目标:探索高等教育机构(HEI)如何使他们收集的有关员工残疾的数据透明化,以及这与现有平等的关系,多样性和包容性(EDI)宪章。
方法:基于英国高等教育的描述性跨部门定量研究。
方法:英国的高等教育部门。
方法:英国162个高等教育统计机构(HESA)提取的信息,每个机构的网站和高级HE。
方法:提供公开的EDI报告。EDI报告中确定的员工残疾信息类型和详细程度,后者来自报告中提供的不同类型信息的数量。每个HEI的AthenaSWAN和残疾信心奖级别被用作该部门对EDI承诺的代理。
结果:不到四分之一的高校在网上没有公开的EDI报告。大多数雅典娜天鹅奖获得者将其EDI报告公开提供,这与残疾自信状态相似。罗素集团的大学更有可能有一份公开的报告。区域,EDI报告的可用性在伦敦最低。关于工作人员残疾的详细程度各不相同,超过一半的机构提供“小细节”,不到三分之一的机构提供“一些细节”。雅典娜天鹅奖持有人和残疾信心成员提供“一些细节”的可能性是那些没有获得奖项的人的两倍。
结论:在高等教育中获得残疾工作人员的清晰形象仍然存在挑战。关于残疾的EDI报告缺乏统一性和透明度,阻碍了在高等教育中量化残疾工作人员的能力,制定有意义的干预措施,更广泛地解决不平等问题。
OBJECTIVE: To explore how higher education institutions (HEIs) make transparent the data they collect on staff disability, and how this relates to existing equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) charters.
METHODS: Descriptive cross-sector quantitative study based on UK HEIs.
METHODS: Higher education sector in the UK.
METHODS: 162 HEIs across the UK with information extracted from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), each institution\'s website and Advance HE.
METHODS: Availability of a publicly available EDI report. Type of information on staff disability identified within the EDI report and level of detail, the latter derived from the number of different types of information provided in the report. Athena SWAN and Disability Confident award level for each HEI were used as a proxy for the sector\'s commitment to EDI.
RESULTS: Under a quarter of HEIs do not have an open EDI report online. The majority of Athena SWAN award holders make their EDI reports publicly available, which is similar by Disability Confident status. Russell Group universities are more likely to have a publicly available report. Regionally, EDI report availability is lowest in London. The level of detail with regards to staff disability varies, with more than half of institutions providing \'little detail\' and just under a third \'some detail\'. Athena SWAN award holders and Disability Confident members are twice as likely to provide \'some detail\' than those which do not hold an award.
CONCLUSIONS: Challenges remain to obtain a clear picture of staff with disabilities within higher education. The lack of both uniformity and transparency in EDI reporting with respect to disability hinders the ability to quantify staff with disabilities within higher education, develop meaningful interventions and address inequities more widely.