A long-awaited strategy that aims to?combat the under-representation of?black people in?research has been criticised as vague and lacking in?accountability by?campaigners.
UK?Research and Innovation (UKRI)’s first equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) strategy, finally , had been expected to?translate commitments made by?the funder in?the wake of?the murder of?George Floyd in?May 2020 into concrete policies, and provide a?coherent action plan to?tackle what its leaders called the “more subtle forms [of racism] that keep black people out of?the room”.
UKRI an unusually hard-hitting statement, signed by every British research council chair, as Black Lives Matter protests were held across the world almost three years ago.
It promised to “reflect on whether we as individuals, and as a community, are doing enough to eradicate racism”. And it said there would be a “renewed dedication” to listen to those fighting racial under-representation in research in its “work to address our structures…and the ways that we may be perpetuating problems – in terms of who we represent, who we invite to the table, who we partner with and fund”.
But the agency – which has a?budget of ?25?billion to spend over the next three years – has disappointed some campaigners with its EDI strategy, a?13-page document that fails to mention the words “race”, “racism” or “ethnicity” even once. Instead, it relies on much vaguer terms such as extolling UKRI’s commitment to “including and valuing a diversity of people, experiences and perspectives” – with its repeated use of “diversity of people and ideas” leading some to wonder if the latter more elusive concept is UKRI’s greater priority.
“When UKRI talks about diversity, it’s hard to know what it means – is it referring to disabled people, LGBTQI people, black individuals, or do they want more ‘diversity of thought’ – there is no?clarity on what their approach?is,” said Addy Adelaine, an independent researcher who, with nine other black academics, wrote an in 2020 drawing attention to the disproportionately low number of black grant winners and the lack of publicly available equality data regarding grant-making decisions.
That haziness about definitions is matched by a similarly unclear approach to improving inclusion in grant-making decisions, which came in for criticism after it emerged that most research council committee meetings, in the five years to 2021, did not have a single ethnic minority member, said Dr Adelaine, who is also the chief executive of the Ladders4Action consultancy.
“UKRI has not defined what it means by inclusion, nor do they say exactly how they will monitor progress,” she said, adding that she hoped “they will involve marginalised scholars and subject experts” more in the process.
Such concerns would be deepened by the lack of a clear timetable for meeting defined targets, said Rachel Oliver, who sits on the University of Cambridge’s group for STEM inclusion. “There are lots of fine words but nothing on which it can be held to account,” she said.
For Professor Oliver, the failure to openly discuss the “well-documented” faced by black academics was also a mistake. “There is a certain power in saying where there are problems, and that certain elements of the system are racist – the strategy instead talks about ‘being diverse’, and there is no willingness to stand up and say where the problems lie,” she said.
However, Melanie Welham, UKRI’s executive champion for people, culture and talent, defended the strategy, which, she said, was “integral to our ambition for an outstanding, vibrant and productive research and innovation system in the UK”.
“Achieving this needs a variety of approaches and a diversity of people, ideas, perspectives and places,” said Professor Welham, also executive chair of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, who explained that the strategy was a “framework to support diversity in many different forms, including and beyond protected characteristics”.
She said the strategy was also about “understanding and evaluating ‘what works’ for EDI in research and innovation”, which would include “collecting and publishing data, testing, piloting and evaluating new interventions, and developing approaches to evaluate the impact of the choices that we make and inform our future choices”.
“Our goal is to work in partnership with the sector and develop approaches that support evidence-led and evidence-based interventions to foster and support a thriving research and innovation system,” continued Professor Welham, who said UKRI would “monitor and regularly report our progress against the EDI strategy” and would be held to account by its board, as well as its “communities and stakeholders, supported by councils of external members”.
For Dr Adelaine, however, the lack of targets, time frames and definitions within the long-anticipated strategy would make any such accountability difficult. “To wait so long for a document so limited and lacking in detail is frustrating – it feels like a waste,” she reflected. “It’s not a terrible document, but it could have been so much better.”
Print headline: ‘Race’ absent from UKRI diversity paper
