![](https://cphfcrflaa.cloudimg.io/_bcuimages/lhcblogimageprimary-133095446442440656.jpg)
by Marcus Ryder MBE
These are personal views, and do not reflect the view of Birmingham City University or the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity.
On Monday 26th September Italy elected its first ever woman prime minister, the far right Giorgia Meloni.
The Italian election follows Liz Truss becoming Britain’s third woman prime minister and having arguably the most racially and gender diverse cabinet in history, with woman and/or people of colour occupying all the most senior positions.
By any criteria, in terms of diversity, these are unprecedented times in European politics.
We have never seen greater representation at the top levels of society.
And yet very few political commentators think this will change the culture of the political class in either Britain or Italy, much less influence the direction of policies that might directly affect ethnic minorities in the respective countries or women.
Many people on the left explain this by effectively saying that this is because they are the “wrong type” of white women, Black or Asian people.
On Thursday the Labour MP, Rupa Huq, even had to apologise for saying the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, was only “superficially black”. Huq cited the fact he went to “the top schools in the country”, adding “if you hear him on the Today programme, you wouldn’t know he’s black.”
While Rupa Huq’s comments have been widely condemned, the sentiment behind them, that the current crop of politicians from “underrepresented backgrounds” are not the “right type of representation” is one I have been hearing for the last few weeks now.
I believe that this is an argument that is fundamentally flawed, and one which not only misunderstands representation, diversity, inclusion and equality, but more importantly for this blog, has serious repercussions for policies trying to promote diversity, inclusion and equality in the UK media industry.
To understand why we first need to look at the academic concept called “Theory of Change”.
"Theory of Change" has its origins in Peter Drucker's 1954 book “The Practice of Management” but really gained prominence in the 1990s when it was adopted by development economists looking at which policies worked in helping countries’ economies grow and develop.
The simplest definition of theory of change is:
Looking at many people working in diversity and inclusion in UK media (and wider ), their theory of change is often a simple one: if you increase the number of people from underrepresented groups you will change the culture of the organisation they are in, which will in turn benefit people from those respective groups.
Occasionally this theory of change can have an additional layer where people do not just point to the diversity and representation of the general workforce but of the “gatekeepers” and those in management and leadership positions.
I would argue that recent political events have proven this simplistic theory of change model, including simply needing to “diversify” the people in senior positions, to be wrong. I also do not believe that it’s right to try and explain this away by simply saying they are the “wrong type” of black person (or Asian person or woman). Just ask Rupa Huq.
It was back in 2007, when I moved to Glasgow as Head of BBC Scotland Current Affairs, that I realised the error in this theory of change model, and again it was in the sphere of politics that it was played out.
When Tony Blair, and New Labour, came to power in 1997 Scottish representation in key ministerial positions was incredibly high; Prime Minister Tony Blair was born in Scotland and went to school in Scotland, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown is Scottish, the Lord Chancellor Alexander Irvine was born in Inverness, Alistair Darling Chief Secretary to the Treasury went to school in Kirkcaldy, and Robin Cook - Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - was born in Bellshill, Scotland. I could go on, but I think you have got the point by now.
Scottish people were “disproportionately” in the UK government in Westminster.
Despite the significant number of Scottish people in important positions, what one might call ‘high levels of regional diversity’, the people of Scotland did not feel properly represented, and just a few months after New Labour came to power Scotland overwhelmingly voted for a devolved government.
The result of Scottish devolution was a restructure of where power lies and how the views, opinions, values and culture of Scottish people are expressed in politics.
In voting for devolution, people across Scotland were implicitly saying they did not believe in a theory of change which was simply predicated on increasing diversity numbers, (the numbers of Scottish MPs and cabinet members). Their theory of change was based on the need for structural change.
To a certain degree when it comes to regional diversity the BBC and Channel 4 have also adopted this theory of change, recognising the need for structural change. Both broadcasters have restructured their organisations placing more commissioning power outside of London and building new regional hubs, literally costing millions.
The move to increase media representation of the nations and regions is far from perfect and it is still an ongoing process. But the terms of reference for the discussion of how to achieve better representation outside of London is framed as a structural one as opposed to one of simply increasing “headcount”.
But while most of the discussion about better regional representation has embraced the need for structural change, when it comes to racial representation (and other forms of diversity including gender, disability and class) much of the UK media are all too wedded to a theory of change which is based on simply increasing headcount.
For example the new Director of Diversity and Inclusion at the BBC (responsible for ethnic, gender and disability diversity) will directly report to the Head of BBC Human Resources (HR) illustrating that the BBC still thinks of the issue in terms of HR and personnel.
At the same time the Head of BBC Nations and Regions - and ultimately responsible for regional diversity - directly reports to the Director General. While HR and personal issues are definitely an important part of his job, no one would think he should report directly to the Head of HR.
In fact, when the BBC Director General recently charged me with talking to senior BBC editorial leads on issues around diversity and editorial policy, it was never suggested that I meet with the actual Director of D&I, while the Head of N&R was definitely on the list.
Having a theory of change, which frames D & I purely as a headcount issue, leads to the bizarre situation in which the Head of Nations and Regions, (a previous incumbent), oversaw the editorial decision of the BBC News using the N-word. While the Director of Diversity and Inclusion had no official role to play in this important editorial decision.
I would argue that this is a prime example of why structural change is needed - the Director of Diversity and Inclusion should have editorial powers akin to the Head of Nations and Regions - for better representation to be realised.
Working at the Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity, while I recognise the need to increase “headcount” diversity at all levels, I also believe that until there are structural changes media organisations will not achieve the cultural change they are looking for. It is these structural changes that the Centre can and does advise on.
Or to put it another way; as politics shows us time and time again, it’s not about getting the “wrong type” (whatever that means) of Black person or woman when it comes to diversity and representation, it is all about getting the right type of structures.
I hope UK media organisations are taking note.