Advance HE today launches the Diversity of Governors in Higher Education Report 2024. Florence Reedy, Researcher (Quantitative) and Shona Quinn, Research and Insights Executive at Advance HE, illustrate the progress already made and what comes next for board diversity.
Why do we want diverse governing bodies?
In higher education, governing bodies (which can also be referred to as the Council, Board of Governors, Board of Directors, Board of Trustees and the Court, depending on the higher education institution) are specifically responsible for the institutions’ policies, strategic direction and oversight of performance, compliance and regulation. They are supported by committees and are ultimately accountable for both academic governance and corporate governance, including matters of finance and estates.
Governing bodies also play a key role in ensuring that providers are meeting their equality, diversity and inclusion statutory and regulatory requirements. To do this, it is important that they model diversity and inclusion within their own make-up. This ensures that there are a range of backgrounds and experiences involved in influencing an institution’s policies, strategy, performance, and regulation and diversity of thought in decision-making. Studies show that diversity on governing bodies improves their effectiveness, from financial performance to planning and strategy that supports diversity. Governing bodies that reflect the characteristics of the communities they serve, including their staff and student body, are better placed to represent the needs and concerns of their populations. Overall, greater diversity on governing bodies will lead to more inclusive and better-informed decision-making.
What progress has been made?
At Advance HE we produce biennial reports, detailing the composition of higher education governing bodies, based on analysis of Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data. The 2024 report is based on data from 2022/23 and reveals some key areas of progress since the previous iteration.
There has been some progress towards gender parity, with women making up 43.4 per cent of governing body members, compared to men who make up 56.1 per cent. This is a 1 percentage point increase in women governors since 2020/21.
Proportion of governing bodies by the proportion of female governors
Additionally, almost a third of institutions had a governing body where between 45 per cent and 55 percent of governors were women. Progress has also been made in ethnic diversity, with a 3 percentage point increase in UK national governors who are from Black, Asian, or minority ethnic backgrounds, from 12.2 per cent in 2020/21 to 15.2 per cent in 2022/23. There has also been an increase in governors disclosing a disability, from 5.8 per cent in 2020/21 to 6.5 per cent in 2022/23.
Despite this progress, there are areas where governing bodies are failing to represent their staff populations. For example, 39.2 per cent of governing bodies had no governor who disclosed a disability, compared to 7 per cent of academic staff at these institutions declaring a disability.
Additionally, there are still large numbers of governing bodies without a single governor from a Black, Asian or minority ethnic background and a high degree of overlap between governors who are from a Black, Asian and minority ethnic background and other underrepresented groups. For example, the proportion of female governors from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds (20.3 per cent) was considerably larger than the proportion of male governors from these backgrounds (15.8 per cent), suggesting that the overall diversity of governing bodies might be reliant on the inclusion of individuals possessing multiple protected characteristics. Furthermore, the intersectional majority group – male, UK national, White, with no disclosed disability – constitutes 41.6 per cent of governors and over a quarter of governing bodies had a majority of this group.
Proportion of governing bodies by proportion of governors belonging to the intersectional majority group
What next for diversity on governing bodies?
The findings of the 2024 report represent a mixed picture of diversity on governing bodies. Some progress has been made, particularly towards gender parity and an overall increase in governors from Black, Asian and minority ethnic, backgrounds, as well as those disclosing a disability since 2020/21.
Despite this, there were institutions that fell short in having their governing body reflect the diversity present amongst their staff populations.
Smaller institutions need to address the lack of equitable representation of women on their governing boards and some institutions wholly fail to represent the ethnic diversity that exists within their staff body.
Governors from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds tended to be younger on average. For the diversity that was shown, it was not clear whether this was mainly present through internal or independent/lay appointees, or the contribution of student representatives on governing bodies. The HESA collection of governor data is a great step forward in advancing our understanding of governors in UK higher education. However, data specific to the governor role would make this understanding more robust. Furthermore, a focus on quantitative measures alone will always be limited, not capturing the many intersections of positionality and experience that could potentially offer distinctive and valuable insight. Perhaps the most important factor not evidenced here was whether the practices and processes of governing bodies, the culture and orientation of everyday meetings and communication, supports the articulation of diversity to inform governance. Further research taking a qualitative approach, would capture the experiences and perceptions of those on governing bodies.
For further information read the full 2024 report and access Advance HE’s Board Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit.
HEPI recently published a blog by Tessa Harrison and Julia Roberts on the topic of governance: you can view it here.
‘UK national, White, with no disclosed disability’ represents more than 40% of the UK population. So perhaps one should either stick to the meaning of ‘representation’ as a proportion of the population (which is a rather irrational way for organising workforce) or present a case for over-/underrepresentation of certainl demographic groups. Or – a revolutionary idea – one should hire people based on their potential to contribute (now that ‘merit’ has become a dirty word), and not merely due to their immutable or derived characteristics.