Equity/Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, and Other EDI Phrases and EDI Policy Frameworks: A Scoping Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Equity, equality, diversity, inclusion, belonging, dignity, justice, accessibility, accountability, and decolonization are individual concepts used to engage with problematic social situations of marginalized groups. Phrases that put together these concepts in different ways, such as “equity, diversity and inclusion”, “equality, diversity, and inclusion”, “diversity, equity and inclusion”, “equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility”, “justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion”, and “equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonization” are increasingly used, indicating that any one of these concepts is not enough to guide policy decisions. These phrases are also used to engage with problems in the workplace. Universities are one workplace where these phrases are used to improve the research, education, and general workplace climate of marginalized students, non-academic staff, and academic staff. EDI policy frameworks such as Athena SWAN and DIMENSIONS: equity, diversity, and inclusion have been also set up with the same purpose. What EDI data are generated within the academic literature focusing on EDI in the workplace, including the higher education workplace, influence the implementation and direction of EDI policies and practices within the workplace and outside. The aim of this scoping review of academic abstracts employing SCOPUS, the 70 databases of EBSCO-HOST and Web of Sciences, was to generate data that allow for a detailed understanding of the academic inquiry into EDI. The objective of this study was to map out the engagement with EDI in the academic literature by answering seven research questions using quantitative hit count manifest coding: (1) Which EDI policy frameworks and phrases are mentioned? (2) Which workplaces are mentioned? (3) Which academic associations, societies, and journals and which universities, colleges, departments, and academic disciplines are mentioned? (4) Which medical disciplines and health professionals are mentioned? (5) Which terms, phrases, and measures of the “social” are present? (6) Which technologies, science, and technology governance terms and ethics fields are present? (7) Which EDI-linked groups are mentioned and which “ism” terms? Using a qualitative thematic analysis, we aimed to answer the following research question: (8) What are the EDI-related themes present in relation to (a) the COVID-19/pandemic, (b) technologies, (c) work/life, (d) intersectionality, (e) empowerment of whom, (f) “best practices”, (g) evaluation and assessment of EDI programs, (h) well-being, and (i) health equity. We found many gaps in the academic coverage, suggesting many opportunities for academic inquiries and a broadening of the EDI research community.

Related collections

Most cited references 377

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Hsiu-Fang Hsieh, Sarah Shannon (2016)

Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.

0 comments Cited 6260 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

Maria J Grant, Andrew Booth (2009)

The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.