a report on the social justice, equality, diversity and ... files/rep112 web.pdf · a report on the...

A report on the Social Justice, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion audit of the British Psychological Society

© The British Psychological Society 2017

The British Psychological SocietySt Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTelephone 0116 254 9568 Facsimile 0116 247 0787E-mail [email protected] Website www.bps.org.ukIncorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

If you have problems reading this document and would like it in a different format, please contact us with your specific requirements.

Tel: 0116 252 9523; E-mail: [email protected].

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 3

Full report .............................................................................................................................. 4

Part 1: Getting started .................................................................................................... 4

Initial project information ............................................................................................. 4

Formulation of the audit ................................................................................................ 5

Finalising the project ...................................................................................................... 5

Developing the audit materials ...................................................................................... 6

Choosing & accessing participants ................................................................................ 6

Part 2: Carrying out the audit ......................................................................................... 8

Social Justice Task Force meeting January 2016 .......................................................... 8

Analysis & presentation at LDP ..................................................................................... 8

Total response rate ......................................................................................................... 9

Part 3: Analysis & findings .............................................................................................. 10

Method of analysis ................................................................................................................. 10

Audit results .................................................................................................................... 10

Policy ............................................................................................................................... 10

Broad aims ...................................................................................................................... 10

Specific activities ............................................................................................................ 11

Motivation/rationale for activity ................................................................................... 13

Obstacles ......................................................................................................................... 14

Success ............................................................................................................................ 15

Part 4: Reporting & what next? ...................................................................................... 18

Perceptions of the audit ................................................................................................. 18

Social Justice Task Force meeting April 2016 ............................................................... 18

Limitations of the audit .................................................................................................. 19

Disseminating the findings more widely ....................................................................... 20

Key deliverables & possible future deliverables ........................................................... 21

Authors ............................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix one: First SJEDI Questionnaire .......................................................................... 22

Appendix two: Call-out emails ............................................................................................. 25

Appendix three: Second SJEDI Questionnaire – Questback ............................................. 28

A report on the Social Justice, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion audit of the British Psychological Society 1

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to:

– Dr Gene Johnson & Dr Roxane Gervais (DOP) for their welcome and personal investment in the BPS Leadership Development Programme 2015–2016;

– Professor Kate Bullen & Professor Peter Kinderman for their contribution and steady support as project sponsors;

– Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes for his championing of the project;

– Social Justice Task Force (SJTF) for their constructive feedback and commitment to the cause;

– Janet Vaughan, Lisa Morrison Coulthard, Helen Clark, Andrea Finkel-Gates, and other employees of the BPS who helped along the way;

– and not least to the Member Network Chairpersons and/or nominated Lead Persons who completed the questionnaire, and who volunteer considerable time and resources to their work within the organisation.

Dr Neha Malhotra, C.Psychol., HCPC Registered Counselling PsychologistTasim Martin-Berg, C.Psychol., AFBPsS, HCPC Registered Counselling PsychologistDr Simon Toms, MSc, PhD, C.Psychol, CSci, AFBPsS

2 A report on the Social Justice, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion audit of the British Psychological Society


Executive summary

Introduction In line with an increasing focus within the British Psychological Society (BPS) on social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion (SJEDI), this audit was carried out to identify the policies adopted, and initiatives undertaken, by the Member Networks within the BPS. Whilst it was known that the considerable membership base of the organisation conducted numerous activities within this field, it was acknowledged that a central resource to identify and record the quantity, breadth, and successes reflected in these activities did not exist. This audit was conducted as part of a BPS Leadership Development Programme (LDP) group project, by a team of three chartered psychologists.

Method A survey consisting of seven questions designed to gather information regarding policies, experiences and activities undertaken by BPS Member Networks was developed. The audit questionnaire was brief and adhered to ethical standards identified by the BPS. Chairpersons of each of the 39 Member Networks were approached via email to complete the survey, which included asking them to sign up to an email discussion list and to consider whether they were willing to be interviewed in future.

Findings The audit obtained an eventual response rate of 59 per cent, providing investigators with a significant amount of data to assess. The resulting thematic analysis identified the eight broad themes of Policy, Broad Aims, Specific Activities, Obstacles, Success, Awareness of Other Groups’ Activities, and Perceptions of the Audit. These generally reflect the questions that were asked, however various sub-categories were also identified and represented in the results.

Conclusions The audit findings confirm that BPS Member Networks are engaged in and committed to numerous activities related to social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion. The existence of this resource, as a new body of knowledge, facilitates further exploration into the SJEDI work and practices that our members engage in. This document could be considered as a step towards the BPS’ strategic goal for a unified policy and approach to SJEDI across the society, and to the benefit of all populations our members work with.

Limitations Several limitations were noted over the course of the auditing process. Concerns around how the terms ‘social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion’ were defined and grouped were noted, along with the potential for respondents to misrepresent or inflate the level of work conducted in their group. Whilst 59 per cent represents a respectable response rate for a survey of this kind, it could be concluded that the resulting findings would not necessarily represent each of the Member Networks present in the BPS. Related to this is whether the numerous informal groups within the Member Networks received the request for participation from their parent Network, as this was the only route of access within the organisation.


Full report Part 1: Getting started

Initial project informationThis audit of social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion (SJEDI) work within the BPS was developed as a group project, carried out by participants of the BPS Leadership Development Programme (LDP) 2015–2016. The LDP is a year-long training programme in leadership, and is developed, co-ordinated and delivered by members of the Division of Occupational Psychology (DOP). This year, for the first time, applications for the LDP were open to both DOP and the Division of Counselling Psychology (DCoP) members, and this inter-divisional funding and relationship is intended to continue in the future. Project work is an integral part of this leadership training, with both an individual project at Divisional level and a group project at the wider BPS organisational level, being completed by participants. These projects usually arise as a result of Divisional and/or organisational strategic aims or future planning goals.

In May 2015 the original project title our group was tasked with was ‘Develop and implement equality and diversity aspects of the Governance Review’. Our assigned sponsors were Professor Peter Kinderman (BPS President Elect at the time of the project) and Professor Kate Bullen (BPS Ethics Committee Chair & Social Justice Task Force (SJTF) Chair at the time of the project).

We had many questions at this early stage, including:

What is the Governance Review? What are the equality and diversity aspects? Where are they in the BPS strategic plan? How is equality and diversity monitored within the BPS? How do other organisations do this? What does representation mean? How do we do it? Who are we representing, and who aren’t we? Should everyone be represented? How do we decide who should be if not? How does this relate to legal requirements for charitable organisations? How does this compare to business organisations? Higher education? Are we compliant with good practice in relation to equality and diversity aspects? Rather than being legally compliant, can we improve our performance? What should we do differently? How can we provide a useful input into this mix? Could the LDP group project take on a specific aspect of an audit perhaps? What are BPS Divisions currently working on in relation to equality and diversity aspects of the BPS?

As a first step, we approached several representatives from our existing networks to ascertain what the Governance Review of the BPS was, and were directed to the Membership and Governance Manager. She informed us that the Governance Review was a systematic check that the BPS operated in ways that honoured the Society’s Royal Charter, and that it fulfilled its objectives as stated. She told us that there was little to be read from the Charter itself about equality and diversity, even through inference, and that perhaps this was not the most valuable avenue to pursue.


Formulation of the auditFollowing further discussions with our sponsor, who shared her insight in this area given the positions she holds within the BPS, we began to shape up a possible relevant and distinct group project. Through these discussions, it became apparent that, despite instinctively knowing that Member Networks were actively engaged in equality, diversity, and inclusion activities, the BPS possessed no specific record of the precise activities that were being undertaken.

We shared ideas at this stage about a possible group project focus: we could review whether BPS accredited training programmes were acting in accordance with legislation around equality, diversity and inclusion; we could explore whether equality, diversity and inclusion policies and practices were being used by the BPS as an employer, and/or develop these; or indeed we could audit processes across the organisation in relation to existing baseline legal requirements? All these proposals would support our intention that as a group of psychologists, we wished to set examples and develop processes that far exceed the legal baseline for equality, diversity and inclusion standards.

We realised that in order to understand the context within which any of the above activities could be carried out, we needed to identify and know more about current initiatives and work being undertaken within the BPS relating to social justice, equality, diversity, and inclusion.

An audit of this very nature was planned for the future, to build on work carried out by the BPS Lead Policy Advisor. In addition to this, the SJTF were soon to be making a request to the trustees to fund a full-time paid member of staff to take up much of the day to day organising of activities and investigations relating to equality, diversity and inclusion. With this awareness, we considered that the greatest need centred around knowing what BPS members are doing, and how they are meeting those challenges in their individual contexts, within the wider organisation.

Finalising the projectWe realised that an audit of Member Networks, and accredited training programmes, and/or any other aspect of the BPS would be too large scale to conduct.

As a small group on a limited timescale (approximately 9 months) with limited resources, we wanted our project to be feasible and constructive. Through further discussion within our professional networks for guidance and advice, it was suggested that this was perhaps not as large a task as initially believed, and therefore we decided to conduct an audit of just the Member Networks in the BPS in relation to their social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion activities.

We were clear about choosing to audit Member Networks, as this is the membership base of the BPS in which the majority of individuals associated with the organisation fall within. We were also clear about having a distinct task and one or more identifiable deliverables on order to meet the requirement of the Leadership Development Programme. Lastly, we conceptualised that this was ‘phase one’ of a much larger and potentially on-going project, which we could remain involved in in the future if wanted.


This background work was essential in the development of our project, although it was time consuming, it contributed to our leadership development and on reflection, and we learned the value of ‘not jumping in too quickly’ when carrying out project work of this nature. In September 2015 we finalised the following formal audit question:

‘BPS Member Networks and Special Interest Groups are engaged in a range of activities in support of their members. What is the scope, and state of development, of social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion work across the Society?’

Developing the audit materialsDeveloping this audit entailed compiling a short questionnaire (Appendix 1) based on the above question and sending this to Chairpersons of the 39 formal BPS Member Networks for completion. As part of this we developed a ‘working understanding’ of the terms being used to put to the Member Networks. We debated a great deal on this because we recognise the need to critically consider the language we use and the grouping of terms. We wanted to ensure that our working understanding was broad enough to be relevant to, and include, all groups regardless of their level of activity in relation to social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion work. We recognise that this working understanding may raise issues in and of itself, and be open to criticism and debate. It cannot possibly convey the complexity and diversity within this area of interest itself, however we intended to provide an initial understanding and reference point from which to begin the audit. This can be found within Appendix 1.

The audit questionnaire was developed with the following in mind:

■ that the overall questionnaire not be too long i.e. six or seven questions maximum; ■ to ask about specific activities as well as what other initiatives within the BPS

participants were aware of; ■ asking participants to ‘opt-in’ to an online discussion list to be set up in the future; ■ to ask participants whether they would agree to be contacted for interview (a potential

future stage in the project); ■ ethical considerations such as consent, confidentiality and anonymity (BPS, 2009;

HCPC, 2016).

The questionnaire was finalised in October 2015.

Choosing & accessing participantsWe considered the Chairpersons of the Member Networks to be the most accessible and knowledgeable group in relation to social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion activities within the BPS and hence we targeted them initially. We noted that individual Chairpersons may not possess the requested knowledge, and suggested that if this was the case, that they pass this on to their nominated lead. This meant that the initial pool of participants was 39. We recognise that there are many tens of informal networks and interest groups within these Member Networks, however direct access to these groups is significantly limited. Therefore, we expected to see our questionnaire ‘trickle down’ to these groups from the Member Network Chairperson or the nominated lead within the network.


Having developed the audit questionnaire, we initially set about attempting to compile the email addresses for the Chairpersons of the Member Networks. We requested our own BPS email addresses to demonstrate that we were clearly operating under BPS auspices and with the full knowledge of our sponsors and the BPS as an organisation. These were granted, as was a delegated audit email address inbox that provided us all with joint access.

The Director of Member Services gave us considerable support with the process of accessing our participants, and navigating the data protection guidelines of the organisation. As we were unable to have access to the email addresses of the individual Member Network Chairpersons, this being our preference as it provided a more personal approach, we agreed to a generic email to Chairpersons being sent on our behalf. The Director of Member Services helped us to ensure that this group email was as personal as it could possibly be, in order to retain a sense of personal contact. We discussed the option of uploading the survey to Questback and decided that it may well take some time to arrange, and it is often best used for larger samples. As we had already constructed the word document, we agreed to go ahead with sending this to our participants as soon as possible.

Finally, in November 2015, the initial email was sent to all thirty-nine Member Network Chairpersons (Appendix 2). The email asked Chairpersons to opt in for an SJEDI notification email-list (or to nominate/forward the email to a SJEDI lead-person) thus receiving a questionnaire to complete. A four-week deadline for responses was suggested. This two-step process ensured that people had the chance to consent for participation via active opt-in.

Two weeks later, the Director of Member Services assisted us in sending a follow-up to remind Member Network Chairpersons to reply to our email and we attended to the email responses as they arrived. Twelve replies for inclusion on a messaging-list were received, all of whom were sent a questionnaire. By the time of the deadline, we had received three completed questionnaires.

One Chairperson replied to say they did not carry out such activity and therefore should they complete the questionnaire? We highlighted that this was vitally important information too and therefore they should definitely complete the questionnaire. They did so, and this brought the total response rate to four completed questionnaires.


Part 2: Carrying out the audit

Social Justice Task Force meeting January 2016In January 2016, NM attended the SJTF meeting and presented a summary of the project’s progress so far to those who attended, alongside the questionnaire document and a thematic summary of the four participant responses. It was agreed this was a poor response rate, and we ascertained that we had enough time to send a second email request.

The following suggestions by the SJTF and our sponsor were agreed:

■ Remove the two-step process and instead construct a Questback, as the active opt-in process may have contributed to the lack of responses;

■ It was suggested that Chairpersons may have perceived we were asking for their Member Network ‘SJEDI lead’ to respond, and certainly in the case of smaller Member Network groups, there was not likely to be a lead. If some Chairpersons believed that they did not need to respond as they had no discernable SJEDI lead, this may have reduced the number of responses. We agreed to clarify if there was no SJEDI lead, that the Chairperson complete the questionnaire on behalf of their Member Network;

■ Given the voluntary nature of much of the work within the BPS, it was suggested that our email sent via Director of Member Services’ office was likely to be lost in a long to-do-list of tasks and read as though it were a small project. To situate it more robustly as a BPS centralised, SJTF project could give it the gravitas it needed for people to respond;

■ It was suggested that the then serving BPS President, Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes, send out the second email, as prospective participants would hopefully recognise that this was a core project within the BPS and be inclined to complete the questionnaire.

As a result, our second audit email (Appendix 2) removed the two-step process, by including a Questback (Appendix 3) link and was emailed by JHH. The wording was re-worked to remind respondents that if there was indeed no ‘SJEDI lead’ then the Chairperson should complete the questionnaire, and that if no activity was undertaken this should also be reported. In addition, the wording tied more closely in with the BPS strategic objectives, the SJTF, and was therefore presented as a core business initiative within the BPS, rather than a small working-group project.

This resulted in a further seven completed questionnaires.

Analysis & presentation at LDPWe analysed the data from our 11 completed questionnaires, using thematic analysis and wrote a summary report that we presented to our colleagues as part of the final LDP training weekend. This final residential weekend includes time at the BPS offices in London with the then President, which meant we could share our data with JHH. As a personal champion of this project, he agreed with our disappointment at the response rate and we talked about the possibility of a third and final audit email request.

After quickly considering our resources and timeframe, given we had to complete certain


tasks prior to the SJTF meeting on the 8th of April 2016, we decided to go ahead with one last Questback email with a tight deadline for final responses to the audit. Again, the Director of Member Services kindly assisted in getting this developed and sent out via JHH, and we gave Member Network Chairpersons 12 days, including the Easter weekend, to respond.

This final email request yielded a further 12 completed questionnaires.

Total response rateThe response rate was 59 per cent, with 23 Member Networks completing the audit questionnaire. However, some Member Network Chairpersons passed on the questionnaire to smaller Working Groups within their Network to answer. As far as it was possible to ascertain, when this occurred, these Working Groups answered from the perspective of their Working Group, which may therefore not have reflected the wider Member Network. As such, the larger Member Network was also approached for comment when possible (e.g. DCoP and DOP). We considered it just as important to have these smaller Working Groups voices represented within the audit, particularly as often their work was specifically related to and/or representative of, issues related to social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion.


Part 3: Analysis & findings

Method of analysisThe audit questionnaire responses have been analysed in a thematic manner, looking at both the content of the SJEDI work that is being done, as well as exploring patterns of ideas, obstacles and successes. The structure of the resulting themes is loosely based upon the questions we put to participants. At this time, we believe this to be the most helpful and relevant way to group the information given in response to the key concepts explored by the audit.

We have anonymised the data presented in the responses as this is a necessary step in the audit, in line with ethical guidelines (BPS, 2009; HCPC, 2016).

Audit resultsOnce all questionnaire responses had been gathered into a single database, the group began the analysis phase. The considerable amount of data led the group to share the analysis between team members prior to writing up the findings. This division of information also enabled the group to assign an alternative team member to assess the process of analysis of individual participant responses within the final report write-up, therefore increasing the objectivity of the analysis. The findings of the eight main themes, and any emerging sub-categories, are presented below.

PolicyThe most notable finding in relation to policy was that two thirds of Member Networks did not possess their own specific policies. However, Member Networks instead sought to apply overarching British Psychological Society (BPS) policies in the contexts relevant to the pre-existing expertise of the Member Network in question. This approach often translated into various working practices that combined BPS-level guidance with Member Network-level knowledge and focus to reflect principles and values central to social justice, equality, diversity, and inclusion (SJEDI). One Member Network suggested that the reason they do not possess specific policies of their own was due to the fact that these areas were embedded within their everyday activities, as SJEDI was implicit and relevant to their focus as a group. As a result, many reported instances of activity and clearly benefited from the knowledge of individual members that had been derived from prior professional practice and BPS-generated activities. Several Member Networks have developed working group(s) with a focus on this work, whilst one Member Network has identified an inclusivity strategy, incorporating an inclusivity policy, specific to their Division. Another participant explicitly noted their Member Network’s policy citing the need for evidence-based and ethical support when addressing the focus of their group.

Broad aimsThe majority of the participants who took part in the audit did not identify specific policies that had been generated by, and enforced within, their own Member Network. However, a strong awareness of overarching BPS policy and values emerged from the survey responses,

A Report on the Social Justice, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Audit of the British Psychological Society 11

which in turn were often applied by Member Networks to the various ‘network-specific’ concerns. Numerous examples in various contexts were submitted, with focus ranging from the workplace, the BPS, and broader society.

WorkplaceSeveral Member Networks noted that guidance on issues directly relevant to the workplace was a broad aim of their Member Network. Offering support to workplaces engaging with neurodiverse adults on issues of good practice and the use of ethical and evidence-based psychological assessments was noted as a priority by one Member Network. Another outlined the broad aim of improving training and teaching on issues relating to diversity and ethnic origin in the context of psychometric testing. A further respondent described the need to encourage working practices that reflect feminist principles, including a commitment to equality, valuing diversity, and social justice.

BPSThe engagement and representation of the BPS was also discussed, with one participant identifying the composition of committees as a factor to consider when moving forward.Respondents also noted the importance of exploring how the BPS interacts with students and the general public. Examples of interaction ranged from individual member actions to events (e.g. conferences and forums), in which the BPS could engage with a variety of groups and individuals on the themes and issues encompassed within social justice, social inclusion, and equality. For one Member Network, such inclusivity practices extend to the engagement of members within their network, for example by allowing members to participate in meetings remotely as a form of equal access, in order to respect work and family life.

The Member Network with the developed inclusivity policy and strategy document identifies a number of objectives in line with equality legislation. The online resource provided guidance to support members in upholding the policy, alongside objectives coupled with specific and measureable evaluations to help assess performance and improvement on the topic.

SocietalSeveral overarching aims relevant to the audit’s focus were put forward at a societal level, which in turn would be used to guide specific actions of Member Networks. These included the call for working in solidarity and mutual respect alongside people experiencing marginalisation, disempowerment and oppression. The need to strive for social justice through dismantling societal barriers and constructing psychologically enabling contexts and practices was also identified. The aim of providing secure spaces to facilitate and encourage the challenge, exploration, and discussion of issues relating to race, culture, and diversity from both personal and professional perspectives was also noted.

Specific activitiesA wealth of specific activities are undertaken by BPS Member Networks with a focus on SJEDI matters. Some of these activities are developed and carried out by a single Member Network, and some are in collaboration with one another, or with another interested and aligned group or organisation, including non-BPS organisations. Several of the themes that focus on specific activities interrelate and/or overlap.


Raising awarenessAwareness-raising was described by several respondents, involving a range of different methods such as discussion and dialogue, research, public engagement and active social media presence. Examples of topics at the focus of awareness raising work include: a gendered understanding of psychology and how this intersects with other aspects of identity; race and its impact on professional practice; the psychological effects of migration; psychological topics that address inclusion and equality aimed at the general public and students; and neurodiversity within the workplace and Higher Education, for example.

Conference presenceRelated to this, raising awareness was very much considered an aspect of conference presence and presentation, with multiple conference activities across the BPS spectrum being noted by respondents. Conference themes and keynote speakers address a wide spectrum of SJEDI issues, and individual members contribute to a social justice agenda through their conference presentations and publications. Some Member Networks make use of their conference to gather international scholars, practitioners and activists together, and others raise awareness by establishing a visible presence of their own Member Network at different BPS Division, Section and Group conferences, described as ‘outreach presentations’.

Consultancy workConsultancy provided to government, commissioners and organisations is vitally important work and could be considered as awareness raising with a particular focus – informing policy, legislation and manifesto, the development of best practice and service provision, and the prevention of malpractice and injustice in relation to SJEDI matters. A number of respondents describe being involved in this area of work which also includes lobbying, commenting, developing strategic partnerships, participating in roundtable discussions, advising, leading, developing practice guidelines, conducting research and making research available.

Following a two-year period of consultation processes by an inclusivity working group and launch of an inclusivity strategy, one Member Network is soon to appoint a 2-day per week, inclusivity outreach champion.

Support for psychologistsSeveral SJEDI activities of Member Networks focused on supporting trainee and qualified psychologists themselves, such as those at risk of marginalisation within psychology departments, psychologists experiencing mental health difficulties, and financial support for trainees to present at conference. Development of members’ experience, practice and knowledge in relation to SJEDI concerns include supporting and subsidising BPS CPD programming and workshops, mentoring schemes, sponsorship of an International Fellowship Programme, and opportunities for discussion, the exchange of ideas, dialogue and reflection. Publications relating to this area of work include best practice guidelines, books, chapters, journal articles and systematic reviews. Multiple respondents described the development of a within-Member Network taskforce or working group/s with particular


areas of focus such as disability, neurodiversity and employment, Black and Asian psychologists, social justice, diversity and inclusion, for example. ‘Psychologists Against Austerity’ was noted as an inter-Member Network group that was supported by some individual respondents.

ResearchResearch focus was covered by several respondents in relation to SJEDI work. Examples include publishing research with this area of focus, supporting psychologists engaged in research at risk of marginalisation, CPD workshops e.g. participatory action research, exchanging ideas on research methods to address issues related to social justice, equality and inclusion, and conducting a systematic review on inclusive leadership. One group explicitly highlights the importance of emerging research in saying that a key commitment is to support early career researchers, academics and practitioners.

Collaboration with othersOne off collaborative events between Member Networks are examples of valuable and high impact activities that can be seen as leading in this area of work. Member Networks do this for the following reasons: with Higher Education establishments, in order to bring local community activists together, to co-host a high profile research intensive with a focus on the relationship between social media and a specific social justice concern, to co-produce training and processes for specific marginalised groups.

Public engagementOccasionally Member Network activities are organised to coincide with significant dates in the calendar, such as World Mental Health Day and International Women’s Day, which increase public engagement in SJEDI issues. Specific examples of this public engagement focused work include holding a public seminar designed to challenge discriminatory legislation at annual conference, holding open attendance, informal, local ‘talks’ on a psychological topic, and hosting annual psychology ‘festivals’ which are open to the public.

Having said all of this, nine of the total respondents reported very little or no activity related to social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion within their Member Network.

Motivation/rationale for activityParticipants of the audit identified several significant motivational drivers to the activities they described. Values, principles and professional purpose were identified as core motivational factors that underpin the work of Member Networks in relation to SJEDI. As with previous themes, the focus of participant responses frequently aligned with the focus of the Member Network they were representing, although the recurring topics of addressing knowledge, participation, and awareness arose most frequently. Motivation was typically focused upon achieving the various benefits associated with good practice in the topics identified by the audit, and these were typically sought through communication and education, both within the BPS, but also externally (e.g. employers, universities, and wider society).


BPSThe BPS-focused rationale for activity included the identification of various benefits resulting from greater discourse between branches and networks, along with the desire to encourage future division-level involvement from trainees. Consideration of an individual’s location, history, and culture was acknowledged as a goal of professional practice, as was the need to identify ways of conducting research with people instead of on them. Motives for activities also extended to external organisations, with responses noting the desire to address a lack of employer awareness through facilitating improved working practices and procedures. A related motive was the promotion of an evidence-based approach to encourage diversity and equality in the workplace, as it had been noted that concerned organisations were not always in touch with relevant academic research.

Wider societyA desire to bring the psychological benefits of SJEDI activities to wider society was identified by numerous respondents, with one respondent noting that motivation was built into psychologists’ professional purpose, and another stating: ‘how could we not do it!’ Broad motivating factors were described during the survey, with one example linked with the need for education informed and led by social justice issues that include social mobility, equality of gender, race, sexuality, religion, and inclusion of individuals with disabilities. Several core values were also shared throughout responses, including recognising the impact of systems and power dynamics on the experience of disempowerment, stigmatisation, marginalisation and prejudice, and challenging the status quo.

Variation between respondents relating to specific motives also existed in this societal context, but these were typically reflected in the focus of the Member Network represented by the participant. As one participant noted, motivation was driven by the passion, previous experience and knowledge, and prioritisation of interests of network group members. Some examples of more network-specific motivational drives included the aim of improving motivation and organisational frame through the application of feminist psychological principles, the need to address the economic and social participation of disabled adults, and acknowledgement of scarcity in the research exploring race and its intersectionality within the field.

ObstaclesMember Networks were asked what, if any, obstacles they had encountered whilst carrying out SJEDI work. A number of obstacles in relation to this work were identified, from none or few and extending to factors that can be broadly categorised into individual and organisational.

Limited resourcesSeveral respondents described limited resources as being the main obstacle they encountered. As is the nature of volunteering, there are many competing draws on committee members’ time and availability. So whilst there may be a considerable interest in a specific issue related to SJEDI, ensuring a workable taskforce in terms of actual numbers of individuals and time commitment is an ongoing challenge. Financial limitations


were noted several times, with one group noting that a social justice themed project did not receive support when tendering for funding as part of funding set aside for section initiatives. Also noted was lack of choice and practical resources (venue availability and suitability for example) when planning events. One respondent noted that pressures within the work context can result in their voluntary BPS work being a lower priority.

BPS bureaucracyDifficulties with BPS bureaucracy were noted by several Member Networks, including the organisational structure of the BPS and lack of intra-BPS pathways of support and communication, in particular being able to contact network members and getting the support needed to manage events and activities. Prevention and/or restriction of media contact by BPS head office on perceived social justice issues and exclusion is another example. The BPS was described as being risk averse. The need to have new groups approved by BPS trustees, and the length of time this takes, as well as having documents approved by PPB taking a long time were also seen as obstacles. The need to use the BPS events team for any chargeable events was seen as a disincentive, as well as the annual budget cycle being experienced as problematic. Finally, lack of a coherent BPS strategy or policy in devolved nations, leading to lack of clarity about authorisation to respond and lead as a committee, was also described as an obstacle.

Lack of awarenessLack of awareness and/or minimisation of issues related to, or aspects of, SJEDI work was noted as an obstacle by respondents. A lack of awareness in mainstream psychology, and in many individual psychologists themselves, and the minimisation of ‘race’ at a wider level was included in this theme, for example. Acknowledging that inequalities exist and need to be addressed was described as an obstacle to obtaining significant change at a wider organisational level.

DifferencesSeveral obstacles reported by Member Networks might be described as differences amongst individuals and groups involved in SJEDI work. For example accusations of not being critical enough, vested interests of individuals being in competition at times, or assumptions about a specific group as having all the answers due to their very existence. In addition, different groups may work at different paces, and evaluating progress in line with principles underlying the work, without reporting to a ‘tick-box mentality’, may be a difficulty.

SuccessRespondents were asked to describe successes and the impact of their SJEDI work, as well as their future aims. Broadly speaking, all current and on-going active work, with an emphasis on values informing thinking and activities, was seen as both successful and as future aims by most Member Networks. Some made an explicit note of their intention to carry on working towards meeting their aims and objectives in relation to this work, and this in itself was seen as a success. However, for one respondent this was a difficult question to answer as activities were seen as the work of Section members individually (‘champions’) rather than as a co-ordinated plan by the Section. For some, attendance at events and


feedback from attendees determined whether an activity was a success, and for others collaboration with allied psychologists was considered a marker of success. One Member Network reported the diversity of the attendees at meetings with regards to ethnic and work backgrounds, as a measure of success. Themes in relation to success in this area of work included:

Conference programming and presentationThe development of conferences, workshops and seminars with a focus on SJEDI issues are seen as highly successful and valued by Section committee members, broader academics and activists, and potentially, members of the public. Presentation at multiple and varied conferences by working groups and committee members, often in collaboration with colleagues, was noted as a success as well as an intention to continue with this work and represent collective expertise in the future. Organising conferences or public seminars that are specifically aimed at bringing a psychological perspective to bear on just, fair, inclusive practices within organisations and preventing malpractice are a notable success. If these result in, or contribute to, a change in legislation, service provision, accessibility, and practice then this could be evidence of success. Considering equality and diversity within conference and workshop programming and making this a priority in order to promote inclusion was seen as a success.

Impacting training/traineesAdvocating for the inclusion of race, culture and diversity within training programmes was noted, as was the need to promote inclusion by considering diversity and equality within training. Having a trainee on the committee with a specific trainee related role, in addition to building and maintaining relationships with other trainees was seen as successful, and an advantage for one Division.

Impacting practice and policyThe production and launch of an inclusivity strategy was a notable success of one Member Network and others highlighted the design and development of practice and assessment guidelines as a success, despite the long and ongoing process of their receiving formal BPS approval. Conducting literature reviews and achieving publication was seen as success. Being seen to impact discriminatory legislation, influence policy and actively disseminate the work of Member Networks locally and nationally was a success, as well as a future aim, as was involvement in important consultations. Having a lead member actively participating in events with the aim of disseminating the Network and Interest Group strategy was also seen as a success and a future aim, such as highlighting the need to recognise race with professional practice and personal development, for example.

Finally, eight respondents gave no response to this question, with one noting that they hoped something more formal would be created soon. For one Member Network reporting that success for specific projects was yet to be achieved, the fact that the current committee members held positive attitudes towards this area of work was seen as positive in and of itself.


Awareness of other Groups’ activitiesMember Networks were asked whether they were aware of any other groups, projects, or initiatives within the BPS that address issues related to SJEDI. Some awareness of other groups was identified, although this was more likely to be intra-divisional. The Division of Counselling Psychology (DCoP)’s Social Justice Network, and the Division of Occupational Psychology (DOP)’s Working Group on Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace, were the most cited. Additional groups (not all exclusive to BPS) cited included:

■ Former Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP) Race and Culture Faculty ■ Community Psychology Section ■ Psychology of Women Section ■ YoungWork Group ■ Learning Disability Group ■ Spirituality Group ■ Psychology of Sexualities Section ■ Psychologists Against Austerity ■ Division of Clinical Psychology ■ BPS Award for Equality of Opportunity ■ Presidential Taskforce on Refugees and Asylum Seekers ■ Transpersonal Psychology Section

A lack of awareness and clarity about general or specific BPS policies, practices, or initiatives that provide support to any social, ethnic, religious, or other minorities protected under the 2010 Equality Act was noted by two respondents, and several respondents answered no/gave no answer.


Part 4: Reporting & what next?

Perceptions of the auditAll respondents were given the opportunity at the end of the survey to provide additional comments relating to the topics outlined by the process, and many participants took this opportunity to give voice to their perceptions of the audit.

PositivesThe perceptions of the audit reported by participants were broadly positive, with one participant regarding it as essential at both Member Network and BPS levels. Various responses also voiced optimism towards the BPS’s role in the topics relating to the audit, with encouragement generated by a recent blog post by the BPS president (2015–2016) and the possibility of adopting equal opportunities monitoring within the Member Networks.

The potential opportunity for the BPS to represent a major force in relation to SJEDI was identified, but it was also noted that for it to fulfil this objective, improvement was required in aspects including its public image and relationship with other professional organisations. Responses called for focus on developing policies and practices that address societal inequalities and reflect the core values of the BPS, whilst acknowledging that resulting activities should be enacted in a co-ordinated, coherent and collaborative manner through the Member Networks. Whilst noting the knowledge and resources of the BPS, another participant cited the organisation’s apparent disconnect from local policies and practices relating to the audit’s topics.

ConcernsSeveral participants of the survey made use of the opportunity to voice concerns relating to the topics of the audit, as well as the audit itself. In the case of the latter, attention was drawn to the methodology of the audit, specifically in relation to the relatively broad grouping of terms (i.e. SJEDI). The call for nuance also extended to the profession, with one response outlining the need to acknowledge diversity without solely focusing upon protected characteristics.

Concern was also voiced in relation to the activities of the BPS, including a call for the work to address unconscious bias within the organisation and its volunteer members. One respondent highlighted the need for individual ‘champions’ to lead and motivate activities, whilst another participant called for a realistic approach to what could be achieved after describing wariness for ‘rushing in’ to another lengthy initiative when volunteer time was limited.

Social Justice Task Force meeting April 2016At the SJTF meeting in April 2016 the findings of the audit were reported as a summary to attendees. It was noted that the content of activities being undertaken in relation to social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion work within the BPS was as had been suspected, it was also made clear that no-one knew for sure, as this information had not been previously


recorded (which was a motive for us in the development of the project). As a result, our work was identified by the SJTF members as being hugely valuable.

The obstacles to doing this work, as described by respondents, highlighted to the SJTF the need for the inclusivity officer. They are keen to now approach the Trustees with this request, and using the audit data as evidence in support of this request being agreed.

Limitations of the auditThroughout the audit report thus far we have identified places in which we could have approached the task differently. In this section we aim to bring these concerns together into a coherent narrative.

DefinitionsOne early difficulty we encountered was the defining of terms in a manner that would be accessible and coherent to the participants whom would respond to the questions. This meant that whilst some Member Networks had specific social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion foci, and potentially had engaged with defining terms previously, there may well be others who had not considered these forms of enquiry previously. We were keen to be as neutral as possible on any discourse relating to this topic, as the collection, collation, and presentation of information represented the primary goal for the audit.

As such, we developed a ‘working understanding’ to inform the purpose of the audit. We recognise that there is contention amongst theorists and academics in this area and this was a point put to us by at least one participant. They felt strongly that the broad grouping of terms: social justice; equality; diversity; inclusion; as well as grouping of protected characteristics and beyond, was too broad. For them, this understandably meant that the nuances and complexities of specific factors could be overlooked.

Understandably for some groups one particular characteristic may well feature highly for them, as this is the premise for their work. We recognise that even a definition that is well thought out and highly considered may still lack the capacity to encapsulate all the nuances within this area. One suggestion as a result of the meeting with SJTF in April was that a discussion forum regarding terms and definitions may be possible at the annual BPS conference.

Those that did not respond did not have their work representedThe audit did not generate responses from all formal Member Networks, not least from all of the working groups and special interest groups within them. Whilst this is understandable for a variety of reasons, it means that those that did not respond did not have their views taken into consideration as part of this report, nor was the activity they are engaged in or aware of represented.

Part of this may be that some Member Networks did not feel that they had anything noteworthy to report. We communicated that it was equally important for the purpose of the audit to record results where groups could not elaborate on any activity undertaken or policy adopted beyond central BPS guidance. There were a small number of Member Networks who did respond and gave such an indication.


Self-report biasIt may be argued that those groups for whom social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion work features strongly as part of their core premise, were more likely to respond to such an audit. Not only does this mean that the data may well be skewed to appear as though a great deal of activity is occurring, but that it may only be occurring in small groups who are perceived to be active in this area by virtue of their name or advertised remit.

In addition to this, if the data is being provided by either a lead or a Chairperson of a Member Network, it is possible that unintentionally, activity and consideration of SJEDI issues is inflated by the audit. It may also be possible that these Member Networks are indeed very active, yet their members may not perceive them to be as active because their work is not disseminated down to the members.

Trickle down samplingOne obstacle the group faced was obtaining access to the most relevant participant to give the information we were asking for. We could only communicate with the Chairpersons and/or secretaries of formal Member Networks. The hope (and explicit instruction) was that the audit questionnaire would be passed on to colleagues who administer smaller Working Groups or Special Interest Groups within the formal Member Network, so that their SJEDI work was also recorded. We know this happened in some cases, however it was a small number.

It is also recognised that these smaller working groups and special interest groups may well be specific in their focus, or even somewhat more transient than the formal Member Networks, and as such this makes them even more difficult to reach.

Challenges of reaching the right people/another task to commit to doLinked to the previous limitation, despite approaching the gatekeepers to formal Member Networks, it was often the case that these were not the individuals with sufficient intricate knowledge of the SJEDI work carried out within their group. As such, we needed to rely upon these individuals to pass the request on to a more informed nominee.

We recognise that particularly for the smaller BPS Member Networks, there are a small number of volunteers within these groups that participate in the tasks required to maintain its operations. As such, this request may have been another task to complete delegated to one person, amongst a longer list of other tasks. This is the nature of voluntary work; there are competing priorities vying for the free time that individuals are willing to commit to their participation within the organisation.

Disseminating the findings more widelyIn relation to disseminating the findings of the audit to the BPS membership, a publication in The Psychologist is being considered. Additionally, an academic publication may be sought, with a theoretical perspective being incorporated (the groundswell in society more broadly, or the idea of learned bodies as agents of social change, or from a perspective of ‘theory of change’ for example). Making use of social media to disseminate findings to Member Networks would be a further effective way to report. In addition to these suggestions, we would like to make a conference presentation at the BPS Annual Conference in 2017.


Key deliverables & possible future deliverables ■ Summary report to the Leadership Development Programme and Social Justice Task

Force (8/4/16) ■ Full written report to Membership Standards Board (9/5/16) and Ethics Board

(20/5/16) ■ Dissemination to BPS members e.g. social media ■ Publication in The Psychologist (Summer 2016) ■ Future phase/s of the audit project (Summer 2016/Autumn 2016) ■ Academic paper (Winter 2016/Spring 2017) ■ BPS Annual conference presentation (April 2017) ■ Wider dissemination e.g. The Conversation

AuthorsThis audit was carried out by:

Dr Neha Malhotra C.Psychol, Chartered Counselling Psychologist, Tasim Martin-Berg, C.Psychol, AFBPsS, Chartered Counselling Psychologist, and Dr Simon Toms MSc, PhD, C.Psychol, CSci, AFBPsS.

This was a group project for the co-divisional BPS Leadership Development Programme 2015–2016 of which the authors were cohort-members.

Project Sponsors:Professor Peter Kinderman (BPS President Elect) and Professor Kate Bullen (BPS Ethics Committee Chair).

Working towards BPS strategic goals in partnership with The Social Justice and Inclusion Task Force (SJTF) chaired by:

Professor Kate Bullen, on behalf of the Ethics Committee.

ReferencesBritish Psychological Society. (2009). Code of ethics and conduct. Leicester: British

Psychological Society.Health and Care Professions Council. (2016). Standards of conduct, performance and ethics.

London: Health and Care Professions Council.


Appendix one: First SJEDI Questionnaire

Member Networks and Special Interest Groups are engaged in a range of activities in support of their members. What is the scope, and state of development, of social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity work across the Society?

Our aim is to audit the Society of existing social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity related activities – gathering information from those that are already engaged in this work, in order to record and understand the initiatives that are currently being undertaken, how they work, the rationale for them and the potential future impact.

At present, and for the purposes of this first stage in the audit, we have constructed a working understanding of the relevant terms, which are as follows: social justice can be understood as scholarly and practical work that emphasises societal concerns, including issues of equity, self-determination, interdependence, and social responsibility, with the goal of decreasing human suffering and inequality; inclusion refers to an individual’s experience within the workplace and in wider society and the extent to which they feel valued and integrated; equality means treating people in a way that is appropriate for their needs and allows them the same opportunities as others; and diversity recognises and values that which is unique and different about people, despite some commonalities, considers how they influence an individual’s entry into employment and workplace treatment, and consists of visible and non-visible factors, such as background, culture and personality in addition to the nine characteristics protected by The 2010 Equality act.

We acknowledge the ambiguity of this working description, and continue to aim to respect the politics of difference. Further stages of the audit project may involve more nuanced conversations and exploration of the activities of the Member Networks and Special Interest Groups of the Society in relation to this focus, as well as discussion regarding terms of reference.

We already know that several Member Networks and Special Interest Groups are engaged in wonderful and vitally important social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity work, and there is currently a groundswell of interest within the Society. Identifying current activities will enable all projects, activities, formal and informal groups to be represented in a published audit report, as well as potentially facilitate dialogue, share good practice and ground-breaking initiatives within the Society as a whole, and to the benefit of all members, employees, service users and the wider professional field.

We would be most grateful for your assistance in helping us to identify and understand current social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity related activities across the Member Networks. There follow seven short questions designed to understand the nature, scope and state of the activities you may know about or are involved in.


Information about you:

Your name:

Your role:

Within which member network:

Your email address:

Your consent to participate, including the use of your responses either in whole, part or disseminated form. Please answer YES or NO:

1. Could you tell us if your Member Network (insert name) has any policies and/or working practices that relate to social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity? If so, can you provide details as to these policies and their specific wording and application?

2. Please can you tell us what work your Member Network (insert name) is currently doing in relation to social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity? For example this might be specific interest group/s and/or projects. If so, how did this/these come about (for example, when was it set up, by whom, with what aim)?

3. Could you tell us something about the motivation and/or rationale for the above social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity activity?

4. What, if any, obstacles have you encountered along the way?

5. Please describe your successes, the impact of this work thus far and the future aims of this work, as your Member Network (insert name) would see it?


6. Are you aware of any other groups, projects or initiatives elsewhere in the BPS that address issues around social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity? (please give details)

7. Is there anything else you would like to say about social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity in relation to your Member Network (insert name), or indeed the BPS?

The research team are considering future interviews to ascertain more understanding about the above activities, please delete as appropriate if you do not wish to be contacted regarding this: YES/NO

Thank you for your responses, a copy of the final report will be available upon request.

This audit is being carried out as a project for the BPS Leadership Development Programme 2015–2016 by cohort members:

Dr Neha Malhotra C.Psychol, Chartered Counselling Psychologist, Tasim Martin-Berg, C.Psychol, AFBPsS. Chartered Counselling Psychologist, & Dr Simon Toms MSc, PhD, CPsychol, CSci, AFBPsS.

We can be contacted on: [email protected]

Project Sponsors:Professor Peter Kinderman (BPS President Elect) & Professor Kate Bullen (BPS Ethics Committee Chair).

Working towards BPS strategic goals in partnership with The Social Justice & Inclusion Task & Finish Group, chaired by:



Appendix two: Call-out emails

FIRST CALL OUT: 18th November 2015

Dear Colleagues,

We are contacting you as part of our audit of the British Psychological Society’s existing social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity related activities within each of the 39 Member Networks.

We would like to gather information from those that are already engaged in this vitally important work, in order to record and understand the initiatives that are currently being undertaken within the Society. Your participation will enable all projects, activities, formal and informal groups to be represented in a Society wide audit document, as well as facilitate dialogue, share good practice and ground-breaking initiatives within the Society as a whole, and to the benefit of all members, employees, service users and the wider professional field.

As a first step, we would like to invite the lead person for social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity work within each Member Network to share their contact details by emailing us on [email protected]. We will then send them an email with a bit more info on the project and a short questionnaire (also possible to complete via Questback). We would be grateful if you would pass this email on to those who are leading on this work within your Branch.

Once we have contact details for those members who are leading on this work within various member networks we will set up a discussion email list where we can share ideas, opinions and responses to the audit itself as well as the work we are involved in. Thank you in advance for your participation.

In order to progress this work we would be grateful for your response by 16th December 2015.

We can be contacted on [email protected] should you have any further queries.


Dr Neha Malhotra C.Psychol, Counselling Psychologist,Tasim Martin-Berg, C.Psychol, AFBPsS, Counselling Psychologist,& Dr Simon Toms MSc, PhD, CPsychol, CSci, AFBPsS.

Project Sponsors:

Professor Peter Kinderman (BPS President Elect) & Professor Kate Bullen (BPS Ethics Committee Chair).

Working towards BPS strategic goals in partnership with The Social Justice & Inclusion Task & Finish Group, jointly chaired by Professor Kate Bullen, on behalf of the Ethics Committee.


With best wishes

Dr Neha Malhotra C.Psychol

Tasim Martin-Berg, C.Psychol, AFBPsS

Dr Simon Toms MSc, PhD, CPsychol, CSci, AFBPsS

SECOND CALL OUT: 2nd Feb 2016

Dear All,

I am writing to you about a piece of work that is very high on my agenda. The Society’s Social Justice & Inclusion Taskforce has invited a project group to undertake a scoping exercise across the organisation regarding the scope and state of social justice, equality, diversity and inclusion work.

It is vital that we are able to assess practices across the Society as a whole accurately, in order to build on this for future initiatives and practice guidelines. For this reason, a return which tells us about lack of activity is just as valuable as informing us of any ongoing activity. When we come to publishing its report, the group will ensure that contributions remain anonymous.

Your participation will enable all projects, activities, formal and informal groups to be represented in a Society-wide audit document, as well as to facilitate dialogue, share good practice and ground-breaking initiatives within the Society as a whole, and to the benefit of all members, employees, service users and the wider professional field.

You can access the questionnaire here: https://response.questback.com/britishpsychologicalsociety/0tnzi354ru

We would be grateful if you would respond by the 12th of February.

With thanks

Professor Jamie Hacker Hughes, President 2015–2016

THIRD CALL OUT: 21st March 2016

Dear Colleagues

This is the third and final call for responses to the questionnaire in the link below: https://response.questback.com/britishpsychologicalsociety/7wvhdjgvwi

The final deadline for responses is 31st March 2016.

The questionnaire has been compiled by colleagues Neha Malhotra, Tasim Martin-Berg and Simon Toms of the Leadership Development Project for the Society’s Social Justice and Inclusivity Taskforce.


We are interested in gathering as much data as possible about activities in all of the Society’s networks relating to social justice, inclusivity, equality and diversity.

As stated above, the final deadline is 31st March 2016 and so if you have not responded already the project team and I would very much welcome your response to this brief questionnaire now.

Thank you very much indeed, in anticipation, for your cooperation.

With best wishes

Jamie

With an added second email 8 minutes later:

Three final points:

We have had only 25 per cent response rate. We need to do much better than this.

If there is no ‘lead’, we ask simply that the Chair of the MN responds on behalf of the MN.

and

A response which tells us that a MN is currently doing nothing in these areas yet is JUST AS IMPORTANT.

Over to you!

Jamie


Appendix three: Second SJEDI Questionnaire – Questback

Member Networks and Special Interest Groups are engaged in a range of activities in support of their members. What is the scope, and state of development, of social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity work across the Society?

Our aim is to audit the Society of existing social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity related activities – gathering information from those that are already engaged in this work, in order to record and understand the initiatives that are currently being undertaken, how they work, the rationale for them and the potential future impact.

At present, and for the purposes of this first stage in the audit, we have constructed a working understanding of the relevant terms, which are as follows: social justice can be understood as scholarly and practical work that emphasises societal concerns, including issues of equity, self-determination, interdependence, and social responsibility, with the goal of decreasing human suffering and inequality; inclusion refers to an individual’s experience within the workplace and in wider society and the extent to which they feel valued and integrated; equality means treating people in a way that is appropriate for their needs and allows them the same opportunities as others; and diversity recognises and values that which is unique and different about people, despite some commonalities, considers how they influence an individual’s entry into employment and workplace treatment, and consists of visible and non-visible factors, such as background, culture and personality in addition to the nine characteristics protected by The 2010 Equality act.

We acknowledge the ambiguity of this working description, and continue to aim to respect the politics of difference. Further stages of the audit project may involve more nuanced conversations and exploration of the activities of the Member Networks and Special Interest Groups of the Society in relation to this focus, as well as discussion regarding terms of reference.

We already know that several Member Networks and Special Interest Groups are engaged in wonderful and vitally important social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity work, and there is currently a groundswell of interest within the Society. Identifying current activities will enable all projects, activities, formal and informal groups to be represented in a published audit report, as well as potentially facilitate dialogue, share good practice and ground-breaking initiatives within the Society as a whole, and to the benefit of all members, employees, service users and the wider professional field.

We would be most grateful for your assistance in helping us to identify and understand current social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity related activities across the Member Networks. There follow seven short questions designed to understand the nature, scope and state of the activities you may know about or are involved in.


Information about you:

Your name:

Your role:

Within which member network:

Your email address:

Your consent to participate, including the use of your responses either in whole, part or disseminated form. Please answer YES or NO:

1. Could you tell us if your Member Network (insert name) has any policies and/or working practices that relate to social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity? If so, can you provide details as to these policies and their specific wording and application?

2. Please can you tell us what work your Member Network (insert name) is currently doing in relation to social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity? For example this might be specific interest group/s and/or projects. If so, how did this/these come about (for example, when was it set up, by whom, with what aim)?

3. Could you tell us something about the motivation and/or rationale for the above social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity activity?

4. What, if any, obstacles have you encountered along the way?


5. Please describe your successes, the impact of this work thus far and the future aims of this work, as your Member Network (insert name) would see it?

6. Are you aware of any other groups, projects or initiatives elsewhere in the BPS that address issues around social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity? (please give details)

7. Is there anything else you would like to say about social justice, inclusion, equality and diversity in relation to your Member Network (insert name), or indeed the BPS?

We would like to ask for a contact person within each branch, division, section and special group who is either the current lead or a nominated individual in this area of work. If they agree to provide their email address please include it here:

The research team are considering future interviews to ascertain more understanding about the above activities, please delete as appropriate if you do not wish to be contacted regarding this: YES/NO

Thank you for your responses, a copy of the final report will be available upon request.


Dr Neha Malhotra C.Psychol, Chartered Counselling Psychologist, Tasim Martin-Berg, C.Psychol, AFBPsS. Chartered Counselling Psychologist, & Dr Simon Toms MSc, PhD, CPsychol, CSci, AFBPsS.


We can be contacted on: [email protected]

Project Sponsors:Professor Peter Kinderman (BPS President Elect) & Professor Kate Bullen (BPS Ethics Committee Chair).

Working towards BPS strategic goals in partnership with The Social Justice & Inclusion Task & Finish Group, chaired by:


The British Psychological SocietySt Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel: 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 227 1314 Email: [email protected] Website: www.bps.org.uk

Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642 REP112/March 2017

a report on the social justice, equality, diversity and ... files/rep112 web.pdf · a report on the...

Documents