How can we remove barriers to placements, and help to address awarding gaps between graduates of different ethnicities?

Data from the Faculty of Technology at the University of Portsmouth suggests a strong, positive correlation between completing a year-long undergraduate industrial placement and student/graduate outcomes. Also, for those completing a placement, there appears to be a narrowing (and in some instances eliminating or reversing) of awarding gaps between our People of the Global Majority (PGM) and white graduates.

As such, it can be considered that the placement offering is having an impact on addressing the inequitable outcomes for our students based on ethnicity. However, during a recent Faculty of Technology event, we also presented data which highlighted a disparity in the proportion of students securing a placement, based on ethnicity. Therefore the very beneficial opportunity of a placement is more likely to be experienced by a white student than a PGM student in the Faculty. This calls into question whether our current placements offering is helping to address inequitable outcomes or is contributing to them.

The charette model

At the event, which also outlined the external Office for Students’ drivers and the University’s Access and Participation Plan, we followed the charette model developed by Dr Harriet Dunbar-Morris to specifically address a key university objective to address awarding gaps between graduates of different ethnicities. The model focuses on what happens in teaching spaces and curricula, and is an excellent way to bring staff and students together, concentrate on bespoke and tailored changes at course and subject level, and work with student ambassadors in a focused way to deliver outcomes.

Using this model, tables of academics, students and professional services staff undertook some root cause analyses, then worked through three separate tasks, supported by a paper pro-forma. These tasks were to develop ideas as to how the barriers to placements that our PGM students faced could be addressed; either by changing the ways we work as an institution with our students, changing how we work with local employers, or other suggestions. 

Each table of six participants then gave a two-minute elevator pitch of their top intervention to the rest of the room, followed by voting to find the overall top idea which received a prize. 

Intervention suggestions

The event generated 66 suggestions: 26 Employer-Focused Interventions; 27 Student Placement and Employability Centre (SPEC) and  Student-Focused Interventions; and 13 Alternatives to Placements Interventions.

• Employer-focused interventions

Some interventions were aimed at addressing unconscious biases of placement recruiters in various ways, alongside work to highlight the disparities observed in recruitment patterns. Others suggested more engagement between local employers and minoritised ethnicity students prior to placement recruitment through mentoring, short work-based experiences and sponsorships. Two examples of employer-focused interventions were to encourage them to cover travel costs, and relocation costs for students, as these financial costs are believed to be a barrier to students engaging with all stages of the process. Audits and checklists, EDI training to employers, and awards recognising excellence and best practice in inclusive recruitment processes were also proposed.

• Student Placement and Employability Centre and student-focused interventions

A number of suggestions were framed around confidence-building and better preparing students for placement interviews. One idea was “Graduate GetUp”, which looked to provide a borrowable stock of suits, ties, and other professional clothing for students to wear at interviews, alongside more practical tips and checklists for interviews. Another was to offer enrichment activities for students during consolidation weeks of relevant year groups. This would help address the extra-curricular gaps on CVs that might exist between more advantaged and disadvantaged students, and would be targeted and supported to ensure take-up by those who would benefit most. A number of initiatives were explored to help address the lack of relatable role models in placement marketing. “I can’t be what I can’t see” was one suggestion in this area, to make sure that marketing and publicity materials represent the diversity of students. Others looked to our returning placement students to mentor and act as role models for first and second-year students.

• Alternatives to placements interventions

As alternatives to year-long placements, a few groups suggested offering a guaranteed year abroad (Turing/Erasmus type arrangement) for students who had engaged with the placement application process but were not successful, as a way of both boosting engagement in placement applications and providing an alternative, positive, enrichment experience over the sandwich year to those undertaking a placement. Others discussed greater university recognition of the many alternative ways that students engage with employers throughout their studies, including industrially-based final-year projects, shorter summer placements, and volunteering and engagement with university clubs or societies.

Next steps

So what are the next steps? All initiatives have been shared with SPEC in the Faculty of Technology and with the central university placements lead. The interventions that appear to be relatively easy to implement and have high impact will be prioritised, but none of the ideas forgotten. SPEC will work with myself and colleagues to see how many of the initiatives can be put in place for the next academic year and to create a plan for the development of other high impact, but harder to implement, initiatives.

Author: Dr Lee Woods is Associate Dean for Students in the Faculty of Technology at the University of Portsmouth.