DEI and Data Trustworthiness

The relationship of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) to the 2019 Top Ten IT Issue theme of Trusted Data is not obvious at first blush. This may be especially true when compared to the other themes from this year's Top 10 IT Issues report, Empowered Students and 21st-Century Business Strategies. DEI can empower students by fomenting a sense of belonging engendered by making them feel seen and heard and encouraging them to think differently. And DEI is a 21st-century business strategy that promises to help higher education IT organizations become more innovative, creative, productive, resilient, and effective strategic campus partners. But how exactly can DEI help higher education IT become more trustworthy in its collection, storage, use, and protection of data?

If the answer to that question doesn't immediately come to mind, you're in good company. Indeed, a few experts on the subject of DEI who were surveyed about this topic were genuinely perplexed by the question, saying that it was an "interesting" one, expressing genuine uncertainty (i.e., "I don't know"), and conveying bewildered admiration for the question itself (i.e., "I hadn't seen DEI and trustworthiness in data in the same sentence before"). However, our experts reflected deeply on the issue and collectively provided us with some ideas that might help us tie the theme of Trusted Data to DEI.

DEI can begin to impact higher education IT's trustworthiness with data before a single data point is collected. Organizations that embrace DEI as a strategic dimension of their operating culture and process should be able to assemble diverse teams responsible for crafting and implementing a data governance regime. Diverse teams will be more aware of potential sources of bias and can better understand how to guard against rules and procedures that might adversely affect groups to whose needs their institutions should be more sensitive. In this way, respect for the other is baked into policies and processes related to all things data.

And, ultimately, it is the transitive property of respect derived from diversity and inclusivity and sensitivity to equity issues that engenders trust in how institutions collect, store, use, and protect data. That is, the more sensitive an IT organization is to equity, the more inclusive it will be. The more inclusive an IT organization is, the more respectful to others it will be. And, the more respectful to others an IT organization is, the more respectful of others' data it will be.

IT organizations that are respectful of individuals' data are much more likely to consider a priori ethical questions related to the collection, use, storage, and protection of sensitive data instead of a posteriori. And when questions of whether certain data should be collected, how they should be collected, and for what purposes they should be collected are at the forefront of data practices, IT organizations will earn the reputation of being trusted stewards of higher education data. Perhaps a grander gesture of that trustworthiness will manifest if and when issues of DEI are so woven into the fabric of an IT organization that it supports the development and use of personal APIs so that students, faculty, and staff can take ownership of how their own data are collected and used.

The infusion of data processes and rules with considerations of DEI may have unintended consequences that limit the effectiveness of analytics projects, institutional research, and business decisions designed to support institutional missions. Certainly, institutions must already abide by a host of rules and regulations that govern the use of (especially) student data, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and, in the case of instances where humans are used as subjects for research purposes, institutional review boards (IRBs). The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law is having an impact on many US higher education institutions and the vendors they use, with the potential reach and scope of its effects remaining unclear. Adding a layer of restrictions on data collection and use that accounts for DEI concerns could further impact institutions' ability to track diversity across a wide range of identities. For example, someone might prefer not to disclose their veteran status or their gender identity. How would institutions know if they are serving these populations well or not? If institutions lose access to a sufficiently comprehensive body of demographic data, how will they know if they are effectively recruiting and retaining individuals from a certain community? How might this impact institutions' ability to leverage analytics tools to help students find the services they need?

We may be a little way off from having these concerns manifest themselves as a reality on our campuses, but we need to begin thinking about them now. DEI will likely only grow in importance as a part of the calculus that IT organizations use in an array of workforce and business practices. As it does, respect for the people whose data IT organizations are managing will follow. The respect that DEI kindles for the people behind the data will serve as a catalyst that may fundamentally challenge the current methods by which higher education IT collects, stores, uses, and protects data. And maybe that's just what we need.

D. Christopher Brooks is Director of Research at EDUCAUSE.