Te Waka Pākākano | Office of the AVC Māori, Pacific and Equity

Equity Review 2020/2021

Dr Darryn Russell

Rīpeka Tamanui-Hurunui

Dr Monica Vahl

Jeanine Tamati-Elliffe

Riki Welsh
He mihi

The research team wish to acknowledge and sincerely thank all participants, particularly those who
have experienced discrimination, for sharing their lived experiences.

We would also like to recognise and thank the Equity Reference Group members, academic
supervisors and the Vice Chancellor for their leadership, support and contribution to this important
research.

E kore e mutu ngā mihi ki a koutou.

2
Contents

He mihi .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. 4

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Literature review................................................................................................................................... 10

Equity and tertiary education ....................................................................................................... 10

Aotearoa context .......................................................................................................................... 12

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Review process ..................................................................................................................................... 15

Equity Review Reference Group ................................................................................................... 15

Review Methodology .................................................................................................................... 15

Semi-structured interviews with targeted groups ........................................................................ 16

Anonymous online questionnaire ................................................................................................. 17

Data Coding and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 18

Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 19

Participant demographics ............................................................................................................. 19

Participants experiences and views on our responsiveness ......................................................... 20

Participant views on how we can improve our equity responsiveness ........................................ 23

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 27

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 29

Limitations ............................................................................................................................................ 29

References ............................................................................................................................................ 30

Appendix 1: UC Equity and Diversity Policy .......................................................................................... 35

Appendix 2: UC Equity and Diversity Plan Kia Taurite 2018-2020 ........................................................ 35

Appendix 3: Equity Reference Group - Terms of Reference ................................................................. 35

Appendix 3.1: Research team members ............................................................................................... 36

3
Executive summary

In May 2020, the Tumu Whakarae | Vice Chancellor and Senior Leadership Team (SLT) endorsed a
proposal to undertake an Equity Review that examined policy, strategy, process and structures
associated with equity at Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury (UC). This report
provides:

I. a high-level overview of the Equity Review process, initial findings and recommendations
II. an initial analysis of the research data collected
III. a basis on which to inform investment and operational ‘equity’ activities at UC

The Equity Review draws attention to the challenges the university faces in defining equity, diversity
and inclusiveness and delivering commitments into meaningful outcomes for underserved 1
communities, including but not limited to Māori, Pacific, Rainbow/LGBTQIA+, people with long-term
disabilities (physical and mental health-related), people of faith, migrants, people of refugee
background and women.

Qualitative research data was collected to inform the review through semi-structured interviews
with targeted groups of students and staff. This was supplemented with an anonymous online
primarily quantitative questionnaire, which was distributed to gather broader UC student and staff
input.

Preliminary findings suggest confusion about the meaning of equity in the UC context and it is clear
that the implementation of the Equity and Diversity Plan, Policy and aspirations were not met, at
least in part, as a result of this lack of clarity. Many research participants reported experiencing
various forms of discrimination in the university. Others talked about the ongoing reproduction of
structures of privilege. Compounding these issues, many participants from non-marginalised groups
denied or were unaware of the reality of marginalisation for others, and voiced fears that
acknowledging diversity could cause a reduction of teaching and learning standards or even threaten
the value of the dominant culture. In order to address these fears among non-marginalised staff and
student populations, the university would do well to invest in equity education, with a particular
focus on a strengths-based approach and research and evidence to drive action to meet UC’s

1
The term ‘underserved’ is used throughout this report to refer to individuals, groups and communities that
experience discrimination and exclusion (social, political and economic) because of unequal power
relationships across economic, political, social and cultural dimensions.
4
aspirations for equity. It was also clear in participant feedback that research without committed
leadership and an improved organisational culture would not lead to meaningful change.

Despite the significant challenges identified in the feedback, there was also recognition by students
and staff of valuable equity work that is already underway which gives them hope for the future.
Participants mentioned various equity initiatives in their feedback, including that “UC has made an
effort over the years to acknowledge issues of equity, diversity and inclusiveness”. Feedback noted
that these initiatives “little by little are leading to culture change, as departments and teaching
programmes become more aware of what it means to be inclusive”.

Participants also expressed this Equity Review itself as indicative of the UC commitment to
progressing meaningful change going forward stating that “This review will go a long way to helping
UC move forward as people feeling truly heard about their concerns will make a huge difference”
and another noted “This review is so appreciated. It feels less like box ticking in a rush and more like
a genuine approach”.

A final point to emphasise is that at the time of undertaking the review process, UC was concurrently
developing organisational values. The values, 2 Whanaungatanga, Manaakitanga and Tiakitanga have
now been endorsed by SLT and while not referenced in the review, will be integrated and recognised
as part of the proposed implementation plan.

From the review, it is recommended that the university:

1. Create a clear definition and aim for UC equity, diversity and inclusiveness commitments
that is framed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi and co-designed with Ngāi Tūāhuriri as mana whenua
2. Is informed by research and evidence in developing, implementing and reviewing equity
initiatives
3. Implement targeted policy, process and system changes that produce positive outcomes for
underserved individuals and communities
4. Ensure appropriate resourcing to implement the recommendations outlined in this report
5. Implement enhanced equity education for staff and students
6. Acknowledge interpersonal marginalisation experienced by individuals and groups from
marginalised communities and establishes clear processes to restore mana
7. Work towards achieving strength-based equity aspiration

2
UC’s Organisational Values https://intranet.canterbury.ac.nz/od/values/
5
Background

The genesis of the formal UC approach to equity was developed in 2015 by the Student Services and
Communications Unit. It produced a number of recommendations framed around 5 themes:

• Give diversity prominence

• Insist on accountability
• Promote events
• Improve institutional support
• Maintain interest

Following initial responses to the recommendations, two key documents were produced and have
underpinned UC efforts. The first was the Equity and Diversity Policy, endorsed in December 2018
(Appendix 1). The Second was the Equity and Diversity Plan, Kia Taurite, developed as part of the
same process in the same year (Appendix 2), which outlines the institution’s strategic objectives and
obligations in the area of equity and diversity for the years of 2018 to 2020. The plan states that
“The University of Canterbury will take practical steps to enhance a culture of belonging at UC and
ensure that people of all backgrounds can pursue their goals here free from inappropriate
discrimination” (University of Canterbury, Equity and Diversity Policy 2018, p. 4).

The university has committed at a policy level to the pursuit of strategic objectives and obligations in
a way that ensures inclusiveness, participation, appreciation, recognition, support, transparency and
a sense of belonging for all students and staff. However, in a recent student survey, 41% of students
reported that they had experienced some form of discrimination (University of Canterbury, U-Count
Survey 2020). Moreover, staff who participated in the development of the Equity and Diversity plan
and strategy were explicit that UC had not realised the documents’ aspirations. A range of academic
and professional staff and students who had been involved, directly and indirectly, in progressing
the Equity and Diversity Plan commented on equity being “acknowledged but not integrated”. They
also mentioned that UC continues to have “profound blind spots” and that the institution has
“inherent bias, racism and sexism in societal norms” and” underlying thinking and approaches. Both
the student survey and anecdotal feedback indicate that significant culture change is needed if UC is
to address discrimination and attain its vision and aspiration for equity, inclusiveness and diversity.
University of Canterbury (2020).

In May 2020 Te Waka Pākākano | Office of the AVC Māori, Pacific and Equity (Te Waka Pākākano)
was established. Consolidating the responsibilities of the AVC Māori with the Pacific and Equity
portfolios to create a stronger Te Tiriti o Waitangi focus on our response to equity matters. It was

6
imagined that the new unit could leverage the combined skills and resources of staff supporting the
AVC Māori, the Pacific Development Team and a Rainbow Advisor responsible for delivering targeted
support for students who identify with Rainbow or LGBTQIA+ communities.

In order to provide a clear direction for its equity work, Te Waka Pākākano undertook a review,
endorsed by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT), to examine equity-related policy, strategy, processes
and structures at UC. This document summarises the review’s initial findings.

7
Introduction

“If you are in a comfortable majority, you really don’t know what privilege that gives you, because
you don’t get the daily reminder that your ancestral legacy is less worthy, or that your ancestral
language is something that’s worthless, or that the ideas of your ancestors might have nothing to
contribute to society”
Dame Anne Salmond (Kamp, 2019, p. 47).

For more than a decade, UC has aspired to achieve equity and meet the needs of systemically
marginalised and underserved students and staff. The quote from Dame Anne Salmond above
expresses some of the complexity and challenges we face in responding to the equity needs of Māori
as tangata whenua in Aotearoa along with other underserved groups in our community.

Te Waka Pākākano Māori, Pacific and Rainbow student support and development initiatives have
resulted in a range of positive outcomes for students and some progress has been made in terms of
student enrolment numbers recently. In February 2021, Māori enrolments (EFTS 3) increased by
12.3% compared to February 2020 and ‘New to UC’ Pacific students have increased by 33%. While
positive, the increased enrolments (represented by the changing demographic in our compulsory
education pipeline 4) also exacerbate UCs challenge to close the retention and achievement gap
between Māori and Pacific and non-Māori and non-Pacific students. The 2020 UC Annual Report
shows Māori retention was 70.5% and Pacific 60.5%, lower than non-Māori and non-Pacific students
who were retained at a rate of 71.1%. Similarly, in terms of successful course completion, Māori and
Pacific students complete their courses respectively at 81.9% and 72.6%, which is markedly lower
than their non-Māori and non-Pacific peers at 87.9%.

In addressing inequity at UC, we must recognise and premise our equity response on a Te Tiriti o
Waitangi (Te Tiriti) frame since the University is committed to the principles of Te Tiriti in all policies
and practices (Education Act 1989, Section 181b). Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the foundation in which
equity in Aotearoa is framed and acknowledges the special rights for Māori as tangata whenua.
There was broad support from a diverse range of participants for holding Te Tiriti as the framework
for equity. Te Tiriti is seen as opening up thinking to more inclusive ways of working and breaking
down barriers for other groups within our community, including people who identify as

3
EFTS = Equivalent Full time student
4
“The Māori population is projected to surpass 1 million by 2038, with growth in all regions. The Pacific ethnic group is
also projected to rise significantly, from 340,000 in 2013 to 530,000–650,000 in 2038…Māori, Asian, and Pacific populations
are growing faster because of their younger age structures – combined with higher birth rates or migration” Ethnic
populations projected to grow across New Zealand | Stats NZ
8
Rainbow/LGBTQIA+, people with disabilities, people of colour, migrants, refugees and women face
multiple equity issues and systemic barriers. This report aims to inform future equity-related
strategic investment and operational activities at UC.

9
Literature review

Tertiary education is commonly associated with increased life quality and work opportunities,
including greater chances of social mobility and high-income employment. However, levels of access,
participation and success in tertiary education vary among different groups. This section of the
report presents a brief literature review on the theme of equity and tertiary education globally and
then discusses the Aotearoa New Zealand context with a focus on ethnicity to acknowledge the
university obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Equity and tertiary education

Since the 20th century, the worldwide expansion of tertiary education has led to a rise in the
number of students engaging in study. Increased access has provided opportunities for communities
whose whānau had never had access to tertiary study. Despite advances, historical patterns of
inequality were not necessarily dismantled (Marginson, 2011; Salmi & Bassett, 2014), with statistical
evidence from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, for example, showing how
access and participation for students and staff continue to be structured by race, socioeconomic
status, gender and dis/ability (Crimmins, 2020a). This restriction of opportunities is challenged inside
and outside academia, often via arguments using human rights and equity goals.

Equity is a complex concept, with various connections to ideas about redistribution, recognition,
inclusion and participation (Barrow & Grant, 2019). It is underpinned by different theories of justice
(Marginson, 2011; Barrow & Grant, 2019). Questions such as “in what,” “for whom” (Salmi &
Bassett, 2014, p. 365) and under which conditions emphasise some of the elements to be resolved
when implementing equity policies in tertiary institutions. There is also a debate about the
relationship between the ideas of equity and diversity, with the latter sometimes being employed to
dilute more radical commitments to social justice (Ahmed, 2007; Nakhid, 2011). Additionally, the
discourse in favour of promoting inclusion is not always matched by adequate funding and support
(Cyr, 2018), with an imbalance between “saying” and “doing” (Ahmed, 2007, p. 249).

The demands for widening participation in the tertiary sector have been perceived by some with
apprehension because they view it as possibly reducing the quality of, or lowering standards in, the
sector (Gidley et al., 2010; McKay & Shah, 2018; Whiteford et al., 2013; Zepke & Leach, 2007). This is
associated with a perception that underserved students tend to achieve worse results than
traditional students and that institutions could have their reputation tarnished by supporting
inclusion policies (Whiteford et al., 2013). These fears of equity policies are often associated with a
deficit perspective. In a deficit perspective the focus becomes the alleged “deprivation” of “students,
parents and community” and thus their “need to change to conform to this already effective and
10
equitable system” (Yosso, 2005, p. 75). Despite concerns, research conducted on Australia, South
Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States does not identify negative impacts of “inclusion
initiatives” in the quality of learning and teaching (Whiteford et al., 2013, p. 305).

Inequity is an issue not just for students but also with staffing, with research showing under-
representation of underserved groups in general and even further marginalization in senior and
leadership positions such as full professors and chancellors (Crimmins, 2020a). In the US, for
example, 337,000 White full-time staff members work as an associate or full professor while only
15,000 Black academics hold the same rank (p. 8), in an approximate ratio of 22 White academics for
each Black academic, yet in 2019 White American population was 72% and the Black African
American population was 12.8% 5 in the country. In Australian universities, no Indigenous or Asian-
born staff were employed as vice-chancellors in 2020 (p. 7). In many countries, such as Cyprus,
Belgium, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, the proportion
of women to men in the professoriate is one to five or below (p. 16). In the intersection between
race and gender in the United Kingdom, Black women’s employment as professors sits under 2%
(Crimmins, 2020a, p. 16). Similar underrepresentation of staff members of underserved groups is
found in New Zealand, with Māori and Pacific holding respectively 5% and 1.7% of academic
positions in universities (McAllister et al., 2019; Naepi, 2019).

The perceived value of diversity and equity work in tertiary institutions is also a matter of concern
(Ahmed, 2007). Attempts towards building more equitable institutions can be diluted in service or
teaching components of the job and perceived as less valuable than research outcomes (Barrow &
Grant, 2019; Cyr, 2018). It can also be narrowly viewed as only the job of equity committee’
members (Nakhid, 2011) or particular sectors of institutions. Equity work is also frequently
associated with “equity-marked bodies” in which staff members are expected to be involved with
committees, pastoral activities and community outreach because of their background, ethnicity,
gender identity or disability (Barrow & Grant, 2019, pp. 144-145). Diversity in “the body of the
university” and in “the body of individuals” might be manifested as a consumption practice, with
non-White staff reflections or representations providing “spice and colour” to learning places
(Ahmed, 2007, pp. 245-246).

Finally, tertiary institutions have, for the most part, fostered epistemological inequities (Crimmins,
2020b; Dawson, 2020; Naepi, 2019; Naepi et al., 2017). As argued by Dawson (2020, p. 80), “the
inclusion of more ‘diverse’ bodies in the university does not actually address the exclusions that
come from monocultural epistemologies that favour those who already feel at home in the

5
United States Census Data (2019): https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?q=United%20States&g=0100000US
11
institution.” Western epistemologies are habitually perceived as the universal norm while other
forms of knowing and being are ignored, engaged with in a tokenistic manner, or only considered
from a Western point of view (Naepi et al., 2017). Acknowledging the worth of and mobilising
different “knowers”, “ways of knowing” and ways of “communicating knowledge” is necessary for
overcoming a limited understanding about knowledge (Crimmins, 2020b, pp. 387-388).

Aotearoa context
Te Tiriti o Waitangi recognises the bicultural nature of Aotearoa New Zealand society and Māori
status as Tangata Whenua, ensuring them specific rights (Palmer, 2008). Thus, while Māori are
included in the broad domain of equity, they have guaranteed specific rights as Tangata Whenua
(Palmer, 2008). The Crown and its agents, such as universities, have an obligation to uphold and give
effect to those rights, which is given legislative effect in Section 181b of the Education Act 1991.
Nevertheless, the educational system still holds strong ties to settler colonialism, with institutional
racism as a dominating feature (Small, 2019). In different ways to Māori, Pacific peoples also
experience the impacts of racism and discrimination (Nakhid, 2011). Both Māori and Pacific hold
high levels of school absence and are more likely to attend low decile schools than other ethnic
groups (Curtis, 2018). In addition, Māori have the highest rate of stand-downs in secondary
education and the lowest ratio of students still in school at 17 years old (Curtis, 2018).These
outcomes manifest in a system that is embedded with unconscious bias and are often explained by
deficit theorizing of students. The colonial history underpinning these institutions has created a
monoculture and monocultural environment, both in the physical and pedagogical student and staff
profile.

Educational inequities are carried further into study (Curtis, 2018), with 34% of Europeans between
25 and 64 years old holding a bachelor’s degree or higher qualification in 2020 and only 18% of
Māori and 15% of Pacific in the same position (Education Counts, 2020). The latest statistics
continue to show discrepancies in course completion rates by ethnicity, with Europeans being
awarded degrees at a rate of 85%, Asians at 87%, Māori at 74% and Pacific at 72%. (Education
Counts, 2020). Current numbers corroborate previous studies which pointed out that while Māori
and Pacific participation and completion levels are growing in tertiary education (Luafutu-Simpson et
al., 2015; Teevale & Teu, 2018; Theodore et al. 2017), they have a higher probability of engaging in
pre-degree studies (Nakhid, 2011; Kidman et al., 2015), a lower likelihood of completing a bachelor
or a postgraduate degree (Curtis, 2018; Theodore et al., 2016) 6 and also face unequal completion
rates (Naepi et al., 2017; Theodore et al. 2017).

6
Students with disabilities also face a similar pattern of participation in Aotearoa, being more likely to attend
lower levels of tertiary education than students without disabilities (Earle, 2019).
12
Despite issues with using statistics to understand educational inequities (Crimmins, 2020a), “naming
the numbers” is helpful to make visible the exclusion of “certain bodies” in tertiary education (Naepi,
2019, p. 220) and accept the responsibility for creating more equitable outcomes. However, as Curtis
(2018, p. 137) proposes, there is a need to bring into “focus not only on why and how the education
system works so that indigenous students are underrepresented within tertiary contexts, but an
equally important focus on why our universities operate in ways that ensure non-indigenous
students are over-represented”. Similarly, data about Pacific peoples demonstrate their “active
structural underserving” in this country (Naepi, 2019, p. 221).

Since the 2000s, tertiary education policies reiterate the need to increase access and participation,
focusing with greater or lesser emphasis over the years and under different governments on
reducing disparities, providing equitable access, collaborating with social mobility, promoting
democratic values and supporting financial results (Leach, 2016). In the recent past, the Tertiary
Education Strategy 2014–2019 has intricately connected “social justice (under-representation)” and
“economic prosperity (employability)” (Barrow & Grant, 2019, p. 146). For Māori and Pacific, as
growing demographic groups, their “right to participate in tertiary education has become a
responsibility to participate and achieve” without necessarily considering or addressing broader
social and economic restraints (Leach, 2016, pp. 43-44).

Currently, the Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities and Tertiary Education
Strategy presents five key objectives (Ministry of Education, 2020a, p. 1):

• “learners at the centre”,

• “barrier-free access”,
• “quality teaching and leadership”,
• “future of learning and work” and
• “world-class inclusive public education”

Its priorities include providing “safe, inclusive and free from racism, discrimination and bullying”
education, holding “high aspirations for every learner/ākonga, and support these by partnering with
their whānau and communities to design and deliver education that responds to their needs, and
sustains their identities, languages and cultures”. It also articulates a reduction in “barriers to
education…including for Māori and Pacific learners/ākonga, disabled learners/ākonga and those with
learning support needs”. “Meaningfully” incorporating “te reo Māori and tikanga Māori into the
everyday life of the place of learning” is also prioritised (Ministry of Education, 2020, p. 01).

Even though policies and institutional plans have displayed some level of commitment to equity and
social justice in tertiary education for more than 20 years, only minor changes were introduced in
13
the structure of institutions (Kidman et al., 2015; Kidman & Chu, 2017).
The literature suggests that deficit views about students, for example, are not uncommon (Leach,
2016; Mayeda et al., 2014; Zepke & Leach, 2007). Research with staff shows that some educators
“set out to fix students’ deficits so they fitted into the academic culture” (Zepke & Leach, 2007, pp.
664), while research with students points out to some experiencing “victim-blaming” behaviour for
inequities (Mayeda et al., 2014, p. 175). Analysis of government documents also highlights the
presence of “an implied deficit ideology” and “stereotypes of Māori and Pasifika” (Leach, 2016, p.
40; 44).

The workforce composition in tertiary education also reproduces unequal recruitment and
employment practices, with research demonstrating that Māori and Pacific staff are
underrepresented in universities and their participation was relatively consistent between 2012 and
2017 (McAllister et al., 2019; Naepi, 2019). Additionally, based on data from the Performance-Based
Research Fund (PBRF), McAllister et al. (2020) outline that Māori and Pacific men have lower
chances of becoming full professors than non-Māori and non-Pacific men and that Māori and Pacific
women were even less likely to achieve similar professional position. Other studies illustrate how
Māori and Pacific staff often deal with social isolation and exclusion from decision-making processes
(Kidman et al., 2015; Kidman & Chu, 2017) and that a large number feel “cynical” about equity
efforts from their workplaces (Kidman et al., 2015, p. 49). Increasing diversity in the staff profiles
supports retention and achievement of the aforementioned changing student profile (Luafutu-
Simpson et al., 2015; Theodore et al., 2017), introducing more diverse ways of thinking, knowledge,
systems, pedagogical approaches, languages and world views.

Summary
Regardless of policy commitments to equity and diversity in tertiary education, the literature
suggests that institutions are struggling and, for the most part, failing to fulfil the aspiration of
developing more just outcomes. Students and staff of underserved groups continue to be
underrepresented, while monocultural epistemologies promote restricted forms of being and
knowing.

14
Review process

As noted earlier a proposal for a review of equity policy, strategy, process and structure was
endorsed by the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) in May 2020. COVID-19 impinged on original timelines
for completing the review, but formal governance and advisory functions were established by
August 2020 and engagement with participants and data collection occurred between October and
November 2020. The first quarter of 2021 has been focused on the analysis of the qualitative data
collected from participants and drafting the report. This section outlines the review governance,
methodology and data collection processes.

Equity Review Reference Group

An Equity Reference Group (Appendix 3), made up of key staff and students with a range of
expertise and/or leadership responsibilities regarding equity matters, was established to provide
advisory support for the review. The focus of the Reference Group was to actively engage in the
review process, provide guidance and make recommendations for progressing equity responsiveness
in the future.

The Reference Group agreed that the project should be submitted to Human Ethics for review and
approval to enhance the rigour of the research process, ensure safety for participants and allow for
publication of findings both internally and externally. Terms of reference for the Equity Reference
Group are included in the appendix to this paper (Appendix 3). Six members of the Equity Reference
Group were established as the Research Team (Appendix 3.1) and were responsible for conducting
the research. The Equity Reference Group continued to support and advise the Research Team
throughout the process.

Review Methodology
The review is a qualitative project with participant feedback informed by the following research
questions:

1. What do UC people understand to be the definition of equity, diversity and inclusiveness?

2. To what extent is UC currently responsive to equity, diversity and inclusiveness matters and
the needs of underserved groups?
3. What recommendations can be made to support UC’s ongoing commitment to building an
equitable and inclusive working and learning environment?

15
Data was captured through:

• Semi-structured interviews with targeted groups of students and staff and;

• An anonymous online questionnaire that was extended to the wider UC student and staff
community.

All participants (interviews and questionnaire) were asked to respond to the three research
questions set out above and given the opportunity to read the following UC policy definitions of
equity and diversity to inform their responses and feedback:

“Equity: to treat people equitably means making reasonable efforts to ensure fairness in the
access individuals have to similar outcomes. Sometimes individuals need to be provided with
appropriate, but not necessarily identical pathways to others in order to achieve this.
Diversity: respect, appreciation and acknowledgement of people in order to promote
acceptance and belonging, regardless of factors that include (but not necessarily limited to)
age, colour, disability, education, employment status, ethical belief, ethnic or national
origins, language, family status, marital status, political opinion, race, religious or spiritual
belief, sex or gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic circumstances and taste” (UC
Equity and Diversity Policy, 2018, p. 1).

Semi-structured interviews with targeted groups

The semi-structured interviews allowed participants to share and contextualise their lived
experiences and personal narratives. Interviews were conducted on an individual or focus group
basis. Focus groups were required primarily due to time and resource constraints. Interview
facilitators closely monitored participant comfort during interviews and allowed for individual follow
up when a small number of participants in focus groups requested one to one time to share
privately. Given the nature of this research, it is important to note that interview participants were
assured of the complete confidentiality of data gathered. To ensure anonymity and confidentiality,
all data collected has been anonymised, and comments are not identifiable. In addition, participants
were provided with support as required during and after the interviews. Student and staff support
services were also detailed on the participant information sheet and consent form.

The Research Team ensured a targeted approach in recruiting self-identified equity group
representatives as participants for the interviews. Participants for interviews were chosen because
they are representatives of specific ethnic, gender, race, age, orientation, faith, or disability groups
to share their experiences of the UC community environment. This was important to ensure the
voices of underserved community members is reflected in the research findings. The following
groups were specifically targeted for interviews:
16
 • Māori
• Pacific
• International (including Chinese, Malaysian and Indian students who represent a large
proportion of our international student population)
• Rainbow/LGBTQIA+
• Long term disabilities (physical and mental health)
• People of faith (including Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Christian people who represent our
largest faith based populations)
• People of refugee background
• Women
• Key academic staff identified for their equity focused research and prior contribution
towards achieving equity at UC 7
• Senior Leadership Team (SLT) members

Targeted recruitment was a central consideration in identifying interview participants from

underserved communities. Participants were identified through the Equity Reference Group,
specialist departments at UC that deliver equity related services and key networks already
established. The UC Senior Leadership Team were interviewed by the research team in recognition
of their leadership responsibilities regarding equity, diversity and inclusion.

Three members of the research team were selected as interview facilitators due to their experience
in leading equity, bicultural and intercultural competence related discussions and ability to ensure
participant safety was maintained. The research team facilitators interviewed 84 participants across
55 individual and focus group sessions in October 2020. Participants were interviewed separately in
student or staff focus groups of up to 4 people. Some participants were interviewed individually due
to scheduling limitations or because they requested to share on a one to one basis with the
facilitators. Interviews were transcribed with the informed consent of participants. Transcripts were
provided to participants following the interviews to ensure accuracy and interpretation was correct.

Anonymous online questionnaire

All staff and students from the wider University community were invited to share their equity
related experiences through an online questionnaire. There were no exclusion criteria for the online
questionnaire. The online questionnaire (hosted on a secure Qualtrics site) was primarily advertised
through UC communications channels such as e-newsletters and social media. The questionnaire

7
These staff members were identified through our existing networks or recommended by the Equity
Reference Group.
17
was accessible for all students and staff to provide their feedback for a 6 week period during
October and November 2020. When the questionnaire was closed, 695 submissions had been
received. As with the interview data, all of the online questionnaire data collected has been
anonymised, and comments are not identifiable. In addition, participants were provided with
support services on the participant information and consent process that was included in the online
questionnaire.

Data Coding and Analysis

Nvivo software and the survey and reporting functionality in Qualtrics was used to review and code
research data from the interviews and online questionnaire. Three Research Team members, who
were also facilitators of the qualitative interviews, met to discuss the coding process before
commencing analysis. A list of theme categories was developed based on the data captured from
interviews and this became the basis for coding all of the data collected. All of the online
questionnaire submissions were reviewed by two research team members in order to test and add
to the themes identified in the qualitative interviews. The interview transcripts were reviewed to
test the findings and ensure accuracy of interpretation. The Equity Reference Group was also
convened to provide supervision and support during the analysis period.

It is important to note that a more detailed review of the qualitative data captured for this research
will provide important additional insights.

18
Findings

This section presents an initial analysis of the key themes that emerged from the data. Further
investigation will provide more detailed insight into the experiences and potential responses for
different underserved communities that participants represented.

Participant demographics
Interview and online questionnaire participants were able to self-identify their demographic details.
However, it is important to note that not all participants provided their personal demographic
information.

Interview Participant Data

• 84 individuals were interviewed which equated to 75 hours of interview time
• 57 separate interview sessions were completed during a 3 week period
• 61% of interview participants were staff and 39% were students
• Student and staff participants self-identified as belonging to the following groups:
o Māori
o Pacific
o Rainbow/LGBTQIA+
o Long term disability (physical and mental health)
o People of faith (including Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Christian)
o International (including Chinese, Malaysian and Indian)
o People of refugee background
o Women
o Senior Leadership Team

Online Questionnaire Participant Data

• 695 online questionnaires were received

• 51% of online questionnaire submissions were from staff and 49% from students
• Student and staff participants self-identified as belonging to a broad range of groups
including, but not limited to, Māori, Pacific, Pākehā and other ethnicities,
Rainbow/LGBTQIA+, gender diverse, women, men, international, having a long term
disability (physical and mental health), people of faith, people of refugee background,
students and staff both general and academic.

19
Participants experiences and views on our responsiveness
The following themes were identified during the data coding process and incorporate direct
participant feedback from both the semi-structured interviews and the online questionnaire.

• Inconsistent perspective on definition, intent and impact of equity, diversity and

inclusiveness

While a large number of students and staff understand equity aspirations and are able to articulate
them with a level of competence, they were unsure about the definition of equity in the university
context. Participants commented that “as a university community we need to be clear what Equity
Diversity and Inclusiveness [sic] means to us and how deliberate and sustained action (both bottom
up and top down) will enable us to hand on heart say (and show) that our campus is a safe space”.
Echoing this sentiment, a student participant suggested that “diversity in itself isn’t a goal. I think
that if you have an equitable organisation…then diversity will follow”.

One theme in the data suggests that there is no universal agreement on the desirability of equity or
what it might look like – posing real challenges in terms of finding common ground and/or an agreed
starting point for equity work at UC. This was captured in feedback from participants that denied
marginalisation and discrimination of underserved groups occurred and suggested there would be
negative impacts if UC was to achieve equity aspirations. Participants believed equity commitments
will result in unfair treatment of Pākehā. This is reflected in a particular comment from participants
who noted “…inclusivity etc, needs to extend to ALL students, not just the coloured students or
minority groups. I have been asked to take many surveys this year that only care about the wellbeing
and opinions of minority students. What about the straight, white students? Where are their special
groups and services and why can't minority groups just use the same ones as them?”. Participants
also stated, “It would be nice to feel that just being a white guy is OK too” and “I think UC needs to
remember it works both ways. You cannot denigrate "white people" in order to promote any other
ethnic [sic] group. You cannot dismiss that NZ is multicultural and not just Maori and Pakeha. You
cannot hate one group because you think that group hates you. We are NZ, we are UC. Stop looking
at ethnicity, gender or any other identifier other than qualifications. We are an academic institution
after all, and as such, we should not be afraid to fail people who are not up to standard and there
should be a minimum GPA on all courses”.

Respondents continued in this vein with arguments that equity commitments will result in a
decrease in performance, academic excellence and development of competent graduates from the
university which could lead to reputational damage, specifically “the reputation of the university

20
depends on the quality of graduates and research conducted…this quality is degraded due to sub-par
students and weak research is given a diversity boost”.

Additionally, student and staff participants denied the existence of discrimination stating that we
should “Just carry on as we are. We don't need a radical change. In my work unit, I see that everyone
is listened to, and ideas are valued for their potential to help us reach our goals, not by who voiced
them or what cultural background they might come from”. Participants further commented “I think
that the University is not a political body that is responsible for inter-student or workplace
negativity. The strategies lie with the factions within the University to make sure that their staff do
not present negative quotas based on nationality or sexual orientation. For example; segregation
and separation of students through quotas. Preferential treatment or crying foul over apparent
discrimination. This is Aotearoa. We have a culture, we have a way of life already and need to be
respected just as much as it is important to make EVERYONE feel welcome”. Participants also shared
their view that “equity, diversity AND inclusiveness is excellent but not when it diminishes the host
nation, Aotearoa [sic], and the culture that is already established. I fear a colonisation round two,
and what that looks like is, at UC specifically, too cautious of unintentional insult that our acceptance
of "others" turns into agreements [sic] and acceptance of "others" over our own.”

Contrary to the feedback above, participants also recognised structures of privilege and the need for
underserved groups’ feedback to be prioritised in measuring equity responsiveness. The following
narratives centre on this view:

“I am inclined to suggest reserving that question for those who are not middle class, straight white
males. We do want and need "buy-in" from my demographic, but we so desperately need to hand
over the microphone and turn up the volume”.

“I'm a straight, white Pākehā so I'm potentially blind to inequity at UC. I have never noticed any
problems and am aware (and supportive) of different pathways and opportunities for other groups.
But I don't feel I'm in a position to comment as to whether we're doing well or not.”

“I think, from my historical reading of the colonization of NZ, there is a deep-seated value of fairness
meaning "the same" and that may be in conflict with the idea of equity that means providing what is
needed at this time, in this place, and for this person”.

Participants also discussed the need for privilege to be understood and recognised by those in power
in order to work towards a more equitable university, with a call for “Explicit recognition of
privilege. Visibility of the non-typical. Visible support for diversity with those in privilege seen to call
out and support inclusiveness, and not relying on the queer/non-neurotypical/non-white community
to do it all”.
21
 • Underserved groups continue to experience interpersonal discrimination at UC

The overwhelming majority of participants who identify with underserved communities shared
multiple personal experiences of racism, homophobia, sexism and other forms of marginalisation.
Although it is noted that some members of underserved groups commented they have not
experienced discrimination. Feedback from students included that “the challenge was kind of
moulding myself into an institution that is inherently not Māori” and “there is an underground white
supremacist community at this university and it’s terrifying…there are people here that have made
threats that they want us dead and that the shootings are funny and that’s concerning for the
future”.

Rainbow or LGBTQIA+ participants expressed marginalisation they have experienced noting “my
partner who only uses they pronoun [sic], only has one out of four lecturers actually respect that
despite them constantly acknowledging hey, you’re wrong, please use they. They just don’t or they
make a [sic] big sing song out of like oh I’m sorry I didn’t use that”. Women participants also shared
experiences of discrimination including, “as a woman I have seen endless sexism and right now it
feels out of control” and “I experienced a dismaying encounter with a senior academic who, when
questioned as to why there weren’t more women on a committee he had formed responded that he
couldn’t find any good enough. When called out on it he doubled down on that opinion”.

The participant feedback demonstrates multiple instances of personal experiences of discrimination.

The small sample we provide here confirms that marginalisation remains prevalent in the university
and has broad-reaching negative impacts on the individuals and groups who experience it.

• We talk about equity but do not produce equity outcomes

Participants identified a discrepancy between the university’s discourse about equity and the actions
being implemented. The following quotes provide a general reflection on participant views regarding
the UCs equity responsiveness: “I think there is a lot of lip service and box ticking to be seen to be
doing the right thing, but little actual on the ground action, from self-opening doors for people with
disabilities, to parents rooms; from push back against using te reo, to people thinking that making
sexist/misogynist/racist comments in the workplace are acceptable” and “It is clear that the
University appreciates that it needs to be seen to be concerned about equity, diversity, and
inclusiveness, but whether this extends beyond merely performative optics is unclear”.

Participants agreed the university is responsive to some extent and the vast majority believed that
the university has significant work ahead, noting “I would probably scoff at the proposition that
racism and sexism have been eliminated from UC, but on the other hand it is a more respectful
environment than factories that I have worked at, and the efforts and aroha of many in the UC
22
community are evident”. The review findings confirm the need for institutional change in policy,
processes and structures to produce outcomes that address inequity.

Participant views on how we can improve our equity responsiveness

• Ensure adequate and targeted resourcing

One of the challenges in responding to equity aspirations has been a lack of targeted resourcing. This
fundamental issue features significantly in participant feedback. Participants commented, “we do
something but not enough and to do what we need…requires proper budget and resource”. Student
participants also asked for targeted support and resourcing. International students, in particular,
noted the need for targeted international student retention focused services that are cohesive with
international recruitment efforts. Findings from the interviews and questionnaire corroborate
recommendations from the literature (Mayeda et al., 2014; Luafutu-Simpson et al., 2015; Sotardi et
al., 2021; Teevale & Teu, 2018; Theodore et al., 2017), that adequate and targeted investment in
response to the recommendations in this report will be a critical factor in achieving a more equitable
environment. Rainbow or LGBTQIA+ participants also noted how beneficial the dedicated Rainbow
Advisor role has been in supporting student and staff members to progress Rainbow responsiveness.
However they also emphasised the lack of adequate investment noting a part time fixed term role
with no resources to deliver programmes was unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

• Ensure Te Tiriti o Waitangi underpins our response to equity

As stated in earlier, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the foundation in which equity in Aotearoa is framed and
acknowledges the special rights for Māori as tangata whenua. The university commitment to Te Tiriti
o Waitangi emerged as an important theme in reviewing participant feedback. There was broad
support from a diverse range of participants for holding Te Tiriti as the framework for equity.
Participants stated that UC should “uphold and give life to Te Tiriti and the Māori Strategy – that is
the base from which all should stem” and “I think the investment in Māori equity will see equity
broaden across the board in many, many ways. It will invest in diversity, gender diversity, certainly
the international students but it just opens up thinking to more inclusive ways of working and
breaking down barriers for other groups. Like individuals with disability, like individuals that feel
marginalised. It all has spin-off benefits so that’s why I would really prioritise investment in Māori
staff, in Māori academic [sic], Māori leaders”. While there was support for this principle, there were
also views that we have not invested enough in addressing the needs of other equity groups with a
number of participants not agreeing that there is a casual link between a Te Tiriti responsiveness and
positive outcomes for other underserved groups.

23
 • Co-design with those who are marginalised

Participants asked that the university “listen more to what groups say they need and want”, so as to
acknowledge that underserved groups know best about their context and challenges. This sentiment
is also central to the university upholding its Te Tiriti obligations through co-designing with tangata
whenua in recognition of that partnership. Co-design with tangata whenua is an obligation under Te
Tiriti o Waitangi that differs from good practice, albeit the right approach for equity development
more generally. These findings reflect a strong focus on the need for representation and ensuring
that members of minority groups are part of decision-making processes. This focus is coupled with
the expectation that co-design will be a central principle in developing equity and broader university
commitments to social justice. Student participants noted that “if there’s no student feedback then
it’s going to be irrelevant” indicating that students need to be engaged in equity work at different
levels in the future.

• Continue to focus on equity education and training 8

Participants provided feedback about the need for the university to continue to enhance its equity
education and training for both staff and students. Feedback expressed the need for, “thorough
training of lecturers and tutors about inclusive and accessible teaching. Make sure they actually
know that students with disabilities exist, and that when they make disparaging generalisations or
assumptions it can be incredibly harmful to student”. The lack of training and sensibility was also
pointed out as a problem for students, with participants acknowledging that students do not always
have equity-focused education and assessment in all qualifications. They noted that the university
should “Ensure all students and staff undertake bicultural competence training and subconscious
bias training in relation to gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and disability etc. before students can
graduate and before staff can be promoted”, outlining the importance of actively informing and
nurturing non-discriminatory relationships with staff members and peers.

• Progress policy and process changes that are equity centred

While participants recognised the importance of a continued focus on equity education, they also
argued that the university should make policy and process changes and/or develop initiatives that
improve equity outcomes for students and staff in the short term. Regarding policy and process

8
At the time of writing this report the updated draft Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Students Code
of Practice 2021 was released and states that institutions must provide “an inclusive learning environment…
that supports understanding, acceptance, and connection with all learners, including learners of different ages,
cultures and religions, disabled learners, and LGBTQIA+ learners” (Ministry of Education, 2020b, p. 15). As part
of supporting inclusion, the draft code proposed that institutions must offer training that minimises
discrimination, including antiracism education.
24
changes participants stated, “I think that if you make some real strict rules about not tolerating
discrimination [sic] and those rules are enforced then the change is going to come…it will become
widely known what [sic] is unacceptable…it does need to be coupled with education in terms of
people being competent in those spaces…”. This view was shared by participants who shared that
“The institution needs to hold itself, staff and students accountable. It is not enough to say "as a
university we do not condone...." in a press statement. The messaging needs to be louder and
clearer to all”.

Participants also used the term ‘zero tolerance’ to describe their expectations about UC policies and
processes. The following quote captures this feedback; “If the University really wants to be able to
say that they are inclusive of everyone, there needs to be clear education around these things, with
an absolute zero tolerance”. Further to this point, participants stated “Many universities have been
in the news recently with staff facing accusations of discrimination and misconduct. Canterbury
needs to have a zero tolerance policy for these matters and to deal with them promptly and
transparently when they arise”. Participant feedback calls for greater accountability to be woven
into our policies and processes wherever practical and possible.

• Leadership and organisational culture

Improving the UC culture through effective and demonstrable leadership was a focus in the
participant feedback. Participant feedback noted that “UC remains a mono cultural institution whose
structures, policies, practices, pedagogies and spaces exist to benefit those from the dominant
Pākehā culture. In the case of research, this equates to a valuing of knowledges and evidence from
Western and Northern American traditions. All of this culminates in a culture that is passed on to our
students”. Participants also pointed out systemic challenges stating that “Organisational structures
and practices often institutionalise inequality even though there considerable investment may have
gone into providing an equitable work/learning environment. When the onus is placed on those
'with issues' to raise them this institutes a sense that (1) inequity is an individual issue and (2) if
there only a few or no cases/issues being identified then the institution is doing well in terms
equity/diversity/inclusiveness”.

Participant feedback also advocated for culture change highlighting the impact a negative
organisational culture can have on victims of discrimination: “What the university needs to
appreciate is that if we rely on having systems/strategies for "responsing to issues" we maintain an
environment where biases and discriminatory acts can persist. This is because a 'response mentality'
puts a heavy responsibility on people to raise issues…When others know what they are experiencing
but do nothing the victims can feel unsupported as well as ashamed they can't resolve the situation

25
themselves and, as a consequence, powerless. This can affect work performance as well as the wider
work culture”.

Participants also expressed concerns about leadership and role models with feedback calling for SLT
and managers to lead and commit to ensuring meaningful change. All SLT members were
interviewed for the review and while there was a diversity of views on our equity responsiveness
and the way forward amongst the team, there are also strong advocates including but not limited to
the Vice Chancellor.

• Be research and evidence based

Participants indicated the relevance of informing future policies and actions by research, with
requests for “More monitoring of issues and collecting data about experiences. More assurance that
reporting of diversity and equity issues will be a safe process for people experiencing discrimination.
This is a huge challenge when there are such significant power imbalances. More accountability built
into HR systems”.

They also communicated that more data does not necessarily lead to institutional change, only
reaffirmed commitment and action against inequity: “I would like to commend you for the approach
taken so far, which is to survey and determine a baseline for our response here at UC. This data will
give clear indication of where our gaps are. But please be aware, there is a lot of this data already
available which has simply been ignored…There needs to be clear targets set that are measurable.
And there must be consequences if we do not meet these targets”.

• Strengths-based approach

In the feedback presented earlier, participants emphasised the importance of everyone taking an
active role in achieving our equity aspirations as an organisation. While we will inevitably face
challenges in delivering on our equity commitments with such polarising perspectives apparent in
these findings, participant feedback directs us to take a strengths-based approach that will help
ensure we progress. “We need to celebrate what we have achieved and build on strengths -
continually pointing out the deficiencies, although necessary, can also create defensiveness and
block further development as people retreat into comfort zones or attitudes go underground”.

A strengths-based approach may help to mitigate disengagement of members of our community

which participants have identified as a key risk. Participants noted, “I witnessed staff members
worrying about accidentally saying something "wrong" and being "cancelled", even though they had
perfectly good views about equity and diversity”. On the other hand, I worry that people who do
have discriminatory views get more staunch about them”.

26
 • Recognition of work underway and hope for the future

It is important to acknowledge that despite the significant challenges identified in the feedback,
there was also recognition by students and staff of valuable equity work that is already underway
which gives them hope for the future. Participants mentioned various equity initiatives in their
feedback, including that “UC has made an effort over the years to acknowledge issues of equity,
diversity and inclusiveness”. Participants also shared that “The introduction of new rainbow lanyards
for staff who are members or allies of the LGBTQ+ community have created a sense of inclusivity in
response to many new students to UC feeling unsafe or unable to recognise safe places”.

Participants praised the work undertaken to support Māori and Pacific students and the bicultural
competence and confidence graduate attribute implementation commenting that, “The teams
supporting Māori and Pacific people at the University are effective for students, and have
considerable presence for staff” and “The programmes on offer for staff to learn are amazing like
the Tangata Tū Tangata Ora course and the support for Bicultural competence”. Feedback noted
that these initiatives “little by little are leading to culture change, as departments and teaching
programmes become more aware of what it means to be inclusive”.

Participants also expressed the Equity Review itself as indicative of the UC commitment to
progressing meaningful change going forward stating that “This review will go a long way to helping
UC move forward as people feeling truly heard about their concerns will make a huge difference”
and another noted “This review is so appreciated. It feels less like box ticking in a rush and more like
a genuine approach”.

Summary
The preliminary findings suggest there is significant confusion and disagreement amongst
participants about the definition and intent of equity in the UC context. Of the online questionnaire
participants that responded regarding the current state of equity responsiveness at UC, more than
50% of participants did not agree UC is currently responsive. Further to this, participants who
indicated they agree the university is responsive also commented that there is still significant work
to be done to achieve equity aspirations and this sentiment is reflected in the findings. Participants
reported experiencing various forms of discrimination in the university. Others recognised the
reproduction of structures of privilege, suggesting the need for governance from tangata whenua
and underserved groups to address inequity through co-designed initiatives.

Participant feedback that denied the reality of marginalisation, fearing that equity and diversity
could cause a reduction of teaching and learning standards or even threaten the value of the
dominant culture was also prevalent in the findings. Enhanced equity education was identified as a
27
need for all staff and students as well as a strengths-based approach to developing and
implementing equity initiatives. Research and evidence were seen as a driver for future action.
However, participants also recognised that research without committed leadership and
organisational culture transformation would not lead to a meaningful change. While the findings
present a range of significant challenges, it also important to acknowledge the hope that students
and staff expressed for next stage of our journey towards a more equitable university.

28
Recommendations

The findings in this report indicate while some progress has been made, UC has much work to do in
achieving meaningful equity, diversity and inclusiveness outcomes for students and staff. The
following recommendations are informed by the findings in this report.

It is recommended that the university:

1. Create a clear definition and aim for UC equity, diversity and inclusiveness commitments
that is framed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi and co-designed with Ngāi Tūāhuriri as mana whenua
2. Is informed by research and evidence in developing, implementing and reviewing equity
initiatives
3. Implement targeted policy, process and system changes that produce positive outcomes for
underserved individuals and communities
4. Ensure appropriate resourcing to implement the recommendations outlined in this report
5. Implement enhanced equity education for staff and students
6. Acknowledge interpersonal marginalisation experienced by individuals and groups from
marginalised communities and establishes clear processes to restore mana
7. Work towards achieving strength-based equity aspiration

These recommendations require the support of the Tumu Whakarae | Vice Chancellor and SLT. Any
issues related to equity and diversity must be led and modelled by our leaders in an authentic
manner and that the results of any recommendations be felt by the community our leaders seek to
serve. It is recommended that once supported these recommendations be led by Te Waka Pākākano
and that appropriate resourcing be made available to not only establish the changes recommended
but also monitor the effects of said changes and make appropriate alterations, as needed. A follow-
up equity review is recommended for 2023 so that we can ensure our practices and policies stay in
line with the university and its changing community of learners and employees.

Limitations

It is important to acknowledge that while this report provides a high level summary analysis of the
participant data captured, a deeper review of the data collected will be useful in drawing out
additional findings and specific responses to inform strategic and operational decisions.

29
References

Ahmed, S. (2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(2), 235-256.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870601143927

Barrow, M., & Grant, B. (2019). The uneasy place of equity in higher education: Tracing its
(in)significance in academic promotions. Higher Education, 78(1), 133-147.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0334-2

Bello, B. G., & Mancini, L. (2016). Talking about intersectionality. interview with Kimberlé W.
Crenshaw. Sociologia Del Diritto, (2), 11-21. https://doi.org/10.3280/SD2016-002002

Carbado, D. W., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M., & Tomlinson, B. (2013). Intersectionality: Mapping
the movements of a theory. Du Bois Review, 10(2), 303-312.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X13000349

Crimmins, G. (2020a). Don’t Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater: Statistics Can Create Impetus
to Address Educational Inequity. In G. Crimmins (Ed.), Strategies for supporting inclusion and
diversity in the academy: Higher education, aspiration and inequality (pp. 3-26). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43593-6

Crimmins, G. (2020b). Inclusion in Practice: Operationalising Principles of Inclusion and Diversity. In

G. Crimmins (Ed.), Strategies for supporting inclusion and diversity in the academy: Higher education,
aspiration and inequality (pp. 379-399). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43593-6

Curtis, E.T. (2018). Vision 20:20 and Indigenous Health Workforce Development: Institutional
Strategies and Initiatives to Attract Underrepresented Students into Elite Courses. In M. Shah and J.
McKay (Eds.), Achieving equity and quality in higher education: Global perspectives in an era of
widening participation (1st ed., pp. 119-142). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-78316-1

Cyr, L. (2018). Literature Review: Interdisciplinary Findings on Diversity and Inclusion Saturation. In S.
K. Gertz , B. Huang and L. Cyr (Eds.), Diversity and inclusion in higher education and societal contexts:
International and interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 17-37). Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70175-2

Dawson, M. C. (2020). Rehumanising the university for an alternative future: Decolonisation,

alternative epistemologies and cognitive justice. Identities, 27(1), 71-90.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.2019.1611072
30
Earle, D. (2019). Disabled People and Tertiary Education: An Analysis of the 2013 Disability Survey.
Ministry of Education. https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/80898/disabled-people-
and-tertiary-education

Education Act 1989, No. 80. (1989).

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0080/latest/DLM175959.html

Education Amendment Act 1991, No. 43. (1991).

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0043/latest/whole.html

Education Counts (2020). Tertiary Retention and Achievement.

https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/retention_and_achievement

Espinoza, O. (2010). Solving the equity/equality conceptual dilemma: a new-goal oriented model to
approach analyses associated with different stages of the educational process. In J. Zajda (Ed.),
Globalization, education and social justice (pp. 127–143). Springer Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3221-8_9

Gidley, J., Hampson, G., Wheeler, L. & Bereded-Samuel, E. (2010). From Access to Success: An
Integrated Approach to Quality Higher Education Informed by Social Inclusion Theory and Practice.
Higher Education Policy, 23, 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2009.24

Kamp A (Ed.) (2019). Education studies in Aotearoa: Key disciplines and emerging
directions. Wellington: NZCER Press.

Kidman, J., & Chu, C. (2017). Scholar outsiders in the neoliberal university: Transgressive academic
labour in the whitestream. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(1), 7-19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-017-0079-y

Kidman, J., Chu, C., Fernandez, S., & Abella, I. (2015). Māori scholars and the university. Ngā Pae o te
Māramatanga. http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/sites/default/files/project-
reports/Kidman%20Chu%20Fernandez%20Abella-
%20Maori%20Scholars%20Final%20report%202015.pdf

Leach, L. (2016). Widening Participation in Aotearoa New Zealand Tertiary Education Since 2000. In
M. Shah, A. Bennett and A. Badarneh (Eds.), Widening higher education participation: A global
perspective (pp. 35-48). Chandos Publishing.

Luafutu-Simpson, P., Moltchanova, E., O’Halloran, D., Petelo, L., & Uta’i, S. (2015). Change strategies
to enhance Pasifika student success at Canterbury tertiary institutions. AKO Aotearoa.
https://ako.ac.nz/knowledge-centre/enhancing-pasifika-student-success-at-canterbury-tertiary-

31
institutions/research-report-change-strategies-to-enhance-pasifika-student-success-at-canterbury-
tertiary-institutions/

Marginson, S. (2011). Equity, status and freedom: A note on higher education. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 41(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2010.549456

Mayeda, D. T., Keil, M., Dutton, H. D., & ‘Ofamo‘oni, I. (2014). “You've gotta set a precedent”: Māori
and Pacific voices on student success in higher education. AlterNative: An International Journal of
Indigenous Peoples, 10(2), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718011401000206

McAllister, T. G. , Kokaua, J., Naepi, S., Kidman, J., & Theodore, R. (2020). Glass ceilings in New
Zealand universities - Inequities in Māori and Pacific promotions and earnings. MAI Journal, 9(3),
272-285.
http://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/sites/default/files/MAI_Jrnl_2020_V9_3_McAllister_FINAL_0.pdf

McAllister, T. G.; Kidman, J.; Rowley, O. &Theodore, R. F. (2019). Why isn't my professor Māori? A
snapshot of the academic workforce in New Zealand universities. MAI Journal, 8(2), 235-249.
http://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/sites/default/files/MAIJrnl_8_2_McAllister_FINAL.pdf

McKay, J. & Shah, M. (2018). The Quest to Achieve Equity and Excellence. In M. Shah and J. McKay
(Eds.), Achieving equity and quality in higher education: Global perspectives in an era of widening
participation (1st ed., pp. ix-xvi). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78316-1

Ministry of Education (2020a). The Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP)
and the Tertiary Education Strategy (TES). https://education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/NELP-TES-
documents/FULL-TES-2020.pdf

Ministry of Education (2020b). Education (Pastoral Care of Tertiary and International Students) Code
of Practice 2021. https://conversation.education.govt.nz/assets/pastoral-care-code/Education-
Pastoral-Care-of-Tertiary-and-International-Students-Code-of-Practice-2021-draft-legislation-
document.pdf

Naepi, S. (2019). Why isn't my professor Pasifika? A snapshot of the academic workforce in New
Zealand universities. MAI Journal, 8(2), 219-234.
http://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/sites/default/files/MAIJrnl_8_2_Naepi_FINAL_0.pdf

Naepi, S., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2017). A cartography of higher
education: Attempts at inclusion and insights from Pasifika Scholarship in Aotearoa New Zealand. In
C. Reid & M. Major (Eds.), Global teaching: Education dialogues with/in the Global South (pp. 81–99).
Springer. https://doi.org/c83m

32
Nakhid, C. (2011). Equity for Māori and Pasifika students: The objectives and characteristics of equity
committees in a New Zealand university. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(4), 532-550.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2011.613703

Nakhid, C., Majavu, A., Bowleg, L., Mooney, S., Ryan, I., Mayeda, D., Fu, M., Hickey, H., Sumeo, K.,
Wilson, S., Crothers, C., Aguirre, A., & Halstead, D. (2015). “Intersectionality revisited: Moving
beyond the contours of race, class, gender” - notes on an Intersectionality Symposium. New Zealand
Sociology, 30(4), 190-198.

Palmer, M. (2008). The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's law and constitution. Victoria University
Press.

Salmi, J., & Bassett, R. M. (2014). The equity imperative in tertiary education: Promoting fairness and
efficiency. International Review of Education, 60(3), 361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-013-9391-
z

Small D. (2019) Education and History: Who do we think we are?. In A. Kamp (Ed.), Education Studies
in Aotearoa New Zealand: Key Disciplines and Emerging Directions (pp. 47-67). Nzcer Press.

Sotardi, V. A., Surtees, N., Vincent, K., & Johnston, H. (2021). Belonging and adjustment for LGBTQ+
and non-LGBTQ+ students during the social transition to university. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000305Te Purongo a Tau | Annual Report 2020:
https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/media/documents/annual-reports/VCOF930-Annual-Report-20-
Final.pdf

Teevale, T. & Teu, A. (2018). What Enabled and Disabled First-year Pacific Student Achievement at
University?. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association, 26(1), 15-27.

Theodore, R., Tustin, K., Kiro, C., Gollop, M., Taumoepeau, M., Taylor, N., Chee, K., Hunter, J., &
Poulton, R. (2016). Māori university graduates: Indigenous participation in higher education. Higher
Education Research and Development, 35(3), 604-618.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1107883

Theodore, R., Gollop, M., Tustin, K., Taylor, N., Kiro, C., Taumoepeau, M., Kokaua, J., Hunter, J., &
Poulton, R. (2017). Māori university success: What helps and hinders qualification completion.
AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13(2), 122-130.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117700799

University of Canterbury (2018). Equity and Diversity Policy.

https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/about/governance/ucpolicy/general/equity-and-diversity-policy-/

33
University of Canterbury (2020). U-Count Survey. Internal research.

Whiteford, G., Shah, M., & Sid Nair, C. (2013). Equity and excellence are not mutually exclusive: A
discussion of academic standards in an era of widening participation. Quality Assurance in Education,
21(3), 299-310. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-Apr-2012-0020

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural
wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2007). Improving student outcomes in higher education: New Zealand
teachers’ views on teaching students from diverse backgrounds. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(5-
6), 655-668. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701596190

34
Appendix 1: UC Equity and Diversity Policy

UC Equity and Diversity Policy

https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/about/governance/ucpolicy/general/equity-and-diversity-policy-/

Appendix 2: UC Equity and Diversity Plan Kia Taurite 2018-2020

UC Equity and Diversity Plan Kia Taurite 2018-2020

https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/support/equity/cedac/edplan/

Appendix 3: Equity Reference Group - Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference of the Equity Reference Group are to review and make recommendations to
SLT on:

• The success of equity related activities implemented at UC including policy, structure,

process and priorities
• The future focus for addressing equity at UC, including defining policy, structure, process
and priorities

Membership

Dr Darryn Russell (Chair) – Amokapua Waka Pākākano | AVC Māori, Pacific and Equity

Rīpeka Tamanui-Hurunui - Business Manager, AVC Māori, Pacific and Equity

Riki Welsh - Business Manager and PDT Team Leader, AVC Māori, Pacific and Equity

Jeanine Tamati-Elliffe – Kaiārahi Service Units

Ari Nicholson - Rainbow Coordinator

Ashalyna Noa – Kaiārahi Pacific

Tori McNoe (2020) and Kim Fowler (2021) - UCSA President

Georgie Dibble (2020) and Emma Pickup (2021) - UCSA Equity and Wellbeing Representative

35
Spanky Moore (2020) and John fox (2021) - Chaplain

Rachel Collins – Administrative and research support

Dr Monica Vahl – Research Assistant

Academic Supervisors

Dr Ekant Veer

Dr Karen Saunders

Dr Lindsey Macdonald

Dr Tara Ross

Dr Mahdis Azarmandi

Dr Kumar Yogessawaran

Dr Annie Potts

Appendix 3.1: Research team members

The following members of the Equity Reference Group delivered the research process including
facilitating interviews, developing and implementing the online questionnaire, coding the qualitative
data collected and writing this report. They were advised and supported by the Equity Reference
Group in conducting this research. Kerry Gilmour, Librarian, also provided technical Nvivo support to
the research team during the data analysis period.

Dr Darryn Russell – Primary Supervisor

Rīpeka Tamanui-Hurunui – Researcher and interview facilitator

Riki Welsh - Researcher and interview facilitator

Jeanine Tamati-Elliffe – Researcher and interview facilitator

Dr Monica Vahl – Research Assistant

Rachel Collins – Administrative and research support

36