Beyond tokenism and objectivity: theoretical reflections on a transformative equity, diversity, and inclusion agenda for higher education in Canada

A systematic review of key principles relating to decolonising interventions in midwifery education

PROBLEM

Midwifery education is predominantly influenced by Eurocentric models, contributing to systemic health inequalities for marginalised groups.

BACKGROUND

The health disparities for ethnically diverse maternity service users are well documented. There are various decolonising interventions such as cultural safety education, being implemented to address these disparities by challenging colonial legacies and power imbalances that perpetuate health inequity.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the key principles of decolonising interventions in midwifery education, that can be applied to midwifery education on a global scale?

METHODS

This study follows a systematic literature review based on the PRISMA guidelines. Data were sourced from six databases, evaluating peer-reviewed articles between February 2014 and February 2024. The PICO framework guided the research. A thematic synthesis approach was used for data analysis.

FINDINGS

Four major themes emerged: (1) centring Indigenous knowledge, (2) cultural safety, (3) transformative learning, and (4) systemic institutional support. Workshops, yarning circles, and experiential placements were identified as effective mechanisms for promoting cultural safety and addressing discomfort. However, educators often lacked the skills and confidence to implement these changes.

DISCUSSION

Decolonising midwifery education requires ongoing reflexivity, institutional support, and curricula co-design with Indigenous communities. Barriers such as discomfort from participants and inadequate institutional structures must be addressed to ensure long-term impact.

CONCLUSION

Decolonising interventions in midwifery education fosters culturally safe care. However, further research is needed to assess the long-term outcomes on health equity and the impact of such interventions on marginalised communities.

Defining equity, its determinants, and the foundations of equity science

Advancing equity as a priority is increasingly declared in response to decades of evidence showing the association between poorer health outcomes and the unfair distribution of resources, power, and wealth across all levels of society. Quandries present, however, through incongruence, vagueness and disparate interpretations of the meaning of equity dilute and fragment efforts across research, policy and practice. Progress on reducing health inequities is, in this context, unsurprisingly irresolute. In this article, we make a case for equity science that reimagines the ways in which we (as researchers, as systems leaders, as teachers and mentors, and as citizens in society) engage in this work. We offer a definition of equity, its determinants, and the paradigmatic foundations of equity science, including the assumptions, values, and processes., and methods of this science. We argue for an equity science that can more meaningfully promote coherent alignment between intention, knowledge and action within and beyond the health sciences to spark a more equitable future.

Transforming higher education institutions through EDI leadership: A bibliometric exploration

This comprehensive bibliometric study analyzes 1820 journal articles from the Web of Science database to explore Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) leadership in higher education institutions (HEIs). Utilizing co-citation and co-word analysis, the study identifies distinct thematic clusters. The co-citation analysis reveals five key themes: Race, Diversity, and Inclusion (RDI), Diversity, Leadership, and Self-Efficacy (DLSE), Gender Dynamics and Leadership Challenges, Women's Representation in Academic Medicine Leadership, and Transformational Leadership in HEIs. Meanwhile, the co-word analysis highlights three critical areas: Transformative Collaborative Resilience in HEIs, Advancing Gender Equality in Academic Medicine and STEM, and Inclusive Educational Leadership in HEIs. These themes collectively provide a deep understanding of the EDI leadership field's intellectual structure, suggesting significant areas for future research and practical application. The study emphasizes the necessity for HEIs to engage comprehensively in EDI leadership research, shedding light on the importance of transformative collaborative resilience, gender equality in STEM, and inclusive leadership. This research offers valuable insights for developing effective EDI leadership policies and practices, highlighting the interconnectedness of these themes in fostering a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive environment in higher education and beyond.

Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis

BACKGROUND

Collective agreement about the importance of centering equity in health research, practice, and policy is growing. Yet, responsibility for advancing equity is often situated as belonging to a vague group of 'others', or delegated to the leadership of 'equity-seeking' or 'equity-deserving' groups who are tasked to lead systems transformation while simultaneously navigating the violence and harms of oppression within those same systems. Equity efforts also often overlook the breadth of equity scholarship. Harnessing the potential of current interests in advancing equity requires systematic, evidence-guided, theoretically rigorous ways for people to embrace their own agency and influence over the systems in which they are situated. ln this article, we introduce and describe the Systematic Equity Action-Analysis (SEA) Framework as a tool that translates equity scholarship and evidence into a structured process that leaders, teams, and communities can use to advance equity in their own settings.

METHODS

This framework was derived through a dialogic, critically reflective and scholarly process of integrating methodological insights garnered over years of equity-centred research and practice. Each author, in a variety of ways, brought engaged equity perspectives to the dialogue, bringing practical and lived experience to conversation and writing. Our scholarly dialogue was grounded in critical and relational lenses, and involved synthesis of theory and practice from a broad range of applications and cases.

RESULTS

The SEA Framework balances practices of agency, humility, critically reflective dialogue, and systems thinking. The framework guides users through four elements of analysis (worldview, coherence, potential, and accountability) to systematically interrogate how and where equity is integrated in a setting or object of action-analysis. Because equity issues are present in virtually all aspects of society, the kinds of 'things' the framework could be applied to is only limited by the imagination of its users. It can inform retrospective or prospective work, by groups external to a policy or practice setting (e.g., using public documents to assess a research funding policy landscape); or internal to a system, policy, or practice setting (e.g., faculty engaging in a critically reflective examination of equity in the undergraduate program they deliver).

CONCLUSIONS

While not a panacea, this unique contribution to the science of health equity equips people to explicitly recognize and interrupt their own entanglements in the intersecting systems of oppression and injustice that produce and uphold inequities.