Conference Agenda

Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, we have seen existing patterns of inequality in Higher Education exacerbated. For example, in the context of the UK, women and black minority ethnic staff were already disproportionately on temporary and insecure contracts in the sector before the pandemic (see e.g. UCU, 2016), and it is those who are already in precarious situations in academia that are now most in danger of further cuts and job losses in the sector ‘post’-Covid (see e.g. RRIF, 2020).

In addition, the programmes and departments that seem at greatest risk in HE across Europe and the Global North are often those that are socially gendered as ‘feminine’ such as the Arts and Humanities, that contain a greater proportion of women staff. In contrast STEM disciplines are more likely to be highly valued and supported, especially in the context of the pandemic, both by HEIs and also by national governments wishing to capitalise on the knowledge economy in ways that support specifically nationalist visions of their country’s future.

Diversity is endangered in this context, with serious consequences for the forms of knowledge produced and shared in higher education. Moreover, alongside the neoliberal dynamics of precarity and the impact of the pandemic, the global rise of right-wing ‘neo-populism’ (Krämer, 2014), brings additional challenges with its attack on ‘elites’, including the intellectual elites teaching and researching in HE academic institutions (Clarke and Newman, 2017). Right-wing discourses of ‘resistance’ to university elites are often framed as the encouragement of ‘free speech’ (‘spirited debate’) as opposed to a perceived climate of censorship on campus in the name of ‘political correctness’ (Phipps, 2017).

Underpinning both the dynamics of precarity and of neo-populism are complexly gendered, classed and racialised conceptions of the future of higher education and of the forms of knowledge that should be produced and valued within and beyond the academy. In this talk I will be discussing the implications of such conceptions of our higher education future for any progressive mission to diversify the academic workforce. In particular, what are the implications of precarity – and of the influence of right-wing politics - for the heterogeneity of academic staff across the disciplines in HE, and the forms of knowledge that will most likely be funded and disseminated in the sector as we move into the ‘post-pandemic’ landscape?

In the field of education, many researchers have been motivated by a desire to understand those factors that have led to the marginalisation and educational exclusion of certain groups. The use of terms such as emancipatory research and the promotion of critical theory has made a direct link between the use of research data and the desire to effect change. The intentions of researchers working in this manner are most certainly honourable and well-intentioned. However, the competitive nature of the current research environment may well militate against the best intentions of those who are committed to research as a more equitable process.

In this session I suggest a need to review the ways in which relationships between researchers and those who are the subjects of research are currently perceived. If research is intended to have social benefits and to support processes of change, it may be advantageous to consider opportunities to enhance partnerships that strengthen the relationship between inquiry and practice. The involvement of those individuals who own the data that we as researchers seek to gather, interpret and understand, may in some instances be desirable if we are to be sincere in our commitment to achieve greater inclusion.

I will argue that our understanding of the causes of marginalisation and discrimination based upon a long period of research, is greater now than it was in the past. The research conducted in this area has been extensive, well-focused and often important in shaping educational policy and practice. For research to maintain its currency in the immediate future, we may consider the ways in which those who have been excluded in the past are assisted to shape their own more inclusive future by a more direct involvement in the research process.