An overview of the process of diversity policy formulation

A policy is often viewed as a point of departure in implementing institutional activities. According to Robinson (2009: 238), policy is “a system-wide intervention intended to influence practices and outcomes relevant to a policy problem”. David (2010: 21) also

90

views policy as an overarching guiding frame of reference for action to overcome prevailing problems within an institution. In both cases a policy is considered to be a guiding framework for actions to be undertaken by institutions to alleviate identified problems. In the light of the explanations given to policy, diversity policy in higher education can be defined as a guiding principle that informs institutional practices of addressing diversity needs of all students so that they can all learn in a comfortable atmosphere that is conducive for their wholesome development (Wrench 2007: 3; Dimmock & Walker 2005: 72).

Policies may vary in implementation as they vary in structure, intensity and magnitude. In this regard Crump (1992: 3) contends that “policies can be structured in different ways to achieve different ends”. In educational institutions, for instance, a policy could be formulated not only to provide curriculum content packages but also to alleviate issues that obstruct teaching learning processes which hinder the attainment of educational goals (Lemmer 2000: 175; Crump 1993: 12; Corson 1990: 259). In a socially, culturally and economically diverse social context, an educational policy should incorporate goals that aim at bringing about social cohesion among diverse students (Vignoles & Crawford 2010: 51; Okumbe 1999: 10).

A policy on an issue within a country could be aligned with international, national, regional or institutional contexts in accordance with specific problems it is meant to address. David (2010: 26), using the UK education policy established for widening the participation of a diverse student population which includes economically, socially, and educationally disadvantaged social groups, contends that even if a higher education policy may be for context specific purposes, it should take into account the dynamics of global and international changes. This argument seems to be relevant in the current global era in which the main aim of most of higher education programmes is to produce skilled manpower for the world of work in accordance with global trends and needs. Aligning policy premises at different levels would provide a pattern of practices at a broader spectrum and may indicate points of comparison when evaluating the implementation and

91

attainment of goals. A higher education policy is often placed within the broader national educational sector and aligned with contemporary global educational trends.

Compared to other policy issues, diversity issues in educational institutions seem to be context specific because socio-cultural differences are drawn from vital diversity variables in specific social contexts (cf. section 1.3). This, however, does not mean they should be devoid of international views. Since diversity is a human phenomenon, it rather means that diversity policies which often emerge from contextual factors should consider synchronisation with the wider national or international overarching policy frameworks (cf. Jonson & Johnstone 2005: 143-171). This alignment could make diversity policy more cohesive and functional. It would imply that diversity related policies which are set within higher education policy frameworks should, as far as possible, be harmonised and aligned with similar national and international policy frameworks. However, a synchronisation of a policy at different levels may not necessarily make it compatible to the actual reality of a given context and may not always guarantee success in implementation.

A policy may fail to achieve the intended goal due to the nature of a problem it is meant to address and a poor understanding by the implementers of the policy concerning relevant and meaningful practical processes. Robinson (2009: 237) emphasises that a policy could remain ineffective if it is built on faulty assumptions concerning the context of implementation, the identification of who should be the implementers, and the implementation process. Some policy issues might be complex by their very nature, or they may lack clarity and lead to misunderstanding which may cause tension between policy makers (usually a government), implementers (the higher educational institution in the context of this study), and the policy beneficiaries (the higher education institutions and their students). For instance, a higher education policy may fail to make an impact on the teaching and learning process when lecturers find the specific requirements of implementation incomplete or unclear (Robinson 2009: 239). In addition, a policy may fail if it is perceived to be contrary to principles and views held by the implementers. Such a gap shows disparity and would, in all probability, affect beneficiaries. Therefore, policy

92

makers, implementers, beneficiaries and other stakeholders need to have consensus and a clear understanding of the objectives of the policy.

Diversity issues are often placed in the policy, mission or vision of an institution. This varied placement of the issues could result in uncertainty concerning the relationship between policy, mission and vision. A policy is often seen as a theory concerning a problem, rather than a problem itself, because it explains the nature of a problem (Robinson 2009: 250). In this sense, a policy dictates the nature of the content of a mission and vision of an institution. Viewed from this perspective, the policy indicates the values that should guide practices which shape institutional cultures and individual and group experiences at higher educational institutions (Museus & Harris 2010: 29). For some scholars institutional missions should dictate diversity related policies. According to Dancy II (2010: 1), for instance, a mission should “reflect social trends and social transformations” from which complementary strategies and practices can be developed. Others take the middle ground and contend that it may not have an impact on the content, the influence of the teaching and learning processes and the attainment of educational goals (Forojall 1993: vii). Although the issue of the relationship between policy, mission and vision remains contentious, it seems important to treat the three (policy, mission and vision) as interrelated elements, each with distinct features which make provisions for interchangeable alignment. Such a view would facilitate a clear perspective when dealing with diversity policy formulation, implementation and assessment.