Questions to consider as you review the resources on this page:

1. How do you collect student feedback?

2. How do you decide which feedback is constructive and which is not?

3. Do you find that some students approach you more frequently than others? Why do you think that is?

4. Do you feel you have the same oportunities as your colleagues?

5. How are additional responsibilities assigned?

6. Do you feel like there are some students who you feel less/more qualified to support due to your identity and experience?

Opportunities to progress in academia

"Over the past twenty years, men have self-cited 70% more than women – and women tend to cite other women more than men do"

Criado-Perez, C. (2019) 

(Please note, no data could be found on this issue for gender minorities)

This excerpt is taken from the research report "The Experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic Academics: Multiple Identities and Career Progression" by Bhopal and Jackson (2013) from the University of Southampton.

The study found that BME academics no longer, with individual exceptions, find many overt experiences of racial discrimination. They are more likely to talk about day-to-day differences, related to their ethnicity, which are subtle and difficult to identify, but which result in differential treatment. 

Key findings are: 

• The value of having BME staff can go unrecognised in the UK higher education system. They often provide informal support for BME students. Students can be attracted to a university and the specific department because of the fact that there are BME staff in the department. However, as this appears to be largely unrecognised by senior staff/heads of department and by the institution more widely, it can result in an undue burden on BME staff as they spend time with BME students over and above other duties. Support for BME students, it was noted by some respondents, was an emerging need. This included those who felt the need for more BME role models, and those who were entering under widening participation schemes. 

• Many respondents felt that the work of White academics, and White male academics in particular, is profiled and celebrated in institutions, rather than that of BME staff. When BME staff are included in this way there is a positive impact for the individual and for the institution. • BME staff are generally under-represented at senior levels in UK universities. Having a more diverse and aware group of senior staff would have an impact on the way decisions are made, including decisions about staff progression and promotion. It was felt by several respondents that a homogeneous group in senior posts can lead to decisions about what constitutes a credible academic being based on a narrow viewpoint rather than being familiar with and acknowledging diverse approaches. The Research Excellence Framework3 (REF) process is an example where this was felt to be important. 

• Several BME academics raised the issue of a lack of trust in them, compared to the trust invested in White colleagues. This manifests itself in, for example, White staff questioning the credibility of a BME academic. BME academics talked about being over-scrutinised, and in these instances felt they had little or no support from other colleagues. 

• There were contrasting views on the REF and how it operates to assess academic outputs. Some BME staff welcomed the REF – describing it as ‘neutralising ethnicity’. A possible negative element to the REF was also identified by respondents and one which may disproportionately affected BME academics because, although it was understood that the stated intention was that articles from all sections of the academic community would be considered for the REF, some respondents doubted that this was in fact the case, and therefore, for some, their belief in the credibility of the system was undermined.

• Several respondents reported they felt students sometimes responded in a discriminatory way to BME staff, taken aback when faced with a BME lecturer and questioning their credibility. In turn, White colleagues could be unsupportive, possibly inadvertently, and showed bias which in many cases may well be unconscious. This is an important issue particularly when student feedback has the potential to affect individual performance appraisals. 

• There is an acknowledged ethnicity pay gap in the higher education sector, in favour of White academics (ECU, 2012). Some BME academics reported that they suspected they had been appointed on a lower starting salary than White colleagues.

• Some of the respondents doubted that BME academics progressed at the same rate as White colleagues, and perceived that they needed to work harder compared to their White colleagues, and to meet higher thresholds for promotion. 

• BME respondents reported feeling ‘outsiders’ in their own university, whilst not in the sector as a whole. This feeling of being an ‘outsider’ resulted in part from experiences of subtle exclusion, and the need to develop ways of interacting in culturally specific ways in order to progress, for example by adapting their communication style to be more accepted by their colleagues. 

• Although there are many commonalities of experience amongst BME academics, it is important to recognise that ‘BME’ academics are not a homogenous group and there are various factors which affect an individual’s experiences. These include gender, class, nationality, age, religion, culture and other factors such as communication style. 

• Overall there was extensive and enthusiastic support for mentoring systems, with several positive experiences of career progression 

Bhopal and Jackson (2013)

"We have found that teachers’ bias levels are quite similar to those of the larger population. These findings challenge the notion that teachers might be uniquely equipped to instil positive racial attitudes in children or bring about racial justice, instead indicating that teachers need just as much support in contending with their biases as the population at large." 

Starck et al. 2020 

Student support and additional responsibilities

TAs like me: Racial interactions between graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates

Using administrative data from a large, diverse university in California, we identify the extent to which the academic outcomes of undergraduates are affected by the race/ethnicity of their graduate student teaching assistants (TAs) in economics courses. To overcome selection in course taking, we exploit the timing of TA assignments, which occur after students enroll in a course, and use within class and within student variation in TA-student race composition. Focusing on an Asian vs. non-Asian split, results show a positive and significant increase in course grades when students are assigned TAs of a similar race/ethnicity. These effects are largest in classes where TAs were given advanced copies of exams and when exams were not multiple choice. We find positive racial correlations between students and TAs at office hours and discussion sections, suggesting student attendance responds to TA race. We also find some evidence of persistent effects: Racial match improves subsequent student performance in sequenced courses, and positively influences decisions on majoring and future course enrollment for Freshmen and Sophomores. Overall, our evidence is consistent with TA-student match quality gains and role model effects. 

• College students grades improve when they are assigned TAs of a similar race/ethnicity.

• Effects are largest in classes where TAs were given advanced copies of exams and when exams were not multiple choice.

• Racial match improves subsequent student performance in sequenced courses.

• Suggestive evidence of racial match effects on majoring and future course enrollment.

• Overall, our evidence is consistent with TA-student match quality gains and role model effects. 

Lusher, L., Campbell, D. and Carrell, S. (2018)