By Hannu Larsson
September 22nd Karin Berglund, Malin Härström and Hannu Larsson from Örebro University School of Business attended a DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) meeting at Stockholm University, arranged by Susanna Molander and Jacob Östberg. The meeting was an open discussion concerning the state and future of DEI at Swedish business schools, specifically focused on Business Administration and related disciplines. Participants represented several different perspectives, roles and universities, coming from Stockholm University, Örebro University School of Business, and Stockholm School of Economics.
Several topics were discussed, ranging from research and education to legal aspects of university practice.
Political pressure and the importance of maintaining values
One key point of discussion was the global political pressure today and earlier concerning DEI and other sensitive topics, both in research and education. Due to the pressure by happenings in the US as well as other countries concerning DEI matters there were concerns raised regarding how this will evolve. The other side of the coin is that DEI work in Europe may indeed gain momentum as a response to the US.
An effect of political pressure was observed with regards to the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) removal of DEI as part of their goals as a response to the political climate in the US. This raises concerns about when the sentiment that “we don’t have to focus on DEI” could transform into “we shouldn’t focus on DEI”, and how this would clash with the laws and regulations that Swedish universities are obliged to follow. A problem that was raised is how DEI is often ranked lower than other goals, such as internationalization.
In relation international standards and accreditations we discussed to what extent international stamps of approval actually benefit Swedish universities. Do such accreditations for instance lead to actual improved application or enrollment rates of students or raising quality? To what extent does such accreditation work become integrated in university employees (for instance teachers) practice? And if it does add the desired benefits, is it worth the tax money spent on working with such systems?
Internally in Sweden there are concerns about the politization, and even questioning of, academic freedom and how this in the long run could affect research for established researchers as well as for doctoral students. It was also problematized in relation to Academic freedom, which was at the same time highlighted as a pinnacle of Swedish research quality.
Dialogues with students
Discussions also treated what is going on in classrooms and with our students. There were some experiences shared regarding criticism coming for instance from students about raising diversity issues in education. Other concerns had to do with the relativization of knowledge and questioning of scientific knowledge and the overall task of bildung (“bildning”). We also observed the need for teachers to highlight DEI issues not as “optional” but as something that we are obliged to work with and teach about, with regards to students as well as colleagues. There have been examples of “radical” students trying to mobilize against diversity and inclusion both in terms of individual students being outspoken to more organized work by organizations. We could see effects in course evaluations where students may voice opinions against DEI in courses, making it important to take a stance for the values we are to uphold.
In the classroom teachers need to be prepared to face discussions concerning DEI, especially from individual students who may be very vocal and “take over” discussions. Teachers need support and tools to deal with such often unanticipated confrontations. One suggestion to continue working on as a group was to develop a common support or database of dialogue tools and resources. It was also related to the need to continuously work with safe classrooms, where it is ok to be wrong, and we can encourage the open academic discussions among and together with students. Other student-related matters discussed were the need to highlight the students’ rights with regards to their supervisors, again highlighting the importance of academic freedom.
Having a structured overview of educational programs
For education as a whole a summarized concern by one of the participants was that we have really failed students if they can go through an entire educational program without getting insight into the structures that shape society, and the subject matter at hand. For instance, how patriarchal structures influence business and society. One prevalent issue that was highlighted was the lack of integration of DEI in education, and the lack of collaboration between faculty concerning progression, and “translating” the matters across courses. There seems to be a hope that someone else will deal with these aspects, and for the ones working with DEI in their courses there is often a disconnect to how others may raise it in other courses in the same program. Others also highlighted the issue that colleagues who are not interested in DEI matters disregard DEI due to struggling to see a relevance to their subject, even in social sciences.
The need to have people assigned to work with DEI was emphasized in several ways, especially the need to work with a whole program perspective;” we really have a problem if there is no one working with DEI in a structured way for the educational programs”. A common structure and shared understanding of how DEI is to be treated in a program was highlighted as a need, perhaps requiring mandate from program managers to work with faculty responsible in each course. A lack of insight and overview also was raised regarding course literature, which often bear with it patriarchal and colonial perspectives and languages uses that remains unchallenged by faculty.
Collegiality, career development and publishing
Coming back to other issues discussed, a common denominator for several of the points was the need for collegial support in different ways. Both in terms of the closest colleagues, as well as management and even our anonymous peer-review colleagues.
To have each others backs and help each other out in facilitating work with DEI in a structured way, as well as meeting the criticism on different levels was discussed. This can be with regards to students, as mentioned earlier, or with regards to DEI actually being meaningful in career development. For instance, how it does, does not and perhaps should add benefits when applying for tenure or in other ways advancing ones career. With regards to employability and recruitment it was also raised as crucial to work proactively with gender balance among professors specifically, and equality in employment and promotion.
Research needs regarding supporting DEI matters in different parts of research processes were raised as well and questions on how to properly integrate DEI in ethical applications and supporting doctoral students were discussed. When it comes to the review process some reflections on what may appear with regards to “Trumpism” was highlighted, like being asked to remove “feminism” from a papers title. Concerns in relation to this were how language might shift over time if researchers are forced to adjust either by reviewer comments, by editorial decisions or by self-censoring.
To be continued
It was decided that the meeting was to be the first in a series of discussions to be hosted by the involved universities, to continue the dialogue on how to strengthen the work with DEI through collaboration between universities.
