Where is the visible commitment to gender in the advertised content of UK management degree programmes?

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to establish the extent to which prospective students can see a visible commitment to study gender in the UK business/management school curriculum prior to enrolment. Design/methodology/approach A content analysis of the descriptions of modules offered as part of business and management degrees offered by 112 UK universities was conducted. The analysis was restricted to the publicly available information on the websites visible to prospective students. Descriptive statistics regarding the distribution of gender topics across programmes and higher education institutions are presented in addition to university group affiliation (e.g. Russell Group) and accreditation in respect of variables. Findings The analysis reveals significant gaps in the undergraduate and taught postgraduate offerings of UK business schools that the authors suggest are reflective of subject silos, and institutional risk reduction strategies. Research limitations/implications The authors conclude by arguing that accreditation bodies can use their influence to leverage change and to ensure gender content becomes core to curriculum design and its visibility as part of the practice of management to prospective students. Originality/value This study provides a benchmark for the visibility of gender as an issue and perspective within UK business/management school offerings.

Ducks, elephants and sharks: Using LEGO® Serious Play® to surface the ‘hidden curriculum’ of equality, diversity and inclusion

“…Perriton et al’s (2022) article confirmed that these topics remain peripheral, suggesting that students are leaving university without the necessary skills and understanding to perform management roles that challenge rather than reinforce exclusionary stereotypes.…”

“…In HEIs, the silence (or presence) of equality, diversity and inclusion in the curriculum is heavily dependent on the educator/facilitator (Farmer et al, 2018) and other representatives of the business school including the top management, academic administrators and auxiliary staff. The studies by Perriton and Elliott (2018) and Perriton et al (2022) clearly demonstrate that despite the aforementioned formal policy discourse, the actual inclusion of these topics in curricula is very patchy; in many units and modules, they are simply not there, and this 'silence' is itself a message.…”

“…In the longer term, the challenge would be in equipping students to understand the need for, and participate in, social change in the workplace. Yet Perriton et al (2022: 10) claim that ‘the visible curriculum of management to prospective students does nothing to challenge the expectation that management is male, white and neurotypical’. In contrast, many students themselves are likely to come from diverse backgrounds and experiences, and if they do not believe the curriculum, overt or hidden, speaks to them, they may feel alienated and disengaged.…”

“…While the Perriton et al (2022) and Perriton and Elliott (2018) research focused exclusively on module content for our purposes, we have extended our boundaries more widely, beyond the ‘overt’ curriculum, and into influences that may be covert and unacknowledged. The overt curriculum includes not only the content of teaching sessions but also those activities that are developed to support the students’ learning, such as decisions about the structures and processes of exercises and assessments and various classroom management strategies.…”

Trojan horses: Creating a positive hidden (extra)curriculum through a Justice, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (JEDI) initiative

“…We approached this principle based on two baseline assessments: a local level review of problematic or underrepresented visuals (posters, artworks, signage etc.) in the building and published research highlighting gaps in the gender diversity of the UK management curriculum (Perriton and Elliot, 2018; Perriton et al, 2022). These baselines provided justification for staff–student partnerships to improve our physical environment and to raise awareness of, and affect change to, our curriculum.…”