1. Understanding the Managing/Valuing Diversity perspective
Judith Foreman
Introduction to the concept of valuing or managing diversity; and then link this to widening participation in higher education
The language of ‘diversity’ has crept in to education . . .
The concept of valuing or managing diversity has a very specific meaning and origin – not always captured in the general use of the term diversity.
Origin of the valuing diversity perspective: a different national, social and political context.

2. What is ‘managing diversity’?
The concept of Managing Diversity embodies two key assumptions
The heterogeneity and diversity of social groups - discrimination and disadvantage are, therefore, multifaceted
Organisations can benefit from valuing difference and managing diversity effectively
Both ideas have implications for organisational change and professional practice
The term ‘Managing Diversity’ links the terms ‘diversity’ and the ‘business case’ and locates managing diversity within a distinc model of organisational change.

3. What is Managing Diversity?
MD is often defined by comparing it with Equal Opportunities approaches
Some authors claim that MD represents a ‘paradigm’ shift in equal opportunities work
Some see MD as an extension/development of EOP
Comparing Equal Opps approaches and MD is a useful way of understanding some of the components of the MD/valuing difference persepctive.
Hopefully you will also begin to see some relationship also to approaches to widening participation.

4. Equal Opportunities and Managing Diversity compared – drivers for change
Externally driven
Rests on moral and legal arguments
Perceives EO as a cost
Managing Diversity
Internally driven
Rests on ‘business case’
Perceives MD (Managing Diversity) as investment

5. Equal Opportunities and Managing Diversity compared – degree of integration
Operational
Concerned with process
Externally imposed – low ‘buy-in’
Managing Diversity
Strategic
Concerned with outcomes
Internalised by all

6. Equal Opportunities and Managing Diversity compared – perception of difference
Difference perceived as other/problematical
Deficit model
Assimilation advocated
Managing Diversity
Difference perceived as asset/richness
Celebrates difference
Mainstream adaptation advocated

7. Equal Opportunities and Managing Diversity compared – focus of action
Focus on group discrimination
Group initiatives
Supported by narrow positivist knowledge base
Managing Diversity
Focus on development for all individuals
Universal initiatives
Individual development
Supported by wider pluralistic knowledge base

8. Different approaches to WP emerging from research
Academic
Differential Provision
Transformative
Assimilation
Group-focused (targeting)
Peripheral and operational
Externally driven
Separation or compensation
Pragmatic
Mainstream adaptation
Individual focused
Central and strategic
Externally and internally driven
Synthesis of a typology created by Wilson & Iles with work by Jones and Thomas, Layer and Osborne.

9. Origins and application of MD to widening participation in HE
Private sector
More recent application to public/not for profit sector
Employment
Generally not as well developed in relation to customer/client diversity – especially student diversity

10. ‘Business Case’ in HE Business case not an approach used in HE
WP driven by a range of factors
Govt policy
Funding
Institutional mission – social justice
Market position

11. Why a Business Case?
Creates internal arguments for student diversity and WP based on benefits to institution
HE Sector is partially ‘marketised’, so ‘business’ arguments apply
HE sector is diverse, so not ‘one size fits all’
Organisational change
Draws on a diversity paradigm that celebrates difference - this is key to how WP is defined so takes us down a particular route
Internal, institutional level arguments missing but wanted - policy language
Marketisation focuses concentration on business benefits
Not providing a blueprint of a business case for WP and diversity but teasing out the component parts and suggesting how they might be built into a business case
A business case is the first step towards creating organisational change

12. Elements of a Business Case
Potential benefits to the institution
Potential costs, risks and barriers
Differential impacts on different stakeholders
Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Can the costs be met?

13. Organisational Change
External Drivers
Internal Drivers
Recruitment
‘Pool of Talent’
Improving T&L
New markets
Reputation
(Access to funding)
Legislation
Funding and policy drivers
Ethical drivers - Social justice
Organisational Change
Literature reveals a range of different potential drivers.
Each driver represents a series of evidenced benefits to the institution, though some areas are more researched than others.
They have the potential to feed into a model of organisational change to support the recruitment and retention of a more diverse student body
Mission Commitment
Corporate Social Responsibility

14. Potential benefits to institutions
Increased student numbers
Tapping the pool of talent
Improving teaching and learning
Access to funding
New roles and markets
Complying with legislation
Reputation
Summary of the benefits

15. Group discussion activity
Which of the benefits would be most relevant to your institution(s)?
How might these provide a rationale for further investment in managing student diversity?
What would be the implications of this (costs, risks, barriers etc)

16. Costs and risks Additional cost of supporting the learning experience
Costs of low retention
New course development (for new student markets)
Academic standards
Diverting funding from ‘core business’

17. Barriers Internal barriers context specific, e.g.
Other activities such as research being more highly valued
Institutional history and perceptions held by prospective students (and some staff!)
Fear of adverse effect on existing student cohorts
External barriers, e.g. funding system