This document discusses managing diversity and equal opportunities in organizations. It compares the two approaches and outlines some key differences. Managing diversity is presented as an internally-driven, strategic approach that views diversity as an asset and advocates for mainstream adaptation. It focuses on individual development and universal initiatives. In contrast, equal opportunities is described as externally-driven, operational, and perceives diversity as a problem requiring assimilation or compensation through group-focused initiatives. The document also discusses applying a business case rationale for managing student diversity in higher education. Potential benefits include increased student numbers and talent pools, improved teaching and learning, and reputational gains. However, costs, risks, and barriers must also be considered.

1. Understanding the
Managing/Valuing
Diversity perspective
Judith Foreman

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

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

4. Equal Opportunities and Managing
Diversity compared – drivers for
change
Equal Opportunities
 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
Equal Opportunities
 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
Equal Opportunities
 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
Equal Opportunities
 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
Group-focused
(targeting)
Peripheral and
operational
Pragmatic
Mainstream
adaptation
Individual focused
Central and strategic
Externally and
internally driven

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

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
Legislation
Funding and
policy drivers
Ethical drivers -
Social justice
Recruitment
‘Pool of Talent’
Improving T&L
New markets
Reputation
(Access to funding)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

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