Paving New Paths: Harmonising Equity Data Across Institutions
Associate Professor Gemma Cadby, ACSES, Curtin University
At my high school, we were strictly forbidden from walking on the grass. We had to stick to the concrete paths, even if they weren't the most efficient way to get around. Some universities, schools and local councils take a different approach. Rather than laying concrete footpaths upfront, they let people move freely, and then pave where people have naturally worn tracks. These are known as 'desire paths’ or 'desire lines’— unofficial routes created by people's real preferences for travel. One such notable example is the Oval at Ohio State University. The term has also been used in the technology context, where companies support the behaviours of their users, rather than forcing them to behave as the company had initially intended.
So, what does this have to do with higher education equity data?
In my role as Director of the Data Program at the Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success (ACSES), I've been examining the questions used to identify students with disability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students within Australian higher education institutions. I have found that, even though the Department of Education provides standard response fields through the Tertiary Collection of Student Information (TCSI) system, some institutions have added extra response fields to capture data beyond the official TCSI framework. For example, some institutions include 'Australian South Sea Islander' or 'Pasifika' response options in questions that inform 'Element E316 - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander code', even though these are not officially recognised values within TCSI. Other institutions include 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' and ‘Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder’ to questions that inform 'Element E615 - Disability code', which, again, are not recognised values in TCSI. Further, it appears institutions may be using the field 'Other disability' to account for students who are carers of people with disability, which is likely not the intended use of that field.
In essence, institutions have created what can be described as 'desire response fields'. That is, data fields born out of a genuine need – institutions want to identify and support student groups who may not fit neatly into the existing official categories. These response fields are most likely coded into allowable TCSI values, meaning the final data sent to the Department of Education appears correct on the surface, but may conceal underlying differences in how the data are collected and who is represented.
This approach, while responsive to student needs, reflects a broader issue – institutions are attempting to fill gaps in how student equity data are collected and reported. However, because these efforts are performed in isolation, they can lead to inconsistent data collection across the sector. This complicates comparisons between institutions and makes it more difficult to gain a clear picture of equity needs at a national level.
In our recent ACSES report on disability, we found large variations in the prevalence of disability types reported across the sector. We believe this is likely due a mix of two factors:
real differences in student profiles across institutions, and
variations in how data are reported or classified across institutions.
If the latter is a significant factor, then it is essential to bring everyone on to the same data page, especially since these groups may contribute to needs-based funding allocations. Further detail on the implementation of ‘demand driven’ needs-based funding was provided in the Australian Universities Accord: 2024-25 MYEFO Summary in December last year, which also included a specific, separate increase to the Disability Support Fund (quadrupling current funding levels). Accurate and consistent data, both within and across institutions, will be crucial to ensure the allocated funding reflects the actual support needs of students.
So, what’s the solution?
Allowing each institution to create their own response fields may not be the answer, but neither is restricting institutions’ ability to capture unique aspects of their student populations. Rather than enforcing the current response fields—the 'concrete paths'—perhaps the higher education sector should review and formalise these 'desire response fields'. By working together across higher education institutions, and bringing together key stakeholders (e.g. equity practitioners, the Department of Education, students with lived experience) we can seek to broaden our equity response options, and better capture the diversity of students across the sector. Institutions can also be encouraged to collect data outside of the TCSI system; for example, there is no reason why an institution cannot collect data on students who are carers, as is being done in at least one Australian university.
Institutions across our sector share a common goal — to support all students in reaching their full potential. Just as desire paths reveal how people naturally move, we can look at how institutions are collecting and using equity data to inform resource allocations and deliver individual student accommodations. If we can create a system that reflects the unique needs of each institution, while harmonising data collection practices, we can ensure all students have the support they deserve.
Associate Professor Gemma Cadby is Director of the Data Program at the Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success.