Addressing Racial, Economic and Educational Inequalities through the OSUN University Network: Difference between revisions

To facilitate the dialogue process, a Triggering Question2 was formulated as “What initiatives/ac- tions could the communities of faculty/staff/students around the Open Society University Network take that would contribute towards narrowing racial, economic, and educational inequalities?” The Triggering Question and the goal of the process were communicated to all participants one week before the initial online Co-Lab virtual session. In response to this question, the participants put forth 40 proposals of initiatives/actions capable of addressing the challenge. Using a bottom-up clustering approach, the participants identified 10 “dimensions”. Community Building was the most common dimension that appeared in 8 actions, to be followed closely by Funding and Schol- arships and Accessible Education (each with 5 actions). Raising Awareness appeared in 4 actions closely followed by Admissions and Outreach, Educational Resources and Support, Democracy, Advocacy and Human Rights, and Employment Opportunities each of which appeared in 3 actions. Following a selection of ideas using preference voting, the participants used Interpretive Structural Modeling to explore whether one idea could support another, thus constructing a tree of influences.

Out of the 40 ideas generated, the influence tree revealed that those that one should give priority (because they leverage on others) included projects, proposed by students themselves, that would directly benefit disadvantaged students and that could be implemented rapidly and at low cost:

The “Academic research resources” proposal addressed the lack of availability to disadvantaged students of many of the academic resources open to students at the founding OSUN institutions. Individual colleges in many countries may face issues relating to library and administrative logistics and/or cost. This idea proposed that OSUN make the same level of educational resources at the Central European University available to all students in the Network. The proposal requesting the removal of IELTS, GRE and other entrance testing methods for OSUN candidates was based on the belief that such entrance testing methods put additional and unnecessary difficulties in the way of disadvantaged students wishing to apply to OSUN.

The next set of proposed projects were predominantly proposed by the academic participants. They include topics that could increase the attractiveness of OSUN education to a wider group of cohorts, but would be more costly to implement and included:

The ideas that made it to the final phase were scored for Impact, Feasibility, and Probability of happening without intentional intervention. Ideas with a significant impact but low probability to be implemented without active intervention should be given priority. The analysis pinpointed to: “#29: Anti-bias training”, “#31: Kindergarten for Young Mothers”, “#3: Curricular flexibility”, “#13: Friendly environment for students with disabilities”, “#20: Early Colleges pipelines”, and “#38: OSUN fund- ed student leader scholars programs”. When the perceived feasibility was also taken into account, the analysis indicated that “#29: Anti-bias training has average feasibility, “#3: Curricular flexibility”, ”#13: Friendly environment for students with disabilities”, and “#38: OSUN funded student leader scholars programs” are both high priority and quite feasible, while “#31: Kindergarten for Young Mothers” and “#20: Early Colleges pipelines” have high priority but their feasibility is more chal- lenging.