    Gesellschaftstheoretische Grundlagen für einen reflexiven und inklusiven Umgang mit Diversitäten in Organisationen

  • C. Hoskyns

    Gender perspectives

  • A. Kalev et al.

    Best practices or best guesses? Diversity management and the remediation of inequality

    American Sociological Review

    (2006)
  • S.J. Kessler et al.

    Gender. An ethnomethodological approach

    (1978)
  • U. Klein

    Geschlechterverhältnisse und Gleichstellungspolitik in der Europäischen Union. Akteure – Themen – Ergebnisse. Lehrbuch

    (2013)
  • U. Klein

    Diversityorientierung und Hochschulen im Wettbewerb: Ein Plädoyer für Diversitypolitik

  • Cited by (30)

    • Exploring the status of diversity in policies and practices of Spanish universities. An asymmetric dual model

      2021, Heliyon
      Citation Excerpt :

      Rules in favour of indigenous, but also black students and candidates from poor backgrounds have also been applied in countries like Brazil (Balbachevsky et al., 2019), although results have become more visible in quantitative rather than qualitative terms—minorities participate in programs with lower social status—. In Europe, along with gender (Klein, 2016; Rosa et al., 2021) and income—this latter criterion served through traditional financial support policies that include scholarships, loans or other benefits (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018)—disability or functional diversity is the criterion of plurality that currently receives the most attention in the organisation of diversity services and programs in higher education (Biewer et al., 2015; Paz-Maldonado, 2020). The effectiveness of inclusive efforts, however, might be quite limited in some countries (Aust, 2018; Gibson, 2015) and, in any case, there is still a broad scope of action to be taken (Barkas et al., 2020).

    • Seeking changes in ivory towers: The impact of gender quotas on female academics in higher education

      2020, Women's Studies International Forum
      Citation Excerpt :

      From this perspective, the use of quotas may impede academic excellence and integrity with the risk of selecting un- or under-qualified candidates. In addition, it could marginalise, isolate, or stress out women by treating them as a “special case” or even as needy, faulty, and deficient members (Bratton, 2005; Klein, 2016: 149). However, scholars argue that the normative and symbolic aspect of female representation in academia is as important as merits (e.g., Feeney et al., 2019; Madwen, 2002; McNeely & Vlaicu, 2010; Thomas, 2016) and there are subtle gender stereotypes that undermine the logic of academic meritocracy and the myth of excellence (e.g., Castilla & Benard, 2010; Husu, 2000; Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012; Nielsen, 2016; O'Connor & O'Hagan, 2016; Roos, 2008; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012).

    • Creating the climate for workplace diversity

      2023, Corporate Psychology and Its Impact on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text