Affinity and Allyship Groups to Advance Inclusion in Postsecondary Institutions: A Systematic Scoping Review
Saved in:
| Title: | Affinity and Allyship Groups to Advance Inclusion in Postsecondary Institutions: A Systematic Scoping Review |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Emiko J. Muraki (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 2025 18(1):S125-S143. |
| Availability: | American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Information Analyses |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | College Environment, Minority Group Students, Minority Group Teachers, Social Support Groups, Gender Identity, LGBTQ People, Disabilities, Race, Ethnicity, Social Bias, Racism, Gender Bias, Immigrants |
| DOI: | 10.1037/dhe0000543 |
| ISSN: | 1938-8926 1938-8934 |
| Abstract: | Postsecondary institutions seeking to foster inclusion for historically excluded and marginalized faculty, staff, and students often aim to create supportive spaces through dialogue around the experiences of one's identity. One approach to create these spaces is through an affinity and allyship (A&A) group model (i.e., groups that offer supportive spaces for members of historically marginalized groups to build solidarity and safety, and for members of dominant groups to learn about allyship, respectively). However, information on A&A groups is spread across diverse literatures, and there is no summary on the development, implementation, and evaluation of these groups. In this systematic scoping review, we summarize research on A&A group purposes, implementation, and outcomes. We searched four databases for A&A group studies. Included articles examined theories, frameworks, and/or implementation and outcomes of A&A groups. The present review includes 48 articles that met the inclusion criteria (affinity group n = 27, allyship group n = 16, both groups n = 5). Affinity groups generally focused on building connections and mutual support among people with a shared identity or experience, whereas allyship groups focused more on learning about and adopting allyship behaviors. These differences in group purpose were reflected in the groups' content and delivery methods. Although most articles in the review conducted an evaluation, and generally reported positive outcomes, more thorough evaluation is needed to determine the efficacy of such groups and the long-term benefits of group participation. We conclude by providing recommendations for practice and implementation of A&A groups in higher education settings. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2026 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1506177 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Postsecondary institutions seeking to foster inclusion for historically excluded and marginalized faculty, staff, and students often aim to create supportive spaces through dialogue around the experiences of one's identity. One approach to create these spaces is through an affinity and allyship (A&A) group model (i.e., groups that offer supportive spaces for members of historically marginalized groups to build solidarity and safety, and for members of dominant groups to learn about allyship, respectively). However, information on A&A groups is spread across diverse literatures, and there is no summary on the development, implementation, and evaluation of these groups. In this systematic scoping review, we summarize research on A&A group purposes, implementation, and outcomes. We searched four databases for A&A group studies. Included articles examined theories, frameworks, and/or implementation and outcomes of A&A groups. The present review includes 48 articles that met the inclusion criteria (affinity group n = 27, allyship group n = 16, both groups n = 5). Affinity groups generally focused on building connections and mutual support among people with a shared identity or experience, whereas allyship groups focused more on learning about and adopting allyship behaviors. These differences in group purpose were reflected in the groups' content and delivery methods. Although most articles in the review conducted an evaluation, and generally reported positive outcomes, more thorough evaluation is needed to determine the efficacy of such groups and the long-term benefits of group participation. We conclude by providing recommendations for practice and implementation of A&A groups in higher education settings. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1938-8926 1938-8934 |
| DOI: | 10.1037/dhe0000543 |
