Inclusivity in Education: why is it important?

In our work at UiB, a common question we hear and are asked is, ‘but why does inclusion matter?’ or ‘why should we do ‘this’ (e.g., use Universal Design for Learning principles in course design; engage in decolonization work in our program)?

Marie and Reidun have discussed this question together several times since we met and started working on the FPD Include project. It’s not an easy question, but not because it is unanswerable. There are several ways to respond, stemming from different approaches or positions. We want to share a few of the compelling answers to this question:

Why should we focus on inclusion in higher education?

Legal responsibility

Many countries, including Norway, have equality and anti-discrimination legislation which articulates what are included as protected identity categories (under the law) (e.g. gender, religion, disability) and how / when / where people are legally entitled to access services or institutions without discrimination or harassment. For higher education teachers, we know that access to social services, like higher education, is a legal right. This means that institutions must not restrict access to study or work based on identity. There can, of course, be restrictions on entry based on qualifications.

Many countries also have specific legislation pertaining to education and higher education which emphasizes how inclusion and accessibility are legally required. For example, in Norway higher education is legally required to be designed with Universal Design principles and sexual harassment must be addressed/stopped. For many of us, should we live in places where similar legislation exists, arguably the answer to why we should focus on inclusion is that we have a legal obligation to do so.

Documented inequity

An important argument for why we should focus on inclusion in higher education relates to what we know about inequity and access, experiences and outcomes in higher education. For example, both in Europe and in Norway, we know that social groups have very different experiences of higher education. Despite the myth of meritocracy, we know that certain groups (e.g., poor and working-class people, women, people with disabilities, Roma people or refugees) experience significant barriers to accessing higher education, may experience harassment, discrimination and isolation while studying, and have poorer outcomes and prospects upon graduation. We have a startling amount of evidence to suggest that higher education, rather than working to reduce inequity, may be worsening it. If we want to persist in believing that higher education rewards merit, then we must address inequity through inclusion work.

Moral/ethical responsibility

We believe that universities can and do function as public good and for the public good - and thus have a moral and ethical responsibility to reduce social inequality, and work towards more equitable systems. Taking up responsibility for inclusion can be oriented towards both practical activities (e.g. teaching strategies, policy development) and epistemological change (e.g. making change to how knowledge is understood, produced and valued). When we consider morality and ethics, it is important to include that for many, addressing inequity might be tied to religious beliefs and values. Further, there are also arguments for inclusion which centre on thinking about the importance of community over individualism.

Importantly, here we see that the answer to ‘why inclusion matters’ is tied to what we perceive to be right, fair or just. Even if change was not expected by law or because of professional obligation, for many inclusion matters because it is deeply connected to core values, beliefs and convictions.

Strengthening the discipline

Both the university and the pharmacy profession require persons who are innovative, who can drive change in changing circumstances, and take advantages of the possibilities that come with developing knowledge and technology. If we turn our universities into closed institutions that only let those who are similar to us enter, we limit the breadth of our ideas to those we ourselves can imagine. A lot has been written about how diversity increases creativity. However, this requires the development of competence to work and learn together. Fostering empathy, and strengthening intercultural competence are essential for innovation. If we manage to make our institutions more inclusive, we are strengthening both the university and the professions, and their ability to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Better learning

If we want to provide research-based education, as we are obligated to do, it is hard to disregard the large body of research that focusing on inclusion is essential to learning. For example, we know that psychological safety[RK1]  and feelings of belonging[RK2] [RK3]  and mattering shape what is possible when it comes to student learning. If we manage to create learning environments where all feel safe and included, to make mistakes and to partake in learning activities, it becomes possible for more students to learn. For those unconvinced of the value of inclusive teaching for its contribution to learning, we can add that improved student engagement and retention is also economically prudent for higher education. More students completing their programs (preferably on time) is highly desired by higher education leadership. If by creating more inclusive higher education institutions, we can reduce dropout and improve students’ learning experiences, this is, arguably, a very good investment.

Asking a different question?

Given all these answers to why should we make our teaching more inclusive, we ask a different question. Rather than asking why, we want to invite more educators to say how can I/we contribute to more inclusive education?  This is the question we ask ourselves, and that we try to answer through collaborative projects like FPD-include. We look forward to sharing what we learn and invite you to comment and share what you know that can strengthen our collective work. Please feel free to add comments below or to write to us (link to FPD email)

About the authors

Reidun Lisbet Skeide Kjome

I am a pharmacist and professor of social pharmacy, teaching at the University of Bergen (UiB) for 15 years. Since 2019, I have led the Centre for Pharmacy, and since 2023, I have been Head of Innovation at the Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care.

When I studied pharmacy (1997–2002), students were a relatively uniform group. Today, about half of our students—and over 90% nationwide—have multicultural or immigrant backgrounds. More students also report mental health concerns or neurodivergence.

I see this diversity as an asset to the profession, fostering more empathetic, culturally competent pharmacists. However, some students from marginalized communities struggle with language, educational technology, and unfamiliar teaching practices. Many don’t access available support, and some cohorts remain segregated, affecting their sense of belonging.

This led me to explore inclusion in education, where I was fortunate to connect with Marie and others experienced in this field.

Marie van der Kloet

I am an academic developer and associate professor in education at the University of Bergen. I moved to Norway 5 years ago from Toronto, Canada. I previously worked at the University of Toronto and McMaster University in university pedagogy. As an academic developer, I focus on equity and accessibility issues. This has meant designing, contributing to and leading courses and programs, committee work, program leadership[LH1] , consultation, research and curriculum development focused on various aspects of equity and inclusion. I did not accidentally start this work – it stems from my academic background in women and gender studies, equity studies and sociology of education. But it also stems from my politics and values – I am a feminist and anti-racist committed to trying to make the academy more just. As a white, cis-gender woman, a settler, this means I have also needed to critically reflect on my positions of privilege and hear critique from colleagues/students when I have misunderstood, failed or contributed to hurt/harm in my actions.