The Development Studies Association has a clear vision: a vibrant, diverse discipline that produces critical thinking from a wide range of perspectives. As part of this commitment, the DSA has been undertaking a programme of work to better understand academics’ lived experience of racial inequalities within UK development studies.

With partial funding from the Academy of Social Sciences Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Grants Scheme, the DSA convened a series of regional workshops with racially-minoritised early career researchers (ECRs) working in development studies across the UK. Over 60 participants from more than 35 institutions took part. The findings are presented in a new report that speaks directly to senior academic leaders.

The result is an evidence-rich, candid account of what is shaping retention, progression and exit among racially-minoritised ECRs today and what institutions can do differently. The workshops show that EDI is widely articulated but unevenly enacted, with significant gaps between rhetoric and practice.

The report, Advancing Racial Equity in Development Studies, offers the clearest, most honest account of what racially minoritised ECRs experience within Development Studies today with clarity about where our practice misses the mark of our intention. 

Participants consistently described precarity as a structural, racialised condition rather than an early-career inconvenience. Fixed-term contracts, short funding cycles and opaque progression routes intersect with visa regimes, class and gender to create unequal risk.

As one participant put it: “Fixed term and precarity of visas – if you lose the job, you lose the visa.” (Workshop participant, Edinburgh)

Others described how institutional narratives of a “pipeline” fail to reflect lived realities: “What universities portray as a pipeline feels more like a racialised leaking pipeline.” (Workshop participant, Birmingham)

For international scholars and those without family wealth or UK-based support, precarity shapes everyday decisions about whether staying in academia is even viable. “Without family in the UK or any savings at all, taking a 9-month position means worrying about what happens after.” (Workshop participant, Birmingham)

Participants also highlighted how workload inequities exacerbate this insecurity. Black women, in particular, reported disproportionately heavy teaching loads, often unrecognised in progression reviews. Precarity is therefore determining who can remain, progress and be recognised within the discipline.

Most institutions claim to offer mentoring but few participants felt they were genuinely benefiting from it.

“I didn’t have any mentor yet… navigating a predominantly white academic landscape has often left me feeling isolated.” (Workshop participant, Birmingham)

Others noted the absence of race-aware mentorship. Additionally, even where senior academics of colour were present, representation alone was not seen as sufficient. “Institutions claim mentoring exists… but in reality people of colour in higher positions are not helping early career people of colour.” (Workshop participant, London)

Exclusion from informal networks where opportunities circulate was common: “Academia is like a bubble. It’s who you know.” (Workshop participant, Birmingham)

Without mentors who can decode institutional norms, participants described learning critical expectations too late – through trial, error and improvising rather than support.

While participants welcomed changes to reading lists and teaching content, they were clear that decolonisation has not meaningfully reshaped research culture, publishing or promotion.

“Convincing Global North teams that my lived experience is as valuable as a literature review – that is epistemic justice.” (Workshop participant, London)

Others pointed to the limits of English-language publishing: “We write about untranslatable concepts in English. Something is always lost.” (Workshop participant, London)

Pay-to-publish models were seen as another structural barrier: “Publishing in top journals requires costly APCs… pay-to-publish models exclude us.” (Workshop participant, Birmingham)

At stake here is not only inclusion, but whose knowledge is legitimised within the academy – and on what terms.

Across all workshops, participants described the DSA-facilitated sessions as the first genuinely safe academic spaces they had experienced.

“These kinds of spaces are very rare — there is literally no platform to speak of racially minoritised issues.” (Workshop participant, London)

“We share the same pain. These safe spaces are super key.” (Workshop participant, Birmingham)

Participants emphasised that while universities often provide safe spaces for students, equivalent provision for staff and ECRs is almost non-existent. Formal mechanisms may exist, but were not always trusted as they primarily served institutional agendas.

The workshops themselves modelled what participants found effective:

Approaches grounded in real relationships, adequately resourced, are more effective in supporting inclusion than mechanisms, procedures, or committees. Belonging is built through community, recognition, and shared resistance.

We urge heads of centres to read the report as well as blogs by participants Jekoniya Chitereka and Chidinma Mbaegbu to hear their views.

The report identifies priority actions within the influence of senior leaders, including:

This article only touches on the depth of insight generated through the workshops. The full report sets out the evidence, analysis and recommendations in detail, offering practical guidance for Heads of Centres seeking to strengthen retention, progression and belonging within development studies.

The DSA is committed to working with senior leaders to translate these findings into action – and to building a discipline where racially-minoritised scholars can thrive, not merely endure.