Dr Sanchari Deb
“If international staff experience the system differently and that affects progression, then it’s an EDI issue, not just an administrative one.”
International academics account for roughly a third of staff in UK universities. In disciplines such as engineering and technology, the figure is closer to half. Yet that presence is far less visible at senior levels. “You see a lot of international staff coming in at entry level,” explains EDI+ Fellow Dr Sanchari Deb at Newcastle University, “but when you look at senior academic positions, the numbers don’t align.”
For Dr Deb, the explanation rests less in formal criteria and more on how the system is understood in practice. “Access to information shapes everything,” she says, “from workload balance and visibility to whether people apply for promotion or are encouraged to do so. But you need to know where to look.”
UK academics, familiar with the system, absorb that knowledge as they progress. But for those arriving from elsewhere, it is not always obvious what exists, how different processes connect, or what matters at different stages.
Making the system easier to navigate
This realisation led Dr Deb to begin exploring the experiences of other international academics, both in the literature and through conversations with colleagues. “The issue is not a lack of guidance but rather dispersion,” she says. “Information is distributed across multiple platforms, departments, and processes, with no clear entry point for a newcomer to the system.
To address the issue, Dr Deb decided to develop an International Staff Toolkit as a clear starting point, bringing existing support to the fore and showing how different parts of the system connect.
The toolkit brings together information on visas and practical arrangements, alongside guidance on how academic life operates after arrival: what induction entails beyond the first week, how workloads are understood in practice, how promotion pathways function, and where mentoring and academic networks begin. “A lot of the questions that really matter don’t come up straight away,” she notes. “They tend to surface months in, once people are expected to know how things work.”
When she shared an early version with a small group of international staff, the response was cautious but telling. People focused less on outcomes and more on basics: was it easy to find, did it save time, did it reflect what it actually feels like to arrive? Several noted the value of a visible starting point. Especially in environments where asking for informal advice does not feel equally easy for everyone.
What silence can tell you
The work also surfaced a familiar constraint. Survey elements received no responses. Dr Deb does not treat this as a technical failure so much as a sign of fatigue. “People are asked for feedback a lot,” she reflects. “If they don’t see change coming from it, they disengage.” In that sense, silence becomes part of the story, pointing to the limits of consultation without visible follow-through.
There is also the question of durability. For the toolkit to remain useful, it needs ownership, upkeep, and a place in formal university processes. Without that, it risks becoming another well-made resource that depends on individual effort rather than institutional backing.
When internationalisation meets equity
Alongside the institution-specific version, Dr Deb has developed a more general toolkit that other universities can adapt to their own contexts. The aim is not replication, but relevance. Systems differ, but the underlying challenge is familiar: international academics are often expected to navigate complex environments with little guidance on where to look or what matters most.
“If international staff experience the system differently,” she says, “and that affects progression, then it’s an EDI issue, not just an administrative one.”