This project, the first extensive study of ethnic minority staff1 in higher education, was commissioned by by a consortium of AUT, CRE, CUCO, CVCP, HEFCE, NATFHE, and SHEFC.2 It arose from a concern that the issue of racial equality, especially in relation to staff, was not being given a priority in higher education. Ethnic minorities formed about 15 per cent of all home students but this was not reflected amongst the teaching staff and those in senior administrative positions. There was frustration amongst some ethnic minority staff, as evidenced in some prominent industrial tribunal cases, not least with the view of their colleagues and employers that HE institutions were immune from discrimination. Moreover, many universities and colleges were slow to appreciate the growing multi-ethnic nature of British society and how they needed to adapt to this.
The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, chaired by Sir Ron Dearing, has recommended that
all institutions should ... identify and remove barriers which inhibit recruitment and progression for particular groups and monitor and publish their progress towards greater equality of opportunity for all groups (recommendation 49).
This study looks at the representation and distribution of ethnic minority staff and at some of its underlying causes; at what policies the sector has in place to achieve racial equality; and the views and experiences of minority staff and prospective staff about racism, discrimination and the commitment of their institutions to equal opportunities. The findings show that there are marked racial inequalities in HE which so far the institutions have failed to address. The study has five main elements:
The 1996-97 dataset from HESA is the best available source of information for Britain's academics. The ethnic group of 83 per cent of the total full-time and part-time academic staff is reported and information on ethnic group and nationality is more complete than in any other record.
Counting those HESA-returned staff for whom there is a full record of both ethnicity and nationality, the non-British and British minority3 staff make a total of 5,294 in the academic labour force. The non-British minority (2,911) is larger than the British (2,383). This figure excludes the category 'other' in the HESA dataset. Of these we estimate that about 1,000 may be minority or 'non-white' thus making approximately 6,300 and 6.3 per cent of Britain's academic labour force. Because we cannot assign individual records of 'others' to white or minority they are excluded from the analysis and we have worked with 5,294 cases as 5.5 per cent of all staff with complete records.
Table 1 Academic staff by ethnicity/nationality group*
| Ethnic/nationality group | Per cent | (Number) |
|---|---|---|
| White British | 85.0 | (82,911) |
| White non-British | 9.5 | (9,287) |
| Minority British | 2.5 | (2,418) |
| Minority non-British | 3.0 | (2,917) |
| Total | 100.0 | (97,533) |
* All totals based on persons for whom ethnicity and nationality recorded
Non-British nationals form a significant part of Britain's academic staff; the higher education labour force is international. More than 12,000 academics, 1 in 8 or 12.5 per cent of all staff, are non-British nationals; three quarters of them are whites. They have a notable presence in certain sectors of the higher education system, namely in sciences and engineering, in the pre-1992 universities, in research posts and on fixed term contracts. These concentrations are true of both white and minority ethnic non-British staff.
Given the structural difference between the British and non-British minorities - highlighted by the fact that in several key respects the non-British minorities clearly resemble the non-British whites - it is usually better to show them separately. Probably in a majority of cases their education and careers will have started outside Britain and many will subsequently continue their careers outside Britain. But it should also be remembered that there will be a unknown proportion of 'non-British' staff who are effectively settled in Britain but did not have British nationality at the time of the data record.
Those of Chinese, Asian Other and Indian ethnic groups are the largest groups within the minority staff (see Figure 1).
Among British minorities, Indians are the largest group; among non-British the Chinese are the largest group. Representation within the academic labour force as compared with Britain's population distribution is difficult to judge because of the complication of nationality. Comparing British minority staff 44 years old and under with 1991 census distributions (in the same age category 25-44), would suggest that Chinese, Asian Other and Africans are over-represented, Indians closer to parity, and other groups (Black Caribbean and Black Other, Pakistani and Bangladeshi) are significantly under-represented (see Table 2).
Table 2 Minority academic staff by ethnic group
|
All ethnic minorities as % of staff in HESA |
British minorities as % British staff in HESA |
British minorities as % of all British staff in HEDA aged 44 and under |
In total UK population aged 25-44 (1991 census) |
Chinese |
1.7 |
0.4 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
Indian |
1.4 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
1.8 |
Asian Other |
0.9 |
0.5 |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Black African |
0.6 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.5 |
Black Caribbean/Other |
0.5 |
0.4 |
1.5 |
1.3 |
Pakistani |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.8 |
Bangladeshi |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
Over half of all staff are in the pre-1992 universities and so are most minorities. The percentage of staff who are not British is greatest in medical schools and pre-1992 universities, least in colleges and post-1992 universities. In pre-1992 universities the minority staff are more non-British than British; in post-1992 universities the reverse is true. A higher percentage of staff in post-1992 universities are British minorities when compared to pre-1992 universities. British and non-British minorities are represented proportionately higher in medical schools than in any other sector; the British minorities in medical schools are over-represented compared to their population distribution.
When we look in turn at each of the four ethnic/nationality groups - white British, minority British, white non-British, minority non-British - we see that they are distributed quite differently through the higher education sectors (Table 3). Whereas 59 per cent of all staff are in the pre-1992 institutions, for white non-British this is 76 per cent and for minority non-British 73 per cent. Whereas 28 per cent of all staff are in the post-1992 sector, 33 per cent of minority British are in this sector.
Table 3 Distribution of ethnic/national groupings within HE sectors (%)
|
Pre-1992 Universities |
Post-1992 Universities |
Colleges |
Medical Schools |
White British |
57.0 |
29.0 |
11.0 |
3.0 |
Minority British |
54.0 |
33.0 |
5.0 |
8.0 |
White non-British |
76.0 |
16.0 |
4.0 |
4.0 |
Minority non-British |
73.0 |
20.0 |
3.0 |
4.0 |
All |
59.0 |
28.0 |
10.0 |
3.0 |
Minority staff are more likely to be in research-only posts than majority staff; the greater difference is between British and non-British staff. Non-British nationality staff (white and minority) are highly concentrated in research posts, many of them being employed post-doctorate in fixed term contract research.
The growth in the number of staff on fixed term contracts is a crucial aspect of Britain's higher education institutions. The non-British segments of the academic staff are more likely than the British to be on fixed term contracts (Figure 2). But within the British nationality staff, minorities are much more likely than whites to be on fixed term contracts.
A significantly higher proportion of women are on fixed term contracts in all of the four ethnic/nationality groupings although among women the nationality differences remain. There are only slight differences between ethnic/nationality groups in the proportions who are in part-time4 and full time employment. Differences by gender are marked. While 11 per cent of all recorded staff are part time;18 per cent of female staff are part-time.
Minority ethnic groups are disproportionately in lower grades of employment; this is especially true of non-British minorities. Minority non-British are particularly concentrated in research posts, on fixed term contracts, in science and engineering faculties, and in pre-1992 universities and medical schools. Minority staff, especially non-British minorities, have a younger age profile than white staff and have shorter length of service. Some of the difference between British minority and British white staff is removed if we control for length of service. This is particularly so with middle-to-senior posts below the professor grade. There remains, however, a marked difference, controlling for length of service, between minority and white British in representation in the professor grade (see Table 4).
Table 4 Proportion of staff at professor grade by ethnicity/nationality group and length of service (%)5
Length of Service |
Minority British |
Minority non-British |
White British |
White non-british |
4 years or less |
2.0 |
1.0 |
4.0 |
3.0 |
5-8 years |
3.0 |
1.5 |
8.0 |
6.0 |
9 years and over |
9.0 |
9.5 |
16.0 |
18.0 |
White non-British and minority ethnic non-British, ie non-British nationality staff irrespective of ethnic group, are similar in several respects - more likely to be in research, on fixed term contracts, and in the pre-1992 sector. Not surprisingly, therefore, in terms of seniority, in every category of length of service the British nationals are more advantaged than overseas nationals. For this reason Table 4 is particularly striking. For the distinction between white and minority ethnic is much more telling in the percentage of staff with a professorial position, than is nationality. If, for example we look at the row of staff with 9 and more years of service we see that 18 and 16 per cent of the whites are professors, whilst 9 and 9.5 per cent of the non-whites are professors.
Equal opportunities differ in the range of topics and procedures which they cover: they may cover recruitment of staff, promotion procedures, opportunities for career progression, harassment in the workplace and terms and conditions of work. They may also differ in whether they capture gender, ethnicity and other factors under a single policy as against having specific policies in each area.
A third of institutions in our sample of 126 (out of 188 members of CVCP and the Standing Conference of Principles (SCOP)) did not have a racial equality policy. Even amongst those who had a policy commitment, significant areas of employment were not always covered. Just over six out of ten policies covered recruitment, just over half covered career progression and only four out of ten covered contract status. It is surprising that nearly four out of ten of policies do not include recruitment for this is usually regarded as an essential element of equal opportunities policies (the CUCO 1996 survey of generic equal opportunities policies found that 79 per cent included recruitment (CUCO, 1997)). Moreover, given the preponderance of ethnic minority staff who are on short term contracts the exclusion of contract status from the majority of existing policies suggests a major gap in coverage and an area in which there is scope for policy development.
Nearly four out of five institutions had a designated person responsible for equal opportunities and in 58 per cent of cases this person reported to the Vice Chancellor or Principal. Forty two per cent of institutions had an equal opportunities committee but in only a minority of cases (26 per cent) did it have a budget. Nearly half of the universities and colleges maintain a regular liaison with racial equality bodies but only 16 per cent have ethnic minority community representation on their governing bodies.
Three quarters of all institutions said that they routinely monitor job applications by ethnicity but only 30 per cent stated that any policy decisions had ever been made on the basis of ethnic statistics. Monitoring of other aspects of employment was rare: only 26 per cent of respondents monitor internal promotions and only 11 per cent monitor the grievance and disciplinary procedure. Only 5 per cent of our sample said they had a positive action plan for ethnic minorities.
In order to see where the HE sector was in terms of policy development we created a four-fold typology. We did this by sorting institutions in relation to nine chosen policy items. The nine items included five that were relatively common and four that were relatively rare, and consisted of the following:
1. Managerial responsibility (78 per cent)
2. Ethnic monitoring of job applications (76 per cent)
3. Racial harassment policy (70 per cent)
4. A 'race' component in training of recruiters and promoters (48 per cent)
5. An equal opportunities committee (43 per cent).
Using these nine items we created a typology of four categories of institutions:
1. Those with none or only one of the policy items could be said to have
the least developed policy
2. Those with two or three of the above policy items could be said to have
a partly developed policy
3. Those with four or five of the above policy items could be said to have
a well developed policy
4. Those with six or seven of the above policy items could be said to have
an advanced policy.
On the basis of the initiatives that the respondents reported it is possible to express policy developments amongst institutions in the following way:
i) Institutions with least developed policies (13 per cent)
ii) Institutions with partly developed policies (38 per cent)
iii) Institutions with well developed policies (35 per cent)
iv) Institutions with advanced policies (14 per cent).
There are few hard generalisations about the type of institution that have the most advanced set of policies. New universities and colleges are more likely to be either end of the scale, ie, least developed and advanced, and old universities are more likely to be in the middle. While institutions with low proportions of ethnic minority staff are least likely to have developed policies in place (even though ethnic minority representation is most acute here). There are no easy generalisations about the proportion of ethnic minority staff in an institution and the state of the racial equality policy. Interestingly, while London and the south of England institutions are more likely to have higher proportions of ethnic minority staff, institutions in the north of England are more likely to have the most developed policies, though it should be borne in mind that the base numbers here are small.
The situation is much better than it was a decade ago when most institutions did not even have policy statements (Williams et al, 1989) but racial equality policies have not caught up with issues of sexual equality. This seems to be the case if one compares the findings of this survey with the 1996 CUCO survey on generic equal opportunities policies. For example, while CUCO found that 96 per cent of institutions had policies (CUCO, 1997: 1), we have found that a third of institutions do not think their policies 'specifically address issues of racial equality'. Similarly, while CUCO found that a third of institutions said they had taken positive action initiatives, most of it took the form of women-only training and development, and only two universities had training schemes for ethnic minority groups (CUCO, 1997:11). This disparity between the these equality areas is also consistent with the findings of case study researchers (Farish et al, 1995; Neal, 1998).
It is clear, then, that while some progress is being made, there is considerable scope in most higher education institutions for further racial equality policy implementation and development. In particular, it seems that many institutions do not appreciate that a large proportion of ethnic minority academics are in fixed term contracts and so are often not properly covered by many existing policies. Ironically, this particularly applies to ethnic minority women.
Over 700 academic staff and nearly 150 academic-related staff responded to the survey questionnaire and the quality of data was mostly good.6 Because distribution was through personnel offices we cannot estimate return rates. But indications are that at least for the academic staff we achieved a good return rate for a postal questionnaire and we estimate that about 1 in 12 of all ethnic minority academic staff in Britain formed part of our survey.
On several key indicators the profile of the academic respondents in the survey matched the profile of staff in the HESA dataset giving us confidence that the survey fairly represents key constituents - age groups, men and women, the different sectors, research and teaching staff, and staff on fixed and permanent contracts.
About one in four minority academics reported that they had personally experienced discrimination in job applications, rising to 30 per cent amongst non-British minorities. Fifteen per cent said the same about promotion, and nearly one in five had experienced racial harassment from staff or students (Table 5).
Table 5 Minority academics reporting discrimination in job application and promotion and harassment at work by ethnicity/nationality group (% reporting 'yes')
|
Discrimination in job application |
Discrimination in promotion |
Harassed at work |
Minority British |
23.0 |
17.6 |
19.7 |
Minority non-British |
29.5 |
12.2 |
16.1 |
Total |
26.2 |
15.1 |
17.8 |
A substantial proportion of all academics,.including whites, were uncertain about their institutions' 'commitment to equal opportunities policies' (Table 6). Between 35 and 40 per cent of all respondents were 'not sure' about their institution's commitment and 16 per cent of British minorities were clearly sceptical.
Table 6 Academics' views on their own institutions' level of commitment to equal opportunities, by ethnicity/ nationality group (%)
|
Very committed |
Partly |
Not sure |
Not very |
Not at all |
White |
40.0 |
17.4 |
34.9 |
5.1 |
2.6 |
Minority British |
23.3 |
25.7 |
35.4 |
9.7 |
5.8 |
Minority non-British |
28.4 |
22.4 |
40.8 |
6.0 |
2.5 |
A majority of British minority academics (55 per cent) believed 'greatly' or 'partly' that there is discrimination in employment in HE as did 49 per cent of non-British minorities; whites were less likely (19 per cent) to express these views but 41 per cent were 'not sure' (Table 7).
Table 7 Extent to which academics feel higher education is affected by discrimination, by ethnicity/nationality group (%)
|
Greatly affected |
Partly |
Not sure |
Not very |
Not at all |
White |
5.1 |
14.0 |
40.9 |
22.6 |
17.4 |
Minority British |
18.4 |
36.4 |
32.5 |
11.2 |
1.5 |
Minority non-British |
11.9 |
37.1 |
31.2 |
17.3 |
2.5 |
Minority women were no more likely than minority men to state that they had experienced discrimination in job applications and promotions but were particularly likely to say that they had experienced racial harassment (Table 8).
Table 8 Academics reporting experience of harassment by gender (% reporting 'yes')
Male |
15.4 |
Female |
25.3 |
Total |
17.8 (70) |
Older minority respondents and respondents with longer service were more likely than younger/shorter service staff to report discrimination and harassment as were staff on permanent contracts.
Table 9 Academics reporting experience of job and promotion discrimination and harassment by sector and gender (% responding 'yes')
|
Job discrimination |
Promotion discrimination |
Harassment |
|||
|
male |
female |
male |
female |
male |
female |
Pre-1992 Universities |
24 |
18 |
12 |
6 |
12 |
13 |
Post-1992 Universities |
30 |
42 |
26 |
33 |
20 |
42 |
Academics from post-1992 universities were more likely to report experience of discrimination and harassment and this was true for men and women (Table 9), and for both British and non-British groups (Table 10). The data in the survey does not offer many possibilities of explaining this. However, if experience of blocked promotion is related to structural features of an institution (its age structure, its funding) and if experience of harassment is related to managerial pressures generally, then detailed study of promotions and of management procedures and pressures may reveal the ways in which these factors are translated into racial harassment and discrimination.
Table 10 Academics reporting experience of job and promotion discrimination and harassment by sector and ethnicity/nationality group (% responding 'yes')
|
Job discrimination |
Promotion discrimination |
Harassmemt |
|||
|
British Minority |
Non-British Minority |
British Minority |
Non-British Minority |
British Minority |
Non-British Minority |
Pre 1992 |
20 |
25 |
14 |
8 |
16 |
8 |
Post 1992 |
35 |
32 |
32 |
24 |
27 |
24 |
This survey also targeted academic-related staff. The 57 ethnic minority respondents in academic-related work is too small for analysis by nationality, gender and so on. It is, however, large enough to indicate that on views relating to racial equality their views were broadly similar to their academic colleagues'. Thus 17 per cent of the academic-related staff felt they had been discriminated in job applications and 16 per cent in promotions; and 16 per cent said they had experienced harassment. While 11 per cent thought that HE was greatly affected by racial discrimination, a further 49 per cent thought it partly was.
In order to explore further the views of ethnic minority academics about how they felt ethnic or racial factors affected their career opportunities and work conditions four discussion groups were conducted. The purpose of the discussion groups was not to attempt representativeness but to include those who particularly wished to contribute.
The four groups comprised academics from a pre-1992 university in the south of England; a post-1992 university in the north of England; a London medical school; and a specialist group of higher and further education lecturers with expertise on 'race' and education and race equality professionals from further and higher education.
Participants for the first three groups were chosen at random from those who had filled in a questionnaire and offered us their contact details. These meetings provided interesting findings including:
So much of getting a job in a university is to do with informal contacts. I got my job here after giving a paper at a conference where I was approached by the head of department here who basically offered me the job on the spot. I also got my previous job as a result of contacts at a conference.
Most universities have an equal opportunities policy but in practical terms it doesn't mean very much. White staff always seem to do better than ethnic minorities even when their qualifications are the same.
You see undergraduate students from ethnic minorities and they ask about a career in academic life, but there are so few minority academics and so few professors or heads of department, it is not possible to say 'look this is what you can achieve if you get into the system'.
In the final analysis the most important thing about recruitment is that it must be down to the quality of the applicant. However well intentioned positive action or even positive discrimination might be it will always lead to accusations of tokenism which make the job harder. Many of these sentiments were also found in the specialist discussion group. In this group, however, such points were part of a larger theme. It was argued that this research project, no less than HEIs, lacked a 'black perspective'. A black perspective was taken to consist of two main features: 1. a focus on those who had the most experience of racism and had thought through their response to it, and 2. a suspicion of quantitative methodologies, for they only scratched the surface of experience and therefore systematically understated the phenomenon-of racism. The group emphasised that institutions needed to see racism as a problem for the institution not just for ethnic minority staff and students and that a commitment to anti-racism was needed from the top downwards.
Discussion groups were also held with ethnic minority research students, most of whom aspired to a career in HE. The non-British students were less conscious and concerned with racism than the British minority students. The latter felt that they were constantly battling against being typecast by ethnicity and sex:
There are all kinds of subtleties in a way that people treat you, how they speak to you and when they don't speak to you at all in fact. They are very intangible. So you can't put a finger on it. This becomes the case especially if people perceive that you remotely challenge their positions.
They felt that the ideals of HE - merit and intellectualism - were not realised in practice and that there was a weak committment to implementing the radical policies that `liberal' institutions subscribe to on paper. While not put off HE as a career they resented having to jump over extra hurdles and resented the assumption that ethnic minorities ought to take on the burden of racial equality work. They felt the onus was on white academics to confront their own racism and to show what they were going to do about it.
The key idea underlying all specific recommendations that may be made is the one embodied in the recent Macpherson Report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence, which states that
it is incumbent upon every institution to examine their policies and the outcome of their policies and practices to guard against disadvantaging any section of our communities.
Higher education institutions should look at the differential statistics this study has highlighted and ask themselves what are the causes and trends, and whether they are in any way contributing to these inequalities and if so, whether they should not be doing things differently. More positively, they should review their practices and methods, particularly the way they recruit and promote staff, but indeed the whole institutional ethos. They should ask whether they are adequate for contemporary multicultural Britain, whether the needs and interests of the ethnic and religious minorities are properly addressed and accommodated. National bodies, including the government and its mechanisms for evaluating and funding higher education too have responsibility to oversee change, and to stimulate and support it by appropriate leadership, detailed guidance and funding, including the use of financial incentives.
Our key conclusions are:
1. Ethnic minorities are situated in structural disadvantage in the academic labour force; this applies particularly to their over-representation in fixed-term research posts.
2. Within this structured disadvantage there is evidence to indicate that minority ethnic groups experience discrimination in applications for posts and promotions, harassment and negative stereotyping.
3. Some groups within the broad grouping 'minority ethnic groups' are better placed than others. While some minorities are overrepresented in academic posts, Pakistanis, Black Caribbeans/Black Others and Bangladeshis are significantly underrepresented.
4. The analysis by age indicates that the trend is towards greater ethnic diversity within academic life and upward mobility within the profession for some minority groups.
We suggest the following five benchmark questions should be asked on an annual basis within each institution and by those with responsibility for higher education, to measure whether progress in racial equality is being made in the coming years:
1. Is there an improvement in the position of underrepresented groups such as Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Black Caribbeans?
2. Is the disproportionate concentration of ethnic minorities and overseas nationals in fixed-term contract posts declining?
3. Is the higher representation of minorities in the younger age bands of HE staff flowing through into all ages and into more senior posts?
4. Is there an improvement in minority promotion to professor posts?
5. Is the multi-ethnic character of the British student population, in which currently 15 per cent are not white, being reflected also in the ethnic composition of their teachers?
Action will be necessary to make progress against these key benchmarks. We therefore suggest the following five recommendations for senior managers:
1. Ensure that racial equality policies cover contract status, and the career development opportunities of fixed term contract and part-time staff.
2. Ensure that all staff involved in recruitment and promotions, including senior managers, are properly trained in selection and assessment procedures, in institutional policies and in awareness of how unconscious negative stereotyping can bias decisions.
3. Ensure that there is appropriate and regular ethnic monitoring of recruitment, employment grades and promotions and that this is used, in conjunction with the five benchmarks above, to produce and evaluate timetabled action plans.
4. Give racial equality the same priority as sex equality, not least in positive action training and setting targets for achieving a certain proportion of minorities in professorial and senior management posts.
5. Ensure that there is a debate within the institution, with a view to reform of its practices and methods, as to whether the needs and interests of the ethnic and religious minorities are properly addressed and accommodated.
CUCO (1997) A Report On Policies And Practices On Equal Opportunities In Employment And Colleges In Higher Education. CUCO, London.
Farish M, McPake J, Powney J and Weiner G (1995) Equal Opportunities in Colleges and Universities: Towards Better Practices. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Neal S (1998) The Making of Equal Opportunities Policies in Universities. The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Williams J, Cocking J and Davies L (1989) Words or Deeds? Commission for Racial Equality, London.
The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (Dearing Committee) (1997) Stationery Office, London.
Macpherson of Cluny, Sir William (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Stationery Office, London.