The paradox of diversity in leadership and leadership for diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paradox of diversity is that successful diversity interventions require leadership support when diversity in leadership positions is so evidently lacking. In order to explore this paradox in the UK, we examine progress towards demographic diversity in leadership roles in the higher education sector, a sector in which there is much espoused support for diversity. Through a critical and comprehensive review of the literature, we illustrate the persistent nature of inequalities that hinder diversity and inclusion in leadership. We examine studies on salient forms of inequality in higher education leadership including research on gender, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and disability. We show that leadership diversity remains a significant challenge for the higher education sector. Drawing on the example of this sector, we demonstrate that leadership occupies a contradictory space in terms of demographic diversity, both as the focus of criticism due to its homogeneous profile and counter-intuitively as an essential force for progress towards greater equality. We investigate the paradox of the relative homogeneity of higher education leadership set against its role for championing and promoting equality and identify ways in which demographic diversity as well as the progressive potential of higher education leadership may be fostered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".