UK universities increasingly speak the language of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI). Yet one major dimension of inequality often remains overlooked: language. Academic language is not simply a neutral tool for communicating ideas; it shapes whose knowledge is recognised, whose contributions appear credible and who is seen as a legitimate participant in higher education.
This matters because universities do more than transmit knowledge – they regulate the forms through which knowledge becomes valid. Students and staff who do not naturally reproduce dominant academic English-language conventions may be judged to be less capable, even when their ideas are strong.
EDI initiatives often focus on representation while leaving linguistic norms untouched. Inclusion then becomes conditional: students are welcomed provided they adapt to institutionally preferred ways of speaking and writing. If EDI is serious about structural inequality, language and epistemic justice must become central concerns.
Beyond the ‘language support’ model
Language is frequently treated as a support issue affecting international students who need help adapting. This framing is too narrow.
First-generation students, working-class students and multilingual scholars may all encounter hidden expectations around tone, confidence, argumentation and “academic voice”. Academic communication is culturally coded, yet universities often present it as universal and neutral.
This is where translanguaging becomes important. Translanguaging recognises that multilingual individuals think and communicate by drawing on their full linguistic repertoire rather than separating languages into rigid categories. Students may understand a concept in one language, discuss it in another and write about it formally in English.
- Support student success in the multilingual classroom
- The power of the nudge to move EDI from strategy to practice
- Lecture room as tapestry: weaving culture, curiosity and learning together
Too often, universities interpret this fluidity as deficiency rather than intellectual sophistication. Yet allowing students to work across languages can deepen understanding and broaden participation.
The challenge for EDI leaders is, therefore, not simply how to help students adapt to existing norms, but to explore whether those norms themselves require redesign.
Why current approaches fall short
Many institutional responses remain superficial. Universities celebrate multilingualism symbolically while continuing to reward a narrow model of academic performance.
Assessment criteria often conflate clarity of English with quality of thought. Classroom participation frequently rewards speed, fluency and confidence in spoken English rather than reflective engagement. Students who hesitate, translate internally or use unfamiliar rhetorical styles may appear less capable despite demonstrating sophisticated thinking.
If universities want genuinely inclusive learning environments, these assumptions require closer scrutiny.
Practical ways to redesign participation and assessment
Addressing linguistic and epistemic justice does not require abandoning academic standards. It requires making them more transparent, flexible and critically examined.
1. Create ‘knowledge rehearsal’ activities
Students are often assessed only when they are expected to perform polished academic writing. Instead, modules can include low-risk spaces where ideas are developed before formal assessment.
For example:
- Ask students to submit short audio explanations before writing essays
- Use collaborative concept maps to explore relationships between ideas
- Allow multilingual discussion before assessed tasks begin
- Build workshops where students test arguments without grading pressure.
These approaches help to separate intellectual development from linguistic performance.
2. Design assessments as translation processes
Rather than treating academic writing as a single performance, assessment can involve movement between forms of knowledge.
Students might:
- Present ideas visually before writing analytically
- Explain how they adapted their thinking into academic conventions
- Compare how concepts operate across linguistic or cultural contexts
- Reflect on what became difficult to express in formal academic English.
This makes disciplinary communication itself part of learning.
3. Audit ‘hidden fluency advantages’
Many teaching practices unintentionally reward verbal confidence over intellectual engagement.
Departments can ask:
- Who speaks most in seminars?
- How much participation depends on rapid responses?
- Are quieter students interpreted as disengaged?
- Which communication styles appear most authoritative?
Simple redesigns can broaden participation significantly. For example, lecturers can use structured pauses before discussion, anonymous question submission or collaborative digital boards.
These practices benefit many students, including multilingual and neurodivergent learners.
4. Treat assessment criteria as teachable
Terms such as “criticality”, “coherence” and “academic voice” are often presented as self-evident.
Instead, educators can analyse criteria explicitly with students by:
- Comparing examples of writing that appear more or less “academic”
- Discussing how disciplinary language creates authority
- Exploring which communication styles are historically privileged
- Asking students to rewrite marking criteria in accessible language.
This demystifies academic judgement and exposes its social dimensions.
5. Build multilingual intellectual spaces
Multilingualism is often confined to support services rather than integrated into learning itself.
Universities could:
- Encourage annotation of readings in students’ preferred languages
- Include scholarship translated from non-English contexts
- Use multilingual peer discussions before plenary activities
- Invite students to compare how concepts translate across languages.
Such approaches position linguistic diversity as an intellectual resource rather than a problem.
6. Redesign feedback around meaning
Feedback frequently overemphasises grammar and surface correction.
A more equitable approach prioritises:
- The originality of ideas
- Emerging conceptual insight
- Argument development
- How language choices affect meaning rather than simply accuracy.
One useful practice is “dialogic feedback”, where students discuss a short section of work with tutors or peers and explain what they intended to communicate. The emphasis shifts from error correction to meaning-making.
7. Include linguistic bias in EDI training
Most EDI training addresses race, gender and accessibility but rarely linguistic judgement.
Yet educators routinely make assumptions based on accent, fluency and rhetorical style. Staff development should therefore examine:
- How confidence becomes associated with intelligence
- Why some accents appear more authoritative than others
- Whether grading practices privilege familiar communication styles
- How “clarity” may reflect cultural familiarity rather than quality.
Moderation exercises using anonymised scripts can help staff identify unconscious linguistic bias.
Inclusion as knowledge justice
Taking linguistic and epistemic justice seriously is not about lowering standards. It is about ensuring that standards measure intellectual quality rather than familiarity with hidden conventions.
Academic writing matters because it enables precision and shared scholarly practice. But universities must also recognise that dominant forms of communication are historically and culturally shaped.
The goal, therefore, is not to remove academic conventions, but to make them more transparent, negotiable and open to critique.
As EDI evolves, universities face a larger question: not simply who gains access to higher education, but whose knowledge counts once they arrive.
Language sits at the centre of that question. It shapes who participates, who feels credible and whose ideas are recognised as valuable.
If institutions want inclusion to move beyond symbolism, language can no longer remain peripheral to EDI work. It must become one of the central places where equity is actively designed.
Dylan Glyn Williams is a senior lecturer in the School of the Arts, Queen Mary University of London. He also serves as the director of equality, diversity and inclusion for the school.
If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment