Why do EDI policies fail? An inhabited institutions perspective

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0048
• Published date: 20 February 2023
• Date: 20 February 2023
• Pages: 449-464
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Roger Pizarro Milian,Rochelle Wijesingha

Why do EDI policies fail?

An inhabited

institutions perspective

Roger Pizarro Milian

Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, University of Toronto,

Toronto, Canada, and

Rochelle Wijesingha

Spark: A Centre for Social Research Innovation, McMaster University,

Hamilton, Canada

Abstract

Purpose –Equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies have proliferated in recent decades, but studies have

repeatedly notedtheir inefficacy and adverse effects. To understand the potential root causes of the inefficiency

of EDI policies, this study examines how they are inhabited by individuals at the ground level.

Design/methodology/approach –This study draws on data gathered through 23 in-depth interviews with

instructors at Progressive U, a large research-intensive Canadian university.

Findings –The data gathered/analyzed suggest that the implementation of EDI policies at Progressive U is

hindered by the absence of coercive enforcement mechanisms, skepticism about their authenticity, the over-

regulation of work and unresponsive bureaucratic structures.

Originality/value –This study examines the implementation of EDI policies through the prism of the

inhabited institutions perspective in organizational sociology, producing insights that help to explain why EDI

policies typically fail. In doing so, it produces insights relevant to both academic researchers and practitioners

in the field.

Keywords Inhabited institutions, Diversity, Inclusion, Higher education

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

In recent decades, equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies have propagated across the

non- and for-profit sectors, adopted by organizations in response to an array of normative and

coercive pressures within their environments (Dobbin et al., 2011;Herring, 2009;Skaggs,

2009). Through such polici es, organizations have sou ght to not only improve the

representation of traditionally marginalized groups, but to also promote inclusion –a

process through which individuals are made to feel that they belong and are valued (Chavez

and Weisinger, 2008;Pless and Maak, 2004;Sabharwal, 2014). The field of higher education

(HE) has proven to be a most fertile ground for EDI initiatives, spurred on by politically

progressive activists and internal stakeholders (Binder and Wood, 2014;Gross, 2013;Gross

and Fosse, 2012). This unique ecology has facilitated the emergence of an array of “safe

spaces,”EDI offices and other mechanisms designed to render campuses more welcoming for

students and faculty members (Bender, 2016). Several authors argue that the institution of

these progressive reforms now serves as a vehicle through which universities –and

organizations more broadly –acquire legitimacy or reputational capital (Bujaki et al., 2018;

Davis, 2018;Tayar, 2017). This duplicity has raised legitimate concerns about the prospective

hijacking of EDI within higher education for marketing purposes (Ahmed, 2007,2012;Bell

and Hartmann, 2007;Bhopal and Pitkin, 2020;Thomas, 2018), given the only superficial

effects that these policies appear to have on organizational culture and pedagogy (Ahmed,

2021;Morley, 1999;Vertovec, 2012).

Why do EDI

policies fail?

449

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 19 February 2022

Revised 19 November 2022

Accepted 15 December 2022

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 42 No. 3, 2023

pp. 449-464

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-02-2022-0048

Despite thesecharges, few scholars have ventured to examine how EDI policies are enacted

by individuals at the ground level –a particularlyimportant topic given widely acknowledged

inefficacy of EDI policies and programs within the literature (e.g. Dobbin and Kalev, 2022;

Dobbin and Kalev, 2016;Kalev et al., 2006). How areEDI policies perceived and implemented

by individuals? This is a question that Williams et al. (2014) explored within the oil and gas

industry, finding that whilefemale professionals enjoyed EDI training programs (e.g. cultural

sensitivity workshops), they did not find mentoringprograms useful and resented the idea of

being included in workteams simply due to their sex. Sharp et al.’s (2012) study of managers in

engineering firms similarly foundthat they often felt they were “fitting square pegs in round

holes,”given the inconsistenciesbetween firm demands (e.g. long hours) and women’s familial

responsibilities (p. 555). Studies like these have been instrumental to understanding the

barriers to the implementation of EDI policies, especially in industrial sectors with a

reputation for being inhospitable to women and racialized minorities. However, few

comparable studies of the implementation of EDI policies have focused on fields like HE

(for exceptions, see Bhopal, 2023;Bhopal and Pitkin, 2020), where the ethos of EDI has

achieved a relatively stronger foothold[1]. There has been little focus on how EDI policies are

perceived and implemented by actors with relatively progressive political worldviews [2].

In this context, the “sensemaking”processes (Weick, 1995) aroundEDI policies are bound to

differ from those observed within more traditionalist corporate sectors due to differing field

norms, traditions and world views.

Our study augments existing research byproviding an empirical analysis of how policies

designed to foster EDI are perceived and implemented by a sample of instructors [3] within

Progressive U –a large Canadian public university. Through 23 in-depth interviews, we

observed that instructors typically had only a superficial understanding of EDI policies –

something they generally attributed to the absence of coercive accountability mechanisms.

Severaladditional institutionalprocesses were also foundto reinforce this situation.First, there

was widespread skepticism among instructors about the authenticity of EDI efforts at

Progressive U. Indeed, inconsistencies between the ethos of EDI policies and the actions of

various divisionsof the university prompted some to cynically perceive EDI policies as mere

“window dressing”(Marques, 2010). Second, instructorsexpressed frustration about theover-

regulation of theirwork, something which led them to adoptefficiency-minded strategiesthat

focusedtheir attention on abidingby organizational policiesthat were strongly enforced,while

ignoringweakly enforced EDI mandates.Third, for those who did try toengage in EDI building

efforts, difficulties in acquiring supportfrom unresponsive bureaucratic structures prompted

irritationand further cynicism,at times even leadingthem to abort such enterprises.As such, at

Progressive U we observed a set of overlapping institutional processes that actively worked

against the success of EDI policies. Our empirical findings thus add nuance to ongoing

discussions ofEDI-building strategies acrossa variety of fields, posing a number ofpertinent

theoretical and practical questions of interest to ongoing discussions in organizational

sociology, management and adjacent disciplines.

The inhabited institutions perspective

We theorize instructors’perceptions and implementation of EDI policies through the

“inhabited institutions”(II) perspective within organizational sociology (see Binder, 2007;

Hallett, 2010;Hallett and Meanwell, 2016;Hallett and Ventresca, 2006;Hallett et al., 2009).

This framework emerged in the late 1990s in response to earlier New Institutionalist (NI)

theorizing (Meyer and Rowan, 1977;DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) that depicted institutions as

“ready to wear”scripts that individuals passively accepted and enacted in everyday life

(Brown, 1978, p. 375;Creed et al., 2002). Some scholars (e.g. Campbell, 1998) charged that NI

depicted individuals as “dopes”caught in an “iron cage”of rules, noting that “socially

EDI

42,3

450