Search results

Literature on the board diversity of Islamic banks (IB) found limited knowledge of the “deep-level” attribute. This study aims to explain the impact of the board diversity attributes (education levels, educational backgrounds and the interactions between these two attributes of diversity) on profitability.

The research sample is 37 fully flagged IBs from five Southeast Asian countries, covering nine years (2010–2019). Data were analyzed using the two-step system generalized moment (2SYS-GMM) method.

We found that the cognitive conflict between the board of directors (BOD) and the Shariah Supervisory Board (SSB), which has heterogeneity in its education level and educational background, positively affects profitability. These results reinforce the resources dependence theory (RDT) approach that having boards with heterogeneous characteristics is beneficial for IB.

The findings of this study would offer useful information for Islamic banking authorities to revise or formulate rules and guidelines and make a greater effort to implement corporate governance (CG) reform measures by determining educational level and background as a requirement to become a member of a BOD or an SSB.

This paper contributes in three ways: (1) we use the “deep-level” diversity attributes of the BOD and the SSB, (2) it focuses on cognitive conflict in boards by presenting the expertise diversity of the BOD and SSB and (3) we interact with the level of education to evaluate the effect of a cognitive conflict.

Numerous studies have provided evidence that interracial interaction can contribute to the development of leadership skills and behaviors for university students. Yet, little empirical research has been dedicated to understanding the effects of structural (compositional) racial diversity within leadership programs on program participant outcomes. This study examined the impact of the structural racial diversity of 50 leadership program sessions on student leadership capacity gains over time. A total of 667 participants in sessions coded as either “High,” “Moderate,” or “Low” with regard to racial diversity within the session served as the sample. Results from data collected immediately prior to, directly after, and 3-4 months after program participation suggest the training effects of a leadership initiative may be augmented by the recruitment of racially diverse participants.

This paper aims to ascertain whether and to what degree universities are becoming organizational actors globally. Utilizing an original dataset of a sample of 500 globally oriented universities, we explore how universities have increasingly become organizational actors as is the case of American universities. We consider the following indicators of university transformation into organization actors: development or institutional advancement, diversity or inclusion, legalization, and internationalization goals and structures. We find that these globally oriented universities have created international, development, and legal offices. Surprisingly, nearly half of the universities in our sample also have diversity offices. These “getting organized” indicators are somewhat similar to what holds for American universities, suggesting that there is globalization of organizational actorhood among universities. At the same time, however, we find that there are pronounced regional differences, especially when it comes to organizing around diversity and legal affairs.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how Ontario principals make sense of difference within student populations and how this sensemaking influences how they do their work.

The paper reports on a qualitative study in Ontario, Canada that included 59 semistructured interviews with school principals from English public, secular school districts in Southern Ontario.

Four themes emerged in principals’ descriptions of student populations: perceiving everyone as the same, or homogeneous; perceiving visible differences associated with particular religions, race and cultures; perceiving invisible or less visible differences, such as academic differences, socioeconomic status, mental health issues, gender identity and sexual orientation; and perceiving both visible and less visible differences through an inclusive lens. When asked about how their understanding of difference influenced how they did their work, principals’ responses varied from not influencing their work at all to influencing practices and activities. Participants’ context – both personal and local – influenced some of the work they did in their role as school principal. Lastly, multiple sources of disconnect emerged between how principals understood difference and the practices that they engage in at their school site; between their sensemaking about difference and diversity and preparing students for the twenty-first century competencies as global citizens; and between principals’ understanding of difference and diversity and existing provincial policy.

Study insights not only contribute to an existing body of literature that examines principals’ sensemaking around difference, but also extend this line of inquiry to consider how this sensemaking influences their professional practice. These findings pose additional research questions about how to approach principal professional learning for inclusive and equitable education. For example, even though principals are contractually responsible for students in their care, why is it that their efforts toward equitable and inclusive schooling appear to be limited to the school site and not the wider community?

Study findings can be used to inform principal preparation programs and professional learning opportunities. Namely, these programs should provide the skill development required as well as the time needed for principals to reflect on their local context and beliefs, and to consider how their local context and beliefs are connected to larger societal efforts to create a more inclusive and equitable society.

School leadership is integral to creating and building more inclusive and equitable public education that improves all students’ success at school. As Ontario’s general population becomes increasingly diverse, it is imperative that principals support success for all students; this can only happen if they understand the complexity of difference within their student populations and beyond, how to address these complexities and how their own understandings and beliefs influence their leadership practices.

Although other papers have examined how principals make sense of difference and diversity in student bodies, this paper also explores how this sensemaking influences how school leaders do their work.

The purpose of this paper is to adopt a holistic diversity lens with the aim to enhance the understanding of the multifaceted paradigms for diversity management at the tertiary level.

This contribution takes the inspiration of existing diversity paradigms used in business settings and relates them to higher education. It then articulates them in greater depths in line with the diversity segments of the so-called higher education awareness for diversity wheel and seeks a common denominator that may be shared across disciplines by adding an eclectic and context-specific approach.

It was identified that the underlying assumptions which constitute the commonly known diversity paradigms are only partially applicable for the tertiary level. It is further suggested that in view of the highly dynamic kaleidoscope of higher education institutions, multiple, at times conflicting rationales for diversity management need to be addressed.

This paper seeks to address the paucity of studies with regard to diversity management at the tertiary level. By drawing on relevant paradigms and relating them to specific diversity segments, this study intends to make a meaningful scholarly contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

The aspects of global citizenship, education and diversity are framing a paradigm that encapsulates how education can develop the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes of learners needed for securing a world which is more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable. The determination of students’ attitudes toward global citizenship education and diversity is a phenomenal issue of the past several decades. This study aims to develop an attitude scale to quantify the attitudes of students, the content of courses and instructors toward global citizenship education and diversity.

In this study, the factor structure and internal consistency of “Global Citizenship Education and Diversity Scale” (GCEDS) were analyzed, and validity and reliability of the scale were assessed. Two sample groups of participants were used in the assessment of the scale. The first sample group (exploratory factor analysis group) was composed of 147, and the second group (confirmatory factor analysis [CFA] group) was composed of 257 undergraduate students from three different large public universities in Turkey.

CFA confirmed the structure that emerged in the explanatory factor analysis. In this context, “GCEDS” is a valid and reliable scale.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the scholarship of diversity, equity and inclusivity in higher education. The focus is to advance an understanding of the issues concerning student admissions and access in higher education. The paper will contribute to the debate on student admissions and access in higher education. Among others, the author argues that in the context of higher education, access has different meanings.

This paper is conceptual in approach and draws from extant literature and the review was used in compiling the paper. Interpretivist approach was used in understanding the topic. Relying on capabilities approach (CA) as a lens in understanding student admissions and access the author argues that higher Education Institutions should consider opportunities (capabilities) for all students to live the lives that they have reason to value (valued functionings). CA works from the premise that human beings share universal capabilities and students’ life can be fulfilling if given the opportunity to exercise their capabilities by universities.

Universities can rely on students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status and students’ disabilities in admitting them. Diversity characteristics can be used as a tool to ensure the heterogeneity of the student population or as an unfair advantage given to students who might otherwise be deemed inadmissible on the basis of their academic or test performance. Factors such as changing demographics, public policy, institutional practices and marketing techniques seem to have a subtle influence on the process of admission. Students may experience challenges because of the “invisibility” of their disabilities due to a breakdown in communication within higher education systems.

The paper relied on literature review only and this is its limitation. Literature review may have been influenced by selection bias of the author and is likely to include only those sources that are most consistent with the author’s personal opinion. Selection bias can arise when the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review are not clearly stated and that might bias the findings.

Admission officials in higher education institutions are expected to conduct a diversity needs assessment before admissions with the aim of using the data to identify student population. The needs assessment can look at aspects such as the students’ racial and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status and students’ disabilities to ensure access and success of all students.

Inequities around access and admission for diverse groups of students in higher education are a reality worldwide. There is a worldwide trend within countries to see universities as contributors to economic growth, and many institutions are now increasingly attuned to the money economy. A student’s decision to apply on where to study may be influenced by the reputation of the institution.

This concept is relative and has different meanings depending on the nature of the work in question. The paper was compiled through literature review, all the sources used have been acknowledged, and the paper conveys the thoughts, interpretations and ideas of the author.

The aim of this article is to provide Dr Bailey Jackson's perspective on institutional and systemic barriers to full inclusion of diverse faculty in higher education through the lens of the multicultural organizational development (MCOD) model. Dr Jackson is renowned for his work on social justice, diversity and multiculturalism.

This is a personal interview with Dr Bailey Jackson. This interview provides insight on institutional level change efforts through the MCOD framework, a perspective on why institutions get stuck on the way to becoming healthy multicultural institutions, and the effect on moving the needle on faculty diversity in institutions of higher education.

The institutional obstacles and barriers tend to be centered around misalignment with the mission, vision and core values, and how those are formulated to include diversity and inclusion. Faculty diversity is only one component in dealing with the health of any organization or the academy as a whole. If institutions focus on diversity faculty in an unhealthy system, they will encounter limitations on how much the institution will develop on the MCOD continuum. The health of the overall system is going to affect the approach to faculty diversity.

Dr Jackson provides insight on his work with the MCOD framework and specifically the overall health of the institution as critical to faculty diversity initiatives. Questions to help institutions begin to assess themselves and identify changes required to move toward Multicultural within the context of faculty diversity are provided.

Through a series of questions, insight from Dr Jackson on why institutions get stuck in moving the needle on faculty diversity through the lens of the MCOD framework is gained.

Integrative leadership theories are thriving in the literature, yet very few studies have explored individual characteristics of integrative leadership and conditions that may promote individuals’ integrative leadership orientation. In particular, little is known about the factors that may promote undergraduate college students’ development of an orientation toward integrative leadership, although many colleges and universities are charged with developing future leaders to tackle grand societal challenges. The purpose of this study was to examine higher education institutions’ contributions to college students’ civic engagement and multicultural competence as well as the relationships between these contributions and students’ development of an integrative leadership orientation. Using a multi-institutional survey of college seniors (n = 5,922), the results of this study suggest institutional efforts to develop students’ multicultural competence and civic engagement are positively associated with undergraduate students’ development of an integrative leadership orientation.