A new study from researchers at PENKUP Research Institute argues that institutional racism is built into the very systems that claim to champion equality

Decades of diversity policies. Countless equality pledges. Reams of inclusion strategies. And yet, in schools and universities across the United Kingdom and Canada, the people at the top still look remarkably similar to those who occupied those positions a generation ago.

A new paper published in a peer-reviewed international journal has set out to explain why, and its conclusions make uncomfortable reading for institutions that pride themselves on their commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion.

The study, Structural and Cultural Barriers to Ethnic Minority Leadership in UK and Canadian Educational Institutions, brings together fourteen researchers from across the United Kingdom, Nigeria, and Ukraine to argue that the persistent underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in senior educational leadership is not an accident, a pipeline problem, or a matter of individual readiness. It is, they contend, a systemic governance failure, one reproduced daily through recruitment processes, promotion criteria, informal networks, and cultural assumptions about what a leader is supposed to look and sound like.

“We have to be honest about what is happening here,” said lead author Michael Anthony Thomas of the University of Wales Trinity Saint David in Birmingham. “Institutions are not failing to diversify their leadership because they have not tried hard enough. They are failing because the structures and cultures through which leadership is identified, developed, and conferred are themselves exclusionary. Diversity statements do not change that. Structural transformation does.”

The paper draws on interdisciplinary scholarship spanning educational leadership, organisational sociology, and critical race studies to develop what the authors describe as a multi-level framework for understanding how exclusion is reproduced, even in organisations that publicly endorse EDI principles.

Dr Kennedy Oberhiri Obohwemu, Senior Researcher and Project Coordinator of UK-based PENKUP Research Institute, said the framework was designed to move the conversation beyond individual explanations. “There is a persistent tendency to frame the underrepresentation of ethnic minority leaders as a question of individual deficits or insufficient pipelines. This paper argues that framing is not only inadequate, it is actively misleading. It locates the problem in the wrong place and produces the wrong solutions.”

At the heart of the analysis is the concept of leadership legitimacy, the unspoken cultural norms that shape which candidates are seen as naturally suited to authority and which are not. The paper argues that in both the UK and Canada, these norms continue to privilege whiteness as the default standard of credibility, competence, and leadership potential, often in ways that are never explicitly articulated.

Dr Celestine Emeka Ekwuluo of Family Health International in Ukraine, a contributing researcher, said this dynamic was one of the most difficult aspects of institutional racism to address precisely because it operated beneath the surface of formal policy. “You can audit your recruitment shortlists and still miss the problem entirely if you do not interrogate the criteria themselves, what counts as leadership experience, what communication styles are valued, whose networks carry weight. These are where the bias lives.”

Oladipo Vincent Akinmade of the University of Warwick’s Digital Health and Rights Project said the comparative dimension of the study, examining both the UK and Canada, was particularly illuminating. “These are two countries with very different histories of multiculturalism and very different policy frameworks around race and education. The fact that both show the same persistent leadership gap tells you something important. It tells you this is not a policy design problem. It is a deeper structural one.”

Daniel Obande Haruna of St. Mary’s University in London, whose background is in psychology, said the emotional and psychological dimensions of the leadership gap deserved greater attention in institutional reform efforts. “Ethnic minority professionals in educational settings frequently describe what it costs them to navigate institutions that were not designed with them in mind. The cumulative weight of that experience shapes career trajectories in ways that are rarely captured by diversity data.”

The paper pays particular attention to the role of informal networks in sustaining exclusion. Formal recruitment and promotion processes, the authors argue, are often less determinative than the informal relationships through which candidates are identified, mentored, sponsored, and endorsed. Because these networks have historically been built around whiteness, they continue to reproduce it at the leadership level even when formal processes appear neutral.

Samuel Sam Danladi of Ahmadu Bello University in Nigeria said this finding had significant practical implications. “If we are serious about changing leadership demographics in educational institutions, we cannot focus exclusively on formal HR processes. We have to ask who gets informal access to senior leaders, who is invited into the conversations that matter, and who is overlooked. That is where much of the exclusion actually happens.”

Japhet Haruna Jonah of Family Health International in Maiduguri added that the findings pointed to a fundamental tension within EDI practice as it currently operates. “Many institutions treat EDI as a compliance function. They measure representation at different grade levels, report the numbers, and consider the obligation met. This research argues that representation metrics, while not unimportant, are entirely insufficient if the structural conditions that produce underrepresentation are left intact.”

Abba Sadiq Usman of Action Against Hunger in Nigeria said the policy implications of the study extended beyond individual institutions to the regulatory and governance frameworks within which they operated. “Institutional reform requires external pressure as well as internal will. Regulatory bodies, funding agencies, and government departments all have a role to play in setting expectations, monitoring progress, and creating genuine accountability for leadership diversity.”

Dr Tochukwu Patrick Ugwueze of University College Hospital in Ibadan, a co-author on the paper, said the findings resonated with broader patterns visible across many professional sectors. “The mechanisms the paper describes, the gatekeeping, the cultural norms, the informal networks, are not unique to education. But education is a sector with a particular responsibility, because the leadership culture of educational institutions shapes what the next generation understands about who belongs in positions of authority.”

Dr Leonard Nnamdi Meruo, a dental public health practitioner and researcher based in Owerri, Nigeria, said the paper made a valuable contribution by situating the UK and Canadian experience within a wider international context. “Comparing two countries that are often held up as models of multiculturalism reveals how resilient these barriers are. If they persist in societies with strong equality frameworks, that should prompt serious reflection everywhere.”

Maxwell Ambe Etam of the University of Chester said the paper’s call for structural transformation rather than representational metrics was its most important practical contribution. “Counting how many ethnic minority leaders an institution has is not the same as asking whether the institution has changed. You can improve your numbers without changing anything fundamental about how power operates. Real transformation looks different from that.”

Jalaleddin Kazemi of Scholars School System in Manchester said the research had clear relevance for leadership development professionals working within educational settings. “Those of us involved in preparing the next generation of educational leaders have a responsibility to interrogate the assumptions embedded in leadership development programmes themselves. Whose model of leadership are we teaching? Whose experiences are centred? These are not peripheral questions.”

Dr Festus Ituah of Regent College London said the paper’s framing of underrepresentation as a governance problem was both overdue and important. “Governance is about who makes decisions, through what processes, and to whose benefit. When ethnic minorities are systematically absent from the rooms where those decisions are made, that is a governance failure, not a diversity inconvenience. It should be treated with the seriousness that governance failures demand.”

Dr Kaleka Nuka-Nwikpasi of the University of Chester said the study’s conclusions pointed toward a fundamental rethinking of what institutional commitment to equality should mean in practice. “Commitments to EDI that are not backed by willingness to examine and reform the structures through which leadership is produced are not commitments at all. They are public relations. This research asks institutions to do something harder and more honest than issuing statements. It asks them to change.”

The paper concludes by arguing that meaningful progress on ethnic minority leadership in education requires a shift in ambition, away from diversity compliance and toward structural transformation, reforming not just who is recruited but the criteria, cultures, and networks through which educational leadership itself is defined and conferred.

The study was conducted by researchers from institutions across UK, Nigeria, and Ukraine, with support from PENKUP Research Institute. It is available open access via https://eipublication.com/index.php/eijmrms/article/view/3960.

You can also check it out here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400413031_Structural_and_Cultural_Barriers_to_Ethnic_Minority_Leadership_in_UK_and_Canadian_Educational_Institutions