Valuing diversity - another approach for HERDSA

The strategic plan for valuing diversity, developed by HERDSA Executive in 1993, has weaknesses. Various improvements are proposed. They relate to the higher education expertise potentially possessed by different groups of members and processes for raising the level of participation of all members in decision-making.

Introduction

The strategic plan was in two parts. First a policy statement addressing the broad issue, which included the sentences:

there is considerable evidence to suggest that certain groups - including women, indigenous peoples and some ethnic minority groups - suffer as a result of both structural and systemic inequalities in terms of their participation, their representation in leadership roles and in their perspectives, - - in the Society itself.

A policy of inclusiveness implies, first, a commitment to equitable representation in management and operation of the Society, and second, the inclusion of the perspectives and concerns of all groups.

Accordingly, it is HERDSA's policy to take positive steps to:

1. reduce systemic disadvantage;
2. draw upon the richness of diverse experience; and
3. create a supportive Society in which all groups are enabled and encouraged to participate fully in - - the leadership and management of the Society's own activities. (p2)

this strategic plan is designed to ensure that women are equally valued and that their interests and perspectives are not marginalised. (p 3)

Some doubts were expressed about the plan during the 1994 annual general meeting. No formal motion to adopt the final version is recorded, but subsequent discussions clearly imply that it has been adopted.

The plan has two serious weaknesses. First, it refers only to the disadvantaged groups that are formally recognised in employer institutions in the public sector and neglects other groups of members of the Society who may have felt discouraged at various times. Second, the affirmative action is limited to increasing participation in the Society in its existing form. Other ways of making the Society more responsive and congenial to various groups were neglected. These could include changes to the culture and the decision-making processes of the Society.

This paper constructively addresses these two weaknesses.

Groups of members

From its foundation in 1972 HERDSA has had a few readily identifiable and stable groups, viz:

1. Those members whose institutional appointments demand expertise in higher education. This group includes those employed as academic staff developers, academic staff in university departments of education and staff in various units established to provide formal support to students.

2. Those members holding academic appointments in tertiary education departments other than education - often referred to as the practitioners.

3. Those members holding executive, management or administrative appointments in government departments of education, tertiary education institutions, education commissions, committees, agencies, etc.

4. Students, especially leaders of student unions.

5. Groups of members related to their country (or state) of employment, particularly New Zealand and Australia, with its states.

6. Groups of members employed in the different sectors of tertiary education.

7. Female and male members.

Members may be considered as belonging to many other less clear-cut categories with no less significance in the context of valuing diversity. As examples:

8. Leaders, supporters or followers.
9. Researchers, critical reviewers or developers (appliers).
10. Those who focus on reduced systems or those who focus on holistic systems.
11. Analysers or synthesisers.
12. Young or old.
13. Conservatives or radicals.
14. Advocates, critics or promoters.
15. Those most comfortable working with people or those most comfortable working with abstract concepts.
16. Visionaries or those content with facilitating the status quo.
17. Writers, speakers, readers or listeners.

The points emerging from this analysis of groupings among members of HERDSA are that there is a large number of groups (extensive diversity among members); the allocation of an individual to a group is uncertain; that allocation of an individual to a single group is not an adequate summary of the characteristics of that individual in terms of expectations of and potential contributions to the Society. Furthermore, identification with a group does not make an individual a representative of that group, neither typical of the group nor knowledgeable of the relevant characteristics of the group.

Culture of the Society

Part of higher education expertise is the system of concepts and principles derived from research. A different part is the identification and analysis of issues and the evaluation of various measures adopted to address them. Another part is the informed practice of higher education in practical situations and with various restraints. (The two latter parts involve not only the concepts and principles of higher education but also those associated with other social sciences, psychology, economics, etc. The situations range from particular classrooms, through academic departments and institutions, to national government bureaucracies.) Different groups of members can be expected to contribute and use the different parts, but not exclusively. At various times, the Society has valued each of these parts of higher education expertise. However, there has been a tendency, on the part of all members, to assume that the Society's expertise rests with those holding education appointments (group 1 above). No other group has been recognised as 'expert', although a few individuals have been acknowledged as such.

A society is hardly 'learned' if a majority of its members is believed to have little relevant expertise. Thus, one desirable change in the culture is to develop the potential expertise of most members of each group. Those members need to be encouraged to develop their expertise, individually and collectively. They need to learn how to express it to a learned audience in various verbal and written forms, to evaluate and review constructively related contributions, to disseminate their expertise and integrate it with other versions. The contributions do not have to be formal and recorded. The potential expertise of the practitioners has been described in more detail elsewhere (Prosser, 1993). Those in power need to take affirmative action to these ends. However, every member can help to change the culture by recognising the various forms of expertise and who may possess them. If this change is not achieved, no other measure is likely to succeed in increasing the contributions from the diverse groups.

Institutional processes

Arnstein (1977) addressed the issue of citizen participation in decision-making in major social activities. Her analysis is relevant to HERDSA and its policy of valuing diversity. In this context 'member' can be substituted for Arnstein's 'citizen'. She (and many others) recognise that power is at the core of the issue. "- participation without redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the powerless." (pp239-240). She proceeds to identify 8 levels of participation, in ascending order:

1. manipulation, which is intended to avoid participation by 'educating' the citizens about the programmes of the powerful; the perspectives of the powerless are ignored;

2. therapy, with similar intentions of 'curing' the citizens of their 'delusions';

3. informing, whereby citizens may listen to or read about the intentions of the powerful but have no means of changing them;

4. consultation, through which citizens are invited to comment on proposals but still have no power to change them;

5. placation, through which there is token representation of the citizens at levels at which advice is offered but no crucial decisions are made;

6. partnership, where there is agreement among organised and resourceful groups to share planning and decision-making responsibilities through compromises;

7. delegated power, where all of the significant groups have the numbers of representatives and the constitutional authority to initiate negotiations and demand accountability on certain points;

8. citizen control, where each significant group has the authority, the numbers, the organisation and the resources to negotiate as an equal with other groups throughout the decision-making process.

Arnstein's analysis is valuable not only for identifying different levels of participation but also for indicating the pre-requisites for reaching the higher levels. In order to be effective a group of members has to be organised, to be able to confer with each other, to know its shared values, to agree on what it wants to achieve and to recognise its leaders. It also needs resources in terms of relevant expertise, hardware and, perhaps, money. Finally, the Constitution or By-laws should give it the authority to participate in decision-making. The way the Society has developed suggests that only group 1 above of its members is organised to that extent, has the expertise and access to the necessary resources. By comparison, the other groups are still disorganised. (On occasions the women have organised themselves temporarily and the effect has been clearly evident.) Although other groups may have access to resources, there is no agreed purpose to which to apply them. While the Constitution contains no impediment for these groups it also provides no means for them to participate in decision-making.

It follows, therefore, that to get effective participation of the other groups and pass some of the power to them, i.e. to value the diversity among the members, they must first become organised. In its first decade, HERDSA took some initiatives that should have helped to organise the practitioners, but they did not last. Some influential members now see the (geographical) branches and the special interest groups (SIG) to be the means for achieving this (Worall-Carter, 1993). Branches have existed for a decade. Certainly, there were some hopeful signs that they would be the nucleus on which the practitioners could become an organised group. But that has not lasted nor been achieved throughout Australia and New Zealand. The SIGs in existence or proposed appear to be based on sections of the full-time educationalist group. Hence, they are more likely to reinforce the status quo rather than change it significantly.

Apart from the women members and, to a lesser extent, the New Zealand members, there is no pressure from any other disadvantaged group to achieve more power. If diversity in the membership is a potential asset something needs to be done to raise the motivation of the other groups to participate constructively. In the previous section, developing the expertise of these groups was proposed as a key means of raising motivation and, incidentally, facilitating the organisation of the group. At the same time a mechanism is required for members from these groups to participate in the actual negotiations leading up to important decisions of the Society.

In recent years, the Executive has separated the negotiations about major issues from the strictly business activities. (They have taken place on different days.) It is suggested that the separation is taken one step further. All members should be invited to participate in the negotiations. In reality, only a handful of members will accept the invitation. Throughout negotiations, deliberate steps could be taken to ensure inclusion of the perspective of an absent member who has provided a substantial written contribution. Additionally, (almost) all members could participate in the negotiations if they were conducted via e-mail. The process would be slower and more formal than a verbal debate, but it would be worth trying.

Processes like these would also accommodate the less recognisable groups like those in 8 to 17 above. (Such groups could never be organised and achieve formal recognition.)

Some of HERDSA's activities could be regarded as the responsibility of particular groups (but not exclusively). For example, the Gold Guide series is expected to be written by practitioners for the benefit of practitioners. Why should the commissioning and editing roles not also be run largely by the practitioners? (That group needs to become organised first, though.)

If a little imagination was used, other ways of increasing members' participation in various activities could be developed. For example, as academics approach retirement they start to look for opportunities to continue intellectual activity. HERDSA has failed to utilise the experience and motivation of its retired members. Even when one has volunteered specific services the authorities have often been remarkably slow, procrastinating and/or negative in responding.

Over a period of time, some members display interest and insight into particular issues relevant to the Society. If it is deemed unrealistic to invite all members to participate in negotiations at least those who have previously displayed an interest should be invited. Members who have nominated for election to the Executive are clearly in this category. Other members who have left the Executive, but remain in the Society, may also be in this category.

Put in broad terms, HERDSA at present tries to be a representative democracy (but not successfully, I believe, in terms of its more obvious membership groups). It should try to become a participatory democracy, operating at levels (VI), (VII) and (VIII) of Arnstein's ladder and involving a higher proportion of its membership. Developing and disseminating the expertise of its diverse groups of members is an important pre-requisite. Facilitating the organisation of the more stable groups is an equally important pre-requisite.

References

Buckridge, M., Hazel, E., Nicoll, C. and Lewis, S. (1992). Conference retrospective II. HERDSA News, 14(3), 15-16.

HERDSA (1992). Report of 19th Annual General Meeting, 9 July 1992, p3.

HERDSA (1994). Valuing Diversity. A Strategic Plan for Gender Inclusiveness. 7pp.

Prosser, A.P. (1993). The roles of practising teachers in HERDSA and teaching development. Research and Development in Higher Education, 16, 611-615.

Worall-Carter, L. (1993). 'Challenging the conventional wisdom of HERDSA': Towards a sustainable development. Research and Development in Higher Education, 16, 619-624.

Author: Alan P Prosser, PO Box 43, Caringbah NSW 2229, Australia Please cite as: Prosser, A. P. (1996). Valuing diversity - another approach for HERDSA. Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings HERDSA Conference 1996. Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/prossera1.html