Search

Purpose: In the past decade, against increasing global inequality, higher education has grappled with increased demands for social justice, transformation and decolonisation. While a lot of research in South Africa has focused on the (im)possibilities of fostering racial, gendered, socio-economic and cultural change, the connection of such change to questions of sustainability has been less explored. The purpose of this paper is to specifically explore the agency of academics to foster transformative initiatives for sustainability within the context of institutions historically serving under-represented populations. Design/methodology/approach: Using a qualitative methodology, this paper highlights the importance of considering sustainability in processes of transformation. This paper is specifically interested in how academic faculty and those in assigned leadership positions view their agency in relation to promoting transformation for sustainability at the institutional level. Drawing on data generated from semi-structured interviews with 13 participants at an historically Black university in South Africa, this paper details academics' and leaders' experiences and perceptions of their agency. Findings: This study reveals the adverse interactional dynamics within higher education institutions, which negatively impact academics' participation as key agents in change processes. Positional and identity challenges faced reveal the persistence of colonial and apartheid legacies of racism, sexism, Afrophobia and xenophobia -- which casts a shadow on possible trajectories of transformation and sustainability. This has serious implications for the common good, given South Africa's regional import for knowledge production and decolonisation within universities; its key role in the African 2063 Agenda; and the wider global Sustainable Development agenda. Originality/value: This study highlights insufficient engagement with the sustainability of transformation efforts within the context of South Africa. This study also emphasises the relation between transformation imperatives and racial, socio-economic, gender and epistemic justice imperatives of sustainable development.

Replete with espoused discourses of equality, diversity and inclusion within public bodies, is the UK, wherein lauded initiatives reward its universities' commitments to increasing the access and positioning of 'women' in higher education. This paper contributes a critical quantitative analysis of the state of representation and participation of academic staff within these universities generally, and the majority-female discipline of education particularly. Education is important because it has a direct relation to social change and ethicality. It may maintain or reproduce the status quo; however, exercising its transformative potential is essential for the success of various international frameworks aiming to address global inequality, including most recently the Sustainable Development Goals. Sensitised by QuantCrit principles, a descriptive statistical exploration was undertaken of the staff composition and employment conditions captured within the administrative datasets reported on academic staff by all the public universities in the devolved nations of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales from 2015 to 2020. The findings of this study confirmed: (i) the continuation of gendered inequalities across the academic hierarchy, particularly as the pyramid narrows to the assigned intellectual leadership position of 'professor'; (ii) racialised, gendered inequalities in access to employment, and in positioning once employed; and (iii) more adverse conditions where gendered, racialised and geopolitical inequalities intersect, most extremely for Black African female academics. The study demonstrates that the centring of 'race' and consideration of nationality are required to challenge coloniality, and to bring to the fore the differential impacts of systems of discrimination within this globally influential sector.

This paper represents a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles which included reports of parental dis/satisfaction about their child's autism spectrum disorder (ASD) assessment and diagnoses. Five themes emerged which are visualised in evidence maps: country comparisons of parental dis/satisfaction; factors which enhanced satisfaction; barriers which prohibited satisfaction; differences in national diagnostic methodology; and the chronology of diagnoses across countries. Evidence gaps indicate the lack of unified approaches to the diagnostic process; underrepresentation of such research showing a geographical spread; a lack of unified approaches to the diagnostic process; and where a significantly higher reporting of dissatisfied outcomes was documented. Results indicate that higher parental dissatisfaction is linked to those whose children had undergone the ASD diagnostic process, and those experiencing negative cultural stigmas prior to, or throughout, their child's ASD diagnosis.