Norms are not enough: In search of research-based policy to inform EDI strategies in higher education

• In Event: Policies, norms, and disruptions in higher education

Proposal

Research Problem.
This project addresses the persistent gap between policies and practices in institutional Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) strategies by exploring how academic research influences normative beliefs for systemic change in higher education institutions. Institutional EDI efforts face challenges in aligning policies with effective practices (al Shaibah, 2014; Bailey, 2016). Despite intentions, marginalized groups continue to face discrimination (Bhopal & Pitkin, 2020; Iverson, 2005). Indigenous students, too, encounter obstacles due to limited cultural recognition (Gallop & Bastien, 2016). Policy implementation often lacks transformative impact, becoming tokenistic in nature (Doharty et al., 2021; Ball, 2003). Research-based normative shifts are crucial (Sabatier, 1986), with academic scholarship gradually influencing change (Nutley et al., 2007). The main questions guiding this paper are: "How does academic research impact EDI strategies in higher education institutions? What type of academic research integrates into institutional documents?"

Theoretical Framework.
This study is grounded in an interdisciplinary approach which combines insights from higher education (strategic governance), educational sociology (norm literature), and public policy (institutional change, policy learning). Strategic governance in universities refers to the organized and purposeful approaches that institutions use to make decisions, set priorities, allocate resources, and manage their overall direction in alignment with their mission, vision, and long-term goals (Oliver 1991, Fumasoli, et al., 2020). This approach is directly relevant to EDI strategies, because it requires prioritization of EDI in a/the university’s mission, involves leadership commitment, resources, community engagement and collaboration between various stakeholders (university administrators, faculty, staff, students, and external partners) to formulate and execute strategies that address systemic barriers for equity-seeking groups in academia. Strategic governance approaches should be firmly rooted in evidence-based scholarship that rigorously evaluates the persistent institutional deficiencies related to equity. Yet, awareness of knowledge is often not enough. It is imperative that there is a transition from academic scholarship to changes of individual values and beliefs.

EDI is a complex social problem that is associated with deeply rooted norms, conflicting values, and established patterns of behaviours dictated by the prevailing cultural group. Such problems create barriers to collaboration because they call into question the existing power equilibriums and dominant narratives about how to work together and share responsibilities within already-established normative frameworks (Paquet & Schertzer, 2020). Normative frameworks tend to change slowly but changes can happen as a result of learning (often via academic research) that challenges existing norms and provides new framings to policy problems.

Policy learning involves cognitive processes that focus on an individual's beliefs about policy components, such as problem definition, goals, strategies, and paradigms (Radaelli, 2009; Sabatier, 1986; Toens & Landwehr, 2009). Policy framing, support types, and anticipated outcomes are linked to normative beliefs; when beliefs change, the approach to EDI transitions changes to structural change. Public policy literature outlines four ways research impacts policy: instrumental, conceptual, political, and symbolic (Farley-Ripple, 2012; Nutley et al., 2007). Instrumental use entails citing research in decision-making. Conceptual use leads to gradual shifts in policymakers' awareness and perspectives, indirectly shaping understandings over time (Weiss & Bucuvalas, 1980). Political use involves manipulating research for power or profit goals. Symbolic use justifies solutions. Connecting these categories with normative beliefs analyzes academic research's impact on institutional strategies, fostering structural change.

Methodology.
The qualitative case study examines Canadian U15 universities' EDI policies. Those documents include EDI Action Plans, EDI Task Force reports, EDI Annual Performance Reports, Indigenization strategies, Anti-Racism strategies, and general Academic Plans. Critical content analysis (Krippendorff, 2018; Elo & Jyngas, 2008) of the documents was performed, tracing the frequency and types of academic scholarship used in institutional EDI documents. Deductive categorization was performed by applying the four key categories of academic research and its impact: conceptual, instrumental, political, or symbolic use. Open coding, categorizing and selective coding led to a final set of themes.

Findings.
Preliminary findings reveal limited integration of academic research in EDI documents. Academic research tends to surface in task-force documents, aiming to address key issues and outline action plans, often referencing outdated sources from the 1990s. Indigenous Strategies also commonly cite academic research. However, comprehensive institutional plans like strategic and academic plans rarely reference academic work, favoring community engagement over scholarly contributions. While aligned with oral knowledge traditions, this approach can hinder bridging cultural gaps and codifying Indigenous-specific EDI practices.

The study indicates that academic research is more frequently utilized when challenging existing value frameworks, particularly in Indigenous strategic plans. This scenario is evident in the context of Indigenous strategic plans, when conventional power hierarchies are critiqued and scrutinized (e.g., “universities as colonial institutions” (UBC, 2020, p. 8), “the history of relationships in Canada are grounded on settler deception” (UManitoba, 2019, p. 8). These plans critique established hierarchies, highlighting the need for research-based EDI materials accessible to all individuals within the institution. Discrepancies in value frameworks among groups contribute to challenges in implementing inclusive policies. This underscores the demand for focused critical academic scholarship, especially in instances where institutions aim to communicate political or symbolic messages.

In conclusion, the untapped potential of leveraging academic research for substantial change in EDI within higher education institutions is evident. The capacity of research to catalyze transformative shifts remains underutilized. Addressing this gap and fostering a symbiotic relationship between research and normative change could unlock new pathways for equitable educational landscapes.

Significance.
This research is significant in several ways. First, the findings will lead to an important theoretical contribution, enhancing our understanding of how academic knowledge informs policy. While there is plenty of research on evidence-based policy-making (Nutley et al., 2007), the conditions of EDI are unique—decisions are dependent on power dynamics and can profoundly challenge the established norms and attitudes of the dominant cultural group. Second, by collecting empirical data and framing it within the existing theoretical approaches (policy learning, norm literature, strategic governance), this study generates a unique dataset that informs critical literature on knowledge politics in higher education. Third, this study makes a significant practical contribution in providing empirical perspectives on how critical academic research could have a higher impact on informing policy-making in higher education.

Authors

• Rebecca Chambers, University of Manitoba

• Merli Tamtik, University of Manitoba