A critical exploration of inclusion policies of elite UK universities. (2nd April 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Koutsouris, George; Stentiford, Lauren; Norwich, Brahm
• Is Part Of: British educational research journal. Volume 48:Number 5(2022)
• Page Start: 878
• Page End: 895
• Publication Date: 2022-04-02
• Subjects: higher education -- inclusion -- marketisation of education -- Russell Group; Education -- Research -- Great Britain -- Periodicals; Éducation -- Recherche -- Grande-Bretagne -- Périodiques; 370.7
• DOI: 10.1002/berj.3799
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0141-1926

Abstract

Abstract: Inclusion is seen as an ethical obligation, grounded in notions of equity and social justice for all groups and at all stages of education, with higher education (HE) representing a distinctive space where the inclusion agenda is becoming more influential. However, inclusion is also increasingly recognised as an ambiguous concept that might have lost its critical edge and is in many cases reduced to 'chatter'. To explore inclusion in this context, we analysed 48 policy documents from the websites of the 24 Russell Group Universities (the 'elite', research‐intensive, UK universities) using a critical discourse analysis approach. We found that inclusion was rarely defined clearly, and that tensions, complexity and pedagogical implications of inclusion were not discussed. Inclusion was also related to excellence and ideas about a 'global university' that are central to a university's reputation and ability to attract international students and staff. We see three ways in which these findings are significant: the way inclusion was approached in the policy documents could largely be described as managerial/legalistic, seen as the responsibility of human resources; inclusion was perceived as an act of legal compliance that was also expected to influence everyday relationships – but without an explanation of how this could happen; and inclusion was discussed together with broader debates within HE, e.g. meritocracy, but without a critical reflection on what this means. We, thus, argue that universities should resist treating inclusion as a quality and performance index and recognise that inclusion is linked to the very purposes of HE.