The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences of inclusion and exclusion in academia, with a primary focus on ethnicization/racialization within a local University in Sweden. The discussion about structural discrimination in the Swedish labour market has been going on in the public discourse for several decades. The main focus has been on the inequality between women and men in working life (see, for example, SOU 1993:7; SOU, 1998:6; SOU, 2014:81, but discrimination against non-Swedes and/or non-whites has also been noted, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree (see e.g. Mählck, 2013; Osman, 2021; de los Reyes, 2008; SOU 2005:56; SOU 2006:59). The question of how gender interacts with other categorisations, such as ethnicity and/or ‘race’ have been shown even less interest. Nor has discrimination in higher education attracted much attention, and Swedish as well as European academia is relatively little researched from critical perspectives on power, inclusion, and exclusion. However, the fact that academia, like other educational institutions, always includes aspects of power is nothing new (Ahmed, 2012; Bethoui & Leivestad, 2019; Hübinette & Mählck, 2016). To investigate these issues, the following four questions were in focus: 

1) To what extent do employees perceive themselves included or excluded in relation to ethnicity/’race, class, gender/gender identity, religion, age, sexuality and disability.  

2) What experiences and understandings of inclusion and exclusion processes do employees express?

3) In what contexts do employees perceive that inclusion/exclusion occurs? 

4) How is ethnification/racialization perceived to interact with other social categorizations in relation to inclusion/exclusion? 

Although ethnicity/’race’ has been the focus of the study, we also asked how these categorizations were perceived to interact with gender, age, class, religion and to some extent sexuality and disability. The employees we interviewed have also spontaneously highlighted the importance of how gender, age and class are perceived to affect such things as collegial treatment and career conditions.

As research has pointed out, these are complex processes of demarcation and exclusion that rarely allow themselves to be understood with the help of a social category belonging alone (see, for example, de los Reyes, 2007). Although there are experiences of exclusion that are perceived to have a clear basis in the person's ethnic origin or skin color, such orders cannot be said to be stable and unambiguous (cf. Lundström, 2017).Since norms and notions of ethnicity/'race' are mutually constituted by other power relations, and since social positioning is always context-dependent, we saw it as an analytical necessity to apply an intersectional perspective on the processes of ethnicization and racialization that we investigated. (cf. Mählck, 2012 p. 31). The concept of intersectionality can be traced to the work by black feminist researchers concerned with how oppressive power is embedded in societal structures and systems The intersectional theory concerns primarily how the exercise of power, through intersecting domination and oppression, affects individuals who face multiple social inequities, with consequent multiple marginalisations (Collins, 2019). This criticl social theory gave a lens to analyse understand inclusion and exclusion within a local university context. 

In the study, we chose to use both qualitative and quantitative methods, i.e. a "mixed method" approach. However, in this presentation we are only going to report from the interviews. Thirteen interviews were conducted with employees from all the university's departments (except for the administrative offices) with the aim of capturing as much variation as possible based on departmental affiliation, position and, where applicable, academic subject. The interviews have in most cases taken place on campus, but for some interviews, Zoom has been used. A large part of the interviews has been recorded with the permission of the interviewees, while a few informants chose not to allow it. During the interviews in which there were no recordings, notes were taken which were then summarised in writing. Interviews and analyses have, as we researchers perceive it, been conducted with sensitivity and respect (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2009). Analyses have been carried out using a thematic analysis (Gibbs, 2007). We were interested not only in the "what" (themes and content), but also in the "who", "when" and "why" (Riessman 2008, 53–76), and the process of analysis opens for questions about power, relationships, context, and diversity (Merrill & West, 2009). In the interview material, we drew attention to conditions, events and incidents of exclusion and inclusion as well as the interactions and consequences of such actions (Gibbs, 2007, 86–88). Ethical considerations according to the Declaration of Helsinki (2017) have been followed. In the project, the risks were judged to be primarily related to invasion of privacy. It can be sensitive to talk about experiences of inclusion and exclusion in working life, both if you yourself have been affected by such events and feel exposed, or if you have been/are a "bystander". It also poses challenges to study one's own organisation. Methodologically, this can be advantageous because there is already a pre-understanding of processes and structures in the context, but it requires a greater sensitivity than usual to know what can be possible to ask and discuss (Etherington, 2004). This meant that there had to be a great deal of information about confidentiality for the participants, as well as how participants, who experienced discomfort after talking about difficult events, could be taken care of (cf. Finlay & Gough, 2003; Israel & Hay, 2006). Occupational health services were contacted for support after the interview if needed.

As a conclusion we note how the academia is characterised by both formal governance – through explicit policy documents and policies, and informal governance – through implicit social relations. This means that invisible sorting mechanism helps to subsume and place certain groups and individuals in certain positions in the hierarchy, resulting in privilege structures based on social ideas of appropriateness. Nevertheless, in the interviews it was confirmed by employees that they liked to be part of this university, that they felt included and experienced a strong sense of belonging. This is, however, not the case for all. Firstly, informants talked about the importance of allying with the ‘right’ people, with people with influence over contexts that affect working conditions and career paths. Groupings of such people mainly supported those who were the same as oneself, thus constituting homosocial groupings. Such homosocial reproduction in academia applies to the category of class, but also to gender and ethnicity/’race’ (Bethoui & Leivestad, 2019). Bethoui and Leivestad talk about homosocial reproductive patterns in the Swedish academia which is confirmed in our study. Secondly, we see how the Swedish language serves as an additional marker of discernment in academia (Lundström, 2017; Bethoui & Leiverstad, 2019). Language, and notions of the importance of language, are important components in a complicated demarcation where disadvantage is constantly marked. The demarcation takes place in many ways, and one example is that incorrect Swedish is corrected, often in public contexts, while good language skills are praised. Thirdly, we see how ethnicity/’race’ becomes important in different situations. Also, ethnicity/’race’ in intersections with other social categorisations like color, gender and religion positions people as not Swedish, creating feelings of non-belonging and of being ‘the Other’. As a conclusion, we claim that this university still reproduce a Swedish monocultural view as the norm.

Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bethoui, A. & Leivestad, H (2019). The “stranger” among Swedish “homo academicus”. High Education, 77:213-228. Collins, P. H. (2019). Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Duke University Press. Declaration of Helsinki (2017). https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/ Etherington, K. (2004). Becoming a Reflexive Researcher. Using Our Selves in Research. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Thematic Coding and Categorizing. In: Analyzing Qualitative Data, https://methods.sagepub.com/book/analyzing-qualitative-data. Hübinette, T. & Mählck, P. (206). The Racial Grammar of Swedish Higher Education and Research Policy. The Limits and Conditions of Researching Race in a Colour-Blind Context. Routledge. Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Inteviews. Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage Pblications. Lundström, C. (2017). The white side of migration: Reflections on race, citizenship and belonging in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 7(2), (2017),79-87. Mählck, P. (2013) Academic women with migrant background in the global knowledge economy: Bodies, hierarchies and resistance. Womens’ Studies International Forum, 36 (2013), 65-74. Osman, A. (2021). What is the elephant in the room? The experience of a black academic in Sweden. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, 58(1), 63-85. de los Reyes, P. (2008). Etnisk diskriminering i arbetslivet – kunskapsläge och kunskapsbehov. Landsorganisationen i Sverige. Tillgänglig: https://lo.se/home/lo/res.nsf/vres/lo_fakta_1366027492914_etnisk_diskriminering_i_arbetslivet_pdf/$file/Etnisk_diskriminering_i_arbetslivet.pdf. Riessmann, C. K. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences, 53-76. Sage. SOU 1993:7. Löneskillnader och lönediskriminering. Om kvinnor och män på arbetsmarknaden. Betänkande av Löneskillnadsutredningen. Kulturdepartementet. https://lagen.nu/sou/1993:7?attachment=index.pdf&repo=soukb&dir=downloaded 1993:7. SOU 1998:6. Ty makten är din…Myten om det rationella arbetslivet och det jämställda Sverige. Betänkande från Kvinnomaktutredningen. Utredning om fördelning av ekonomisk makt och ekonomiska resurser mellan kvinnor och män. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/1997/12/sou-19986-/ SOU 2000:47. Mångfald i högskolan. Betänkande från utbildningsdepartementet. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2000/05/sou-200047-/ SOU 2005:56. Det blågula glashuset-strukturell diskriminering i Sverige. Betänkande från utredningen om strukturell diskriminering av etnisk eller religiös tillhörighet. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2005/06/sou-200556/ SOU 2006:59. Arbetslivets (o)synliga murar. Rapport av Utredningen makt, integration och strukturell diskriminering. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2006/06/sou-200659/ Vesterberg, V. (2015). Learning to be Swedish: governing migrants in labour-market projects, Studies in Continuing Education 37(3): 302–316.