http://www.neilthompson.info

This paper is based on materials first published in the Learning Curve Publishing training pack, Promoting Equality, Valuing Diversity (2005). Learning Curve Publishing’s kind permission to allow these materials to be reproduced here is gratefully acknowledged.

This article was first published in The British Journal of Occupational Learning in December 2005 (Vol3, Issue 2) and is reproduced with the kind permission of the Institute of Training and Occupational Learning (www.traininginstitute.co.uk)

Equality and Diversity: Making Training and Development Count

Neil Thompson

Abstract

This paper discusses the development of education and training in relation to equality and diversity by reference to a ‘pendulum swing’ from one unhelpful extreme (complacent individualism) to another unhelpful extreme (dogmatic reductionism). It argues the case for a more sophisticated approach that avoids the oversimplifications involved in both these extremes.

Introduction

The history of education and training about issues of equality has a somewhat chequered history. While we can certainly feel proud of, and pleased about, the progress we have made over the years, there have also been some significant mistakes that have been made and problems that have been created. The history of education and training about diversity issues has a much shorter track record, but it is already proving to be a mixed one, with evidence to suggest that there is some good work being done, but also problems continuing to be created.

This paper is geared towards trying to help to make sure that we build on the strengths and avoid the pitfalls of experience to date in promoting equality and valuing diversity through training and development, and education more broadly. There are some important lessons to be learned from the history of education and training about these important issues. I shall explore what some of these are and how we can make sure that we do not make the mistakes others have.

While it is certainly true that a skilled and experienced trainer can facilitate learning about a subject they know relatively little about (their expertise is in the process of facilitating learning, rather than the substantive knowledge base of the subject being covered), I believe that the best results are obtained in those situations where the facilitator also has a good grasp of the issues being covered. I believe that this is especially the case when the subject matter concerned is as complex, emotive and sensitive as discrimination.

When it comes to equality and diversity, there is a lot of expertise that can be drawn upon. However, there are no ‘experts’ in the sense of people who have all the answers. The subject matter is far too big, complex, sensitive and ever-changing for that. It is therefore important that trainers should not become so confident that they, in effect, put themselves on a pedestal, only to risk being knocked off it. It is essential to remember that, however much we learn about these issues, there is still an awful lot more to learn. Even if we have extensive experience of being on the receiving end of discrimination personally, there is still much that we do not know, and so a degree of humility is called for.

It is important to get the balance right. If we come across as lacking understanding of the subject matter, people’s confidence in our ability to facilitate their learning will be knocked. However, if we come across as too certain in our knowledge, we may appear both dogmatic and complacent – traps that, as we shall see below, many people have fallen into in the past. Facilitating learning about equality and diversity is a challenging undertaking and therefore has to be approached cautiously. We are dealing with complex, emotive issues that are often oversimplified, and so we have to have our wits about us – but without being so tense that we encourage defensiveness in the people we are trying to help to learn.

Understanding equality and diversity

While the introduction of the diversity approach and its relative success in establishing itself as a school of thought to be taken seriously are, to my mind, welcome developments, it is sad to note that many people have embraced the concept in a very superficial way. For example, I have come across organisations that have simply rebadged their equality of opportunity policy as a ‘diversity’ policy without realising that, while equality and diversity are closely linked, they are not the same thing.

Worse still, some people seem to be under the impression that the diversity approach has somehow made the quest for equality redundant: ‘We aren’t concerning ourselves with inequality any more – we are into diversity these days’. While the diversity approach represents a change in our thinking to a certain extent, it also sadly represents a continuity – namely the very common (but potentially disastrous) tendency to oversimplify very complex issues. The technical term for this is ‘reductionism’ – the tendency to reduce complex, multilevel phenomena to simple, single-level issues. It is therefore vitally important to avoid reductionist approaches. To do this we need to have a good understanding of the following questions:

We shall now consider each of these in turn.

What is equality?

In its literal sense, equality means ‘sameness’ (as in 2 + 2 = 4: 2, when added to 2, is the same as 4). However, being too literal can be misleading. When used in a legal, policy or political sense, equality is shorthand for equality of opportunity or equality of rights. It is therefore best interpreted as meaning equal fairness rather than uniformity. It does not mean that we should necessarily treat everybody the same way. This is for two reasons:

  1. If we treat everybody the same, then we reinforce existing inequalities – we maintain the status quo.
  2. If we focus on sameness, then difference becomes a problem and, as we shall note below, this is a big mistake to make.

In view of this, we should therefore be wary of the idea that: ‘We believe in equality, we believe in treating everybody the same’. Treating everybody the same is not what equality is about – it is about treating everybody with equal fairness. Sometimes this means treating everybody the same, but at other times it would be unfair to treat everybody the same. Consider the following examples:

It should be remembered, then, that equality refers to equal fairness, rather than simply uniformity. Although there may be debates sometimes about when it is fair to treat people differently from others and when it is not, for the most part it is fairly straightforward to work out what constitutes equal fairness.

What is diversity?

Diversity literally means ‘variety’. The basis of what has come to be known as the diversity approach is that we must recognise not only that we live and work in a diverse society (that is, a society with people from varied backgrounds in terms of culture, outlook, experience, interests, needs and so on), but also that it is a good thing that we do. This is based on the idea that diversity enriches all of us. It introduces us to new ideas and approaches, discourages us from being narrow minded and dogmatic in our thinking and opens up new vistas and opportunities for us. It is from this idea that we get the concept of valuing diversity or even celebrating it.Valuing diversity means avoiding falling into the trap of seeing difference as a problem to be solved. Diversity is an asset to be celebrated, rather than something to be worried about.

What is the relationship between the two?

If we adopt a narrow view of equality as sameness, then diversity and equality enter into opposition with one another – this narrow approach involves valuing sameness rather than valuing difference and the enriching variety that diversity brings. However, if we adopt the broader view of equality as being about equal fairness, then we can see that equality and diversity are entirely compatible – in fact, we can go so far as to say that they reinforce one another:

In short, if we define equality as sameness, then difference is potentially a barrier to progress, a problem to be solved. However, if we define equality as treating people with equal fairness, then difference is not a problem – indeed, it is something to be welcomed as part of the enrichment diversity brings.

The diversity approach is therefore entirely compatible with a broader approach to equality. However, it is also significantly different from traditional equal opportunity-based approaches in two ways:

In effect, the move from a narrow, predominantly negative and defensive equal ops approach to a broader and positive diversity approach amounts to focusing on developing a culture of commitment rather than compliance. That is, issues of treating people fairly and with respect and dignity should not be seen as compliance issues (How do we avoid breaking the law?), but rather as commitment issues (How do we generate commitment to valuing people for the rich diversity of what they bring to the workplace, the community and to society more broadly?). Making this switch is not a simple or straightforward matter, but training and development can play an important part in facilitating, in small part at least, the required change of culture.

Underpinning both the traditional equal ops and the diversity approaches is the key concept of discrimination. However, like equality, this is a term that has also become widely used without people necessarily developing a clear picture of what it means or why it is a problem. It is therefore to a consideration of discrimination that we now turn.

Understanding discrimination

In its literal sense, to discriminate means to identify a difference. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, it is a very useful capacity to have. We would experience major difficulties in our lives if we were unable to distinguish between, for example, safety and danger or friendship and hostility. However, despite its literal meaning which clearly has positive connotations, it has come to be used in a significantly different way when used in a legal or moral context. So, when we talk of discrimination in relation to equality, we are using it in a way that is linked to its literal meaning but also goes beyond it. In this latter sense, discrimination refers to identifying a difference between individuals or groups of people and then treating one party unfairly on the basis of that difference.

For example, there is no problem in identifying differences between men and women – gender is clearly a significant differentiating factor in our society. However, identifying such differences, while not a problem in itself, becomes a problem if one group is treated unfairly because of the differences identified – in terms of pay, for example. Women earn, on average, approximately 80% of what men earn for doing the same jobs (see www.eoc.org.uk for up-to-date figures). To identify differences between men and women is not a problem, but to treat women less favourably clearly is.

The same argument can be applied to race and culture. If people are from different ethnic backgrounds, then we can identify significant differences between them – but this does not justify treating one group unfairly based on those differences. So, just as equality is about treating people with equal fairness, we can see that discrimination is the opposite of that – treating people unfairly because of differences. This is what makes the diversity approach broader than the traditional equal ops approach – it is based on the premise that anywhere that there is difference, there is the potential for unfair discrimination. This can arise not only on the basis of those forms of discrimination that are ruled illegal, but also on any basis of identified difference:

Discrimination, in its legal or moral sense, is therefore discrimination against an individual or group. Discrimination, in this sense, arises from difference and results in disadvantage. In effect, discrimination translates difference into disadvantage, rather than recognising difference as the foundation of enriching diversity.

Discrimination can take place in (at least) two main ways:

Institutional discrimination can be subdivided into two main parts, cultural and structural. Culture refers to the set of taken-for-granted assumptions, shared meanings or ‘unwritten rules’ that develop amongst groups of people (organisational cultures, regional cultures, professional cultures and so on). These can be very powerful because they often influence us without our knowing that they are doing so (as a result of the fact that we will have become ‘socialised’ into a particular culture over time and thus internalised it to the extent that it shapes how we see the world – it becomes our ‘normality’). Structural refers to the set of interrelationships that influence power and opportunities. This includes hierarchies within organisations (reporting structures, as they are often known) as well as broader social structures (class hierarchies, race, gender and so on).

Discrimination, then, can become institutionalised (built into the fabric of an organisation or society) partly through culture (sets of ideas, beliefs and assumptions) and partly through structure (established sets of social relationships that influence the distribution of power and life chances). (For more detailed discussion of the significance of personal, cultural and structural forms of discrimination, see N. Thompson, 2003a.)

An important conclusion we can draw from this is that discrimination is a matter of outcomes, rather than intentions. That is, we can easily discriminate unfairly against people without realising that we are doing so because discrimination is not simply a matter of overt personal prejudice – it is far more complex than that.

The case for equality and diversity

There are a number of arguments that can be put forward as to why it is important for organisations, and the staff and managers working within them, to take equality and diversity seriously. For present purposes I shall concentrate on three in particular: the humanitarian case, the strategic case and the professional case.

The humanitarian case

This is a very straightforward (but none the less important) case to put forward. The basic argument here is that, as decent human beings, we should be committed to treating people fairly and with dignity and respect. In this sense, equality and diversity are seen as intrinsically worthwhile. It would be degrading to us as people to treat other people unfairly, to show them a lack of respect or dignity or to punish people for being different from ourselves.

An important point to note here is that, as we noted above, discrimination can often occur without our intending. We cannot therefore simply claim to be moral human beings who would not be prejudiced towards others. Even if we are not the slightest bit prejudiced, we may still be discriminating unfairly against other people because of the strong influence of the cultures and structures around us. A degree of self-awareness is called for. We need a heightened level of awareness of discrimination and how it works in order to make sure that a humanitarian commitment to equality and diversity does not remain purely at a rhetorical level (because it is being sabotaged by complex cultural and structural processes – stereotyping, for example). The danger here, then, is complacency based on a lack of awareness of the complexities of discrimination. We may feel that we are not discriminating when in fact we are (for example, if we speak to the person pushing the wheelchair rather than the person sitting in it), as a result perhaps of our cultural upbringing.

The strategic case

This is often referred to as the ‘business case’. However, I prefer to use the term strategic case, because the arguments put forward apply just as much to public or voluntary sector organisations as they do to private sector businesses. The basic argument here is that equality and diversity are good for your organisation (or ‘good for business’). If we take as our starting point the idea that an organisation’s most important resource is its human resource – its people, then we can follow the logic through to see that, if you want the best out of your most important resource, then you have to treat people fairly, with respect and dignity and value the diverse contributions people make. This can be seen to apply in the following ways:

In addition to the human resource management issues, there is also the very important question of branding or reputation. There is a parallel here with the idea of being an employer of choice. Being such an employer means that staff and managers view the organisation positively and are therefore prepared to make a positive contribution. In a sense, this means that there is a positive internal ‘brand’ – the identity of the organisation is perceived in positive terms.

‘Branding’ is normally used to refer to the external reputation of an organisation as perceived by its external stakeholders (customers, clients and so on). Again it can be seen that an organisation with a reputation for treating people with fairness, respect and dignity and for valuing people’s contributions is likely to be viewed more positively than one with a reputation for unfairness, discord and a narrow-minded approach.

The professional case

The strategic case is based on the argument that employees of an organisation will contribute more fully if they are valued, respected and treated fairly. The professional case parallels this. Its basic argument is that professionals of various descriptions will achieve more in their work with their clients if the latter are not discriminated against. Professional practice, whether in the traditional professions of law, medicine and architecture or the newer professions of nursing, social work, teaching and so on, rests upon a set of professional values or ethics. Including a commitment to equality and diversity in that value base makes a great deal of sense, as it is unlikely professionals will receive full co-operation from their clientele (or indeed from other professional groups) if they base their practice on unfairness, a lack of respect and/or a failure to value diversity.

Educating for equality: the pendulum swing

Prior to the 1960s issues of equality received very little attention. This was largely but not exclusively because of the emphasis on individualism – that is, discrimination was conceived in narrow terms as primarily a matter of personal prejudice. If a person’s heart were in the right place, then it was assumed that he or she would not discriminate against other people, that there would be no reliance on prejudice. However, this individualistic focus failed to recognise two very important issues:

  1. As noted above, discrimination does not have to be deliberate and based on overt prejudice. It is possible (and, indeed, not uncommon) for people to discriminate without realising they are doing so.
  2. Also as noted above, discrimination operates at cultural and structural levels and not just at a personal, individual level – it can be ‘institutionalised’.

This era can be seen as one based on complacency, with a predominant feeling that all was relatively well in terms of how different groups of people related to each other. However, all this changed in the 1960s and carried on changing throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This was because different groups of people came forward to criticise this complacent individualism.

First there was the criticism from sociology that the dominant view of discrimination was a psychological one concerned primarily, if not exclusively, with the individual, with little or no attention being paid to the wider social context. In particular, sociologists were critical of the tendency to ignore inequalities based on socioeconomic factors or class. To adopt an individualist approach ignores the structural patterns of inequality in our society and indeed in the workplace. The dominant individualist approach was therefore seen by sociologists as naïve and lacking in awareness of important social influences on people’s lives. It was time to start looking more closely at wider social factors. This tendency to broaden our outlook was strengthened by two further sets of criticisms that were put forward. These criticisms related to gender and race equality issues.

The women’s movement

Even today in the 21st century, there is still in many quarters a strong tendency for male dominance to be taken for granted and for women to be expected to adopt a subordinate position – the courts and employment tribunals are still very busy in dealing with sex discrimination cases, many of which are upheld. Although things have changed quite significantly in the last thirty or more years, there is still much to be done before genuine sexual equality can be claimed.

Much of the progress achieved can be attributed to the success of the women’s movement in raising awareness of institutionalised inequality and putting gender-based discrimination on the agenda. A major criticism put forward by the women’s movement was that of ‘gender blindness’. What the movement’s proponents put forward was the influential argument that the traditional emphasis on ‘the individual’ was largely an emphasis on men, with women playing only a supporting role. For example, discussion of ‘the rights of man’ often proved to be precisely that – discussion of the rights of men, rather than men and women.

The race equality movement

Racial equality can be seen to be a parallel situation: a lot of progress made but still a long way to go. It was also parallel in that the notion of ‘colour blindness’ was used to refer to the way people would regard white as the norm and not take account of significant ethnic or racial differences.

Society at large, including employing organisations and professionals operating within them, were accused of being complacent about racism – again it was seen that an emphasis on the individual failed to recognise or address wider structural factors to do with race relations. This meant that, for example, somebody dealing with a child who had been bullied on racist grounds would have treated the matter in the same way as they would have done if it had been a white child being bullied for different reasons. In this way, significant issues to do with racism would not have been addressed. They would thus have been allowed to continue unhindered, perhaps even strengthened by the collusion of the authorities in not challenging the discrimination involved.

Later developments

The disabled people’s movement was a later development but followed in the same vein, in so far as the criticism was that disability issues were being seen primarily as individual matters, and no-one was taking account of the social nature of disability (that is, it was not being recognised that it is the way society treats people who have a physical impairment that disables them – the stigma, stereotyping, failure to address access issues and so on). This social model of disability (Swain et al., 2004) has now established itself as a major critique of how disability issues have been dealt with for a very long time – although once again, the progress made to date is matched by the progress yet to be made.

To a lesser extent there has also been a parallel movement pointing out that older people are subject to significant discrimination built on a patronising approach to senior citizenship (S. Thompson, 2005). By looking at older people as a social group we can see how badly they are treated (again stereotyping, stigma and so on), while dealing with individuals on a case-by-case basis will not produce the same recognition of the inequalities involved.

The pendulum swings

Of course, these groups are not the only ones to have objected to how they were treated (the gay pride movement, for example), but I hope the examples I have given are sufficient to paint a picture of:

  1. An initial stage of complacency built on an individualistic ideology that failed to take account of wider social factors – that failed to recognise that we are all indeed unique individuals, but that we are unique individuals in a social context.
  2. A reaction against this individualistic complacencybased on wave after wave of criticism from groups complaining that, not only were they being discriminated against, but also that discrimination was not being recognised or addressed.

Given that there was so much criticism of complacent individualism, it is not surprising that there was a distinct shift away from more traditional forms of thinking. New ways of responding to social difference were called for. This was in itself a positive step forward as attempts were made to move away from complacency and to take the issues very seriously. However, it was not all good news. When people are criticised, it is understandable that they will feel threatened and defensive. It is also fair to say that, when people are feeling threatened and defensive, they have a tendency to ignore subtleties and complexities and to look for simple answers – an easy way out of their difficult and uncomfortable circumstances. We should not be surprised to note, then, that what emerged is something that, with hindsight, we can now recognise as a gross oversimplification of some very complex issues. This is not intended as a personal criticism of those involved at the time, as I can much more easily see the mistakes they made with the benefit of hindsight that I cannot reasonably expect them to have been able to see at the time.

However, personal criticism or not, what emerged was indeed a gross oversimplification. This comprised a number of elements, chiefly the following:

These various factors combined to produce a culture of fear and blame and thus defensiveness – what I like to refer to as a ‘walking on eggshells’ experience, with people frightened of doing or saying the wrong thing. People began to feel that they were guilty until proven innocent. This oversimplified approach was based on four misunderstandings, namely oversimplified approaches to:

What these problems led to, unfortunately, was:

Of course, it would be unfair to tar everyone with the same brush. No doubt there was some very good work done alongside these terrible mistakes being made, but in my own work as a trainer and consultant I have come across example after example of some very harmful, misguided approaches to education and training about these every important but complex and sensitive issues.

I see the situation as being represented as a pendulum swing. We went from one unhelpful extreme (complacent individualism) to another (dogmatic reductionism). We still have the painful legacy of that pendulum swing, but we are at least now beginning to try and find the helpful, healthy balance in between these two destructive extremes. The diversity approach, with its emphasis on positivity and inclusivity, can play an important part in taking us forward (although we must not adopt an uncritical approach to diversity, as no approach is going to be perfect and flawless – the diversity approach is, though, a step in the right direction).

The current situation: finding the balance

Given the major problems in the past, it is vitally important that we now find a balanced way of dealing with the issues of equality and diversity – one that avoids complacency, but also manages to avoid the excesses of ‘dogmatic reductionism’. There is no easy answer to how we do this (to suggest there is would in itself be an example of oversimplification), but the following pointers are offered as a way forward:

One concept which may be of help in finding the balance is what has come to be known as the Yerkes-Dodson law of adult learning (see N. Thompson, 2006). In a nutshell, this law states that people learn best when in the middle range of a continuum of tension. Too little tension and learning will not take place because people are too comfortable and relaxed – they are not aroused or energised enough. Too much tension and learning will not take place because people are concentrating on survival and self-protection – feeling threatened is not conducive to learning. In between those two extremes, we have a medium range of tension, where people are aroused and energised, but do not feel threatened. This amounts to creating a safe learning environment, one where people may feel challenged and stretched to a certain extent, but without it getting to the point of feeling threatened.

We can see that complacent individualism involved little or no tension, but the dogmatic reductionism that replaced it produced too much tension and thus blocked learning. The challenge now is to build on the diversity approach to make it a vehicle for education and training at that optimal medium range of tension – challenging without being threatening, confronting issues without being confrontational. To find the balance between complacency and oversimplification, we need to make sure that we can learn the lessons from history, but without being so weighed down by the legacy of previous mistakes that we feel too anxious or unconfident about going forward.

Practising what we teach

As a very minimum we need to make sure that any training and development activities we run do not undermine the principles of equality and diversity. We therefore need to give due consideration to the following points:

Ground rules

Ground rules in training are always important. However, in training relating to equality and diversity, they can be seen to be particularly important. This is largely for the following reasons:

Ground rules can be negotiated with the group at the start of the training if you wish, but this can be time consuming, so it depends on how full a programme you have. You may therefore prefer to prepare a set of non-contentious ground rules in advance.

Key issues

The following pointers are offered as a way of offering ‘food for thought’ to encourage further debate, study and learning, and not to be prescriptive in any heavy-handed way:

Conclusion

Facilitating learning about promoting equality and valuing diversity is a significant challenge. However, it is a very worthwhile challenge, as good practice in this area can make a very significant positive difference to people’s lives, whether in the workplace or in communities.

We are in something of a transitional period at the moment. We have a mixed historical legacy to contend with. There is much about previous efforts that we can feel proud of and we have seen clear progress in some areas. However, we also have a track record of considerable oversimplification of some very complex, subtle issues. This oversimplification can be seen to have done a lot of harm in terms of:

  1. creating and sustaining a culture of defensiveness;
  2. making many people afraid of tackling the issues and thus losing the positive contribution they could have made; and
  3. giving plentiful ammunition to those individuals and groups in society who have a vested interest in the persistence of inequality in our society and who wish to discredit the equality and diversity movement.

We are now in a position to make the transition from the dogmatic reductionism that has haunted us for some years and, using the foundations provided by the diversity approach, build a much more positive, more sophisticated and thus more effective approach to tackling discrimination and contributing to more humane workplaces and a more humane society more broadly.

References

Katz, (1978) White Awareness, University of Oklahoma Press.
Revans, R. (1980) Action Learning: New Techniques for Management, London, Blond and Biggs.

Swain, J., French, S., Barnes, C. and Thomas, C. (eds) (2004) Disabling Barriers – Enabling Environments,           2nd edn, London, Sage.

Thompson, N. (2003a) Promoting Equality: Tackling Discrimination and Oppression, 2nd edn, Basingstoke,   Palgrave Macmillan.

Thompson, N. (2003b) Communication and Language: A Handbook of Theory and Practice, Basingstoke,                 Palgrave Macmillan.

Thompson, N. (2006) Promoting Workplace Learning, Bristol, The Policy Press.

Thompson, S. (2005) Age Discrimination, Lyme Regis, Russell House Publishing.

© Neil Thompson 2005
www.neilthompson.info

Back to Articles

Top of page

 

Intro | Avenue Consulting | Human Solutions | Learning Curve Publishing | Neil Thompson | Well-being | Site Map
© Avenue Consulting Ltd | Designed and hosted by Oraica Ltd

Neil Thompson - Author • Consultant • Expert witness • Trainer