Generative Conflict: Embedding EDI in Research 

I joined Agile as the Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Officer in January 2024. It is now time for me to move on to a new role, so this is a good moment to take stock.  

Reflecting on the past two years, I am struck by the dedication of the Agile programme team and Sprint researchers in contributing their values, knowledge, and experiences to address urgent environmental challenges. Occasionally, we clashed because those values, knowledges and experiences differed. However, our shared convictions unified us toward solutions. Shifts in the alignment of our work and values are a necessary part of collaborating across diverse perspectives on the issues we all deeply care about. We have all had to learn to meet each other where we we’re at. 

I find myself returning to the term ‘generative conflict’ and the work of writer and activist adrienne maree brown. Rather than being avoidant or aggressive, brown advocates for generative conflict. This is struggle for the sake of deeper unity, “conflict that grows each of us and that creates more possibilities for what we can do in the world together.” What does that mean in practice? brown invites us to be honest, direct, and compassionate, to ask questions, and to do a bit more learning and reading before reacting. 

Looking back, it’s now clear to me that generative conflict has been essential to embedding EDI in our research and operations. Agile is a small, fast-paced research programme with big ambitions to transform one of the oldest universities in the world. It has taken practice for us to slow down, speak honestly, and find compromises that still fulfil our EDI commitments and Agile values. Sometimes these goals have been at odds with one another. On a good day, generative conflict created an unexpected solution or the next best practical step. 

These lessons often played out in the development of our equality impact assessment (EIA) process, which was created in collaboration with the programme team and researchers. We worked patiently to find common ground and terminology. With our Sprint research teams, I enjoyed exchanging insights on EDI and diving into deep subject-matter expertise. I found the EIA process to be generative, whether we produced slight tweaks to existing research or a new, more equitable approach.  

My time with Agile was enriching. We are already starting to see our commitment to EDI rippling out to researchers and the wider university. For me, this has brought to life a lesson from brown in Emergent Strategy: “what we practice at the small scale sets the patterns for the whole system” (p.57). Our EDI work will be carried forward by the programme team and researchers in the remaining months of the programme. The work is not over, and there is more to come.  

In the meantime, here’s a summary of the 23+ activities that we have delivered to implement Agile’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan: 

• Developing and embedding a set of values to underpin the Agile programme  

• Using EIAs from start to finish with 10 Sprints to identify the equality impacts of their environmental science research 

• Hosting the EDI Retreat for researchers and professional staff from the four Changing the Environment programmes 

• Striving to improve inclusion in five funding calls and review processes for Sprints and our support funds 

• Creating three internal guidance documents to support inclusive, accessible events, meetings, and communication materials 

• Delivering training on accessibility, behaviour change, and influencing with Sprint researchers, the programme team, and the Agile Management Group 

• Mobilizing knowledge with colleagues across the University and the three other Changing the Environment programmes.