Copy the page URI to the clipboard
Pride, Mychelle; Johnson, Paulette and Owen, Holly
(2023).
Abstract
Research and practice show inequitable outcomes for students from traditionally disadvantaged backgrounds compared to students from backgrounds of privilege (Awan, 2020, Rai & Simpson, 2023, Richardson, 2015, Richardson et al., 2020). Closing student awarding gaps is a problem across the sector (Universities UK, 2022). Student success for all students regardless of background is inextricably linked with staff understanding of diversity and inclusion. Most organisations have required their staff to undergo diversity and inclusion professional development for many years. But is this professional development still appropriate for 2023 and beyond? How does staff training translate into a more diverse and inclusive student learning experience that improves retention and student outcomes?
In the Faculty of Wellbeing, Education and Language Studies at the Open University UK, we developed and implemented an equity, diversity and inclusion strategy that included a forward-facing and aspirational professional development programme to tackle racism and discriminatory behaviour and to promote diversity and inclusion for our students. The programme is called ‘Unlearn and Learn’, acknowledging that staff might need to ‘unlearn’ what was previously appropriate and ‘learn’ how to be allies and how to agitate to affect change. In under two years, we have run 90 sessions across various topics including gender, disability, race, and ethnicity which 689+ unique staff have attended. As a result, we have developed knowledge and understanding amongst staff, contributing to positive changes in practice.
The success of the programme can partially be attributed to creating a learning community that is a safe space for staff to expose their lack of understanding or knowledge of difficult issues, where they are able to ask awkward questions and not be judged, and where they can learn to improve their own practice and the student experience. In the first year, most sessions were delivered by external experts. In the second year, this was flipped, and most sessions were run by internal staff, presenting their own research or staff from diverse backgrounds who are experts by experience. This approach reduced costs, increased local relevance and the combination of internal and external speakers enhanced credibility and attracted more delegates.