visual representation of equality

Illustrating Equality VS Equity

ATTENTION FRIENDS! Can you use the equality vs equity illustration in your book/video/presentation/etc?

Yes! You do not need written permission to reproduce the work. Read below for information on the  license  under which the illustrations are released.

IISC has long believed that this image, illustrating the difference between equality and equity, is worth a thousand words. As a gift to the world of equity practitioners, IISC engaged artist Angus Maguire  to draw a new version of an old favorite (since we could only find pixelated versions of the original). Please feel free to download the high-resolution image and use in your presentations.

Download (.zip package containing JPGs, PDF, PNG, and AI)

Would you like to use this image somewhere.

This image is free to use with attribution: “Interaction Institute for Social Change | Artist: Angus Maguire.” For online use please provide links: interactioninstitute.org and madewithangus.com.

We love hearing stories about how the image is being used so please get in touch with us and let us know how you used it. We especially enjoy hearing about how this image helps to start conversations about equity and equality. We’re on social media and email ([email protected] and [email protected]).

Updates since this article was first published:

20 May 2016: We were notified via Twitter that the original creator of the original graphic wrote a piece cataloging the evolution of the meme. Here’s the piece . It even encompasses our version and a few riffs on it, including our followup collaboration with the Center for Story-Based Strategy & Angus , #the4thbox .

In the News

Cynthia Silva Parker was quoted by Sustainable Cities Network in an article: Infusing Equity into the Urban Planning Process .

What is equity? In the simplest terms, it means fairness, which is not necessarily the same thing as equality.

It’s not about everybody getting the same thing,” Parker said. “It’s about everybody getting what they need in order to improve the quality of their situation.”

One difficulty in including equity goals in planning is that the people who need them most can be hard to involve. Traditionally, planners involve stakeholders by inviting them to public meetings and asking them to read and comment on plans. This can be a time-consuming process, and people who work multiple jobs and lack transportation and child-care options are unlikely to show up at the library for a three-hour meeting.

And even if they’re able to offer their time, they may not be willing.

“Trust is the No. 1 thing, ‘Why are you asking, and will it make a difference,’ ” Parker said. “When we got started, there was a bit of interesting community jargon: ‘Planning Fatigue.’ People were tired of being asked to come to meetings, asked to share their vision, asked to draw another picture of a beautiful community, and then nothing is going to happen, or it’s going to take 15 years and they’re going to say, ‘We don’t even remember that we were part of that.'”

Public Training Schedule

We hope you will consider enrolling in one of our public trainings this year.

Over the past 25 years, we have developed a lens through which we facilitate social change and we bring it to every engagement. IISC invites groups and leaders to shift power dynamics, focus on building networks, and magnify love as a force for social change. Using this collaborative change lens, we see leaders overcome challenges and have astounding impact.

You might also like...

• Some Reflections on an Illustration of Equality vs Equity ATTENTION FRIENDS! Can you use the equality vs equity illustration in your book/video/presentation/etc? Yes! You do not need written permission to reproduce the work. Read below for information on the license under which the illustrations are released. In...
• IISC Brings Equity to RI Planning Process Sustainable City Network publishes about best practices for Leaders in Government, Education, and Healthcare. Recently they featured IISC Senior Associate Cynthia Sila Parker, reflecting on Rhode Island’s 2-year planning process, which incorporates equity goals....
• Equality vs Equity: The gift that keeps on giving ATTENTION FRIENDS! Can you use the equality vs equity illustration in your book/video/presentation/etc? Yes! You do not need written permission to reproduce the work. Read below for information on the license under which the illustrations are...
• The 4th Box Sparks Imagination Start a Conversation Remixers and meme-makers, we have a tool for you. We are pleased to be partnered with Center for Story-based Strategy in the release of an illustration kit: the4thbox.com Imagery is a huge factor...

129 Comments

Great picture and great message!

Would it be possible to create an image with differently shaded bodies to help reflect the ethnic and racial impacts of equity?

I think if they were all green, the intended message (equity) would be most prominent.

No, we get it.

Very simple to understand what is justice and equality and how equality does not meet justice some times

I’ve also seen this drawing re-visioned to include girls. We like baseball too. 🙂

Ma Waste — I’m interested in the drawing that included girls. Could you provide where I may find it?

Thanks, Lucretia D. Coleman, BSBA, HC Certified Lifestyle Enthusiast

Wow that illustration / image… Whoa!

To funny how you can not just take a message for Something positive. … you have to bring up that there is not girl in the image or different body types. do you want white people in it, but what about Asians, no wait, no this is a baseball game, what about football, more people watch football. STFU already

“STFU” is rude. Please don’t be. The point is simple and straightforward and yes, one can get bogged down in the practically infinite combinations. But to stop people from commenting and anti-message. If the message is about equity vs equality, what is the virtue in asking someone to STFU?

You’re an idiot.

Your my neighbor and I️ love you

Love conquers hate every time. Many thanks for that reminder.

How come they’re outside the fence instead of in the stands? Why don’t they buy tickets like everyone else?

I’d like to see this picture of people looking over the fence at something like a beautiful pasture or animals in a zoo. Any kind of people would do. It is not about being excluded from being a spectator in a seat. It is about being able to experience something like any other person would.

There is a similar illustration showing three options instead of two: Equality (one crate each), Equity (the right amount of crates for each person so everyone sees over the fence), and Liberation (no fence at all). Liberation is much harder to achieve than Equity because it removes the problem altogether and that sometimes isn’t even possible.

I think the Equality, Equity, and Liberation is a much more powerful image and should be promoted on this website rather than the older version.

it’s important to discuss, not only the artist’s reasoning, but also the implications of taking a popular internet photo and re-creating it with People of Color – – especially since the artist is white. while i understand how “inclusion” gets sticky, it’s irresponsible not to at least reference the original photo (it has white people) and talk about why – in a re-creation to make it not “pixelated” – did the artist choose to make the people non-white. i’m pretty sure making it “not pixelated” doesn’t change the people in the original photo to People of Color. because, after all, if you’re going to keep the photo like the original, but change the race, then why not also include people experiencing disability, gay people, Muslims….and any others who oftentimes do not have access….why change only the race? and, what message is it sending that the artist felt that race was the only thing that needed to be changed? i’m not dissing the photo or the message – but unintended messages and consequences are important things to consider. and, for an organization that boasts talking about social change, then these are the exact conversations you need to be fostering when you post this photo – that’s being a responsible social change activist.

Dear Professor, I think the artist accomplished just what he needed to when reading your comment….in order to achieve Equity over Equality we must change our Perception.. you choose to see and evaluate all that was wrong in this picture as well as all that could have been perceived; as an injustice or misrepresentation of its original form. Instead of focusing on the new message…..thank you

that’s too funny – your response, i mean. you clearly don’t understand social justice – or this illustration at all (sans the race issue – just the message). because social justice is about questioning and dismantling in order to seek equity, and a good part of it is about questioning why some have access and others don’t . . . . why we depict something with brown skin versus black skin, poverty versus upper class, gay versus straight – which is what i did; it’s not about pointing out what is wrong . . . . which is NOT what i did. equity vs equality is NOT at all about changing perception….if it were that easy, we’d already be doing it. this illustration is much deeper than that. put your rebel flag away and read up on social justice and equity.

You appear to be making an assumption that the reader cannot generalize equity, from a limited set of various conditions. Why?

About race: it doesn’t exist. Only in your imagination. Racism is VERY real, but not race. It’s been scientifically proven that if you took the genomes of a white person and a black person, there would be as much difference between them genetically as there would be between two white people. Also, skin color depends on the amount of melanin in the skin, and that amount is affected by three or four genes AND the environment in which you live.

Just a few observations on the illustration:

1. While it does illustrate equity, it only works if the participants are truly of different heights. I do not subscribe to this notion as it relates to the subject at hand.

2. The illustration depicts the “taller” individual willingly giving of what he has, which is the nature of enlightened people. It does not illustrate a representative of a police state forcibly taking the property of one person to distribute it to another, which would be the goal of a liberal government.

I would wish that the Republicans Governor of the State of Michigan had been more “enlightened” as you say. Where is the equity in cutting taxes for the rich, while failing to deliver clean water to the people of Flint? If ever there was a case that the billionaires of the country are NOT interested in equity, it is the situation in Flint. They would rather line their own pockets with tax cuts than provide the equity of clean water for all!

Why don’t the people of Flint take care of their own water?

If you’re mad about taxes, go yell at Amazon. They don’t pay ANY taxes at all.

Your analysis is dutifully noted. So when are we going to give the Native American “Indians” back their land?

It might be too late because there are so many cities in the country that they wouldn’t get all of it–in fact, it’s possible they would be deprived of quite a lot–unless force people out of their homes and tear down some cities.

And then the purple baby jumped for joy when she could see the game better. Now that the baby could see better she demanded to the blue shirt dad how come he didn’t get them a seat in the stands. That wasn’t fair. Why should they stand on the box when there are other kids her age are sittin, eating hot dogs at the seats. The dad, who just minutes back thought he made it equitable, now understood that with whiny kids, it is un winnable. And in the exact moment, the purple baby fell down from the unstable box and bumped her head. The baby ended up fine but the doctors referred the social services who considered this as willful neglect on the part of dad. The mom, who already had beef with the dad divorced him. But she didn’t have enough to provide for the baby and the alimony wasn’t covering much as well. So, the baby ended moving from home to home at the mercy of strangers and at the whims of the social service providers.

Beautifully narrated, to bad the purple baby didn’t understand that this was her first look at systematic oppression. That questioning the injustice of her disposition would open pandoras’ box. Little did she know that being purple was a threat. So they cut her off from her identity by separating her from her parents.This was necessary in order to deter her thirst for equality. They condition her to believe that this was the only way because now she was a potential threat to their plans. So they stragically cut her off from her identity using the system as their tool. They threw her into poverty and try to strip her of her self-worth. But see the purple baby was special, the melanin in her made her unique. She was design to persevere, to overcome, and to lead. And even though the purple baby was setup to fail, the purple baby left them all scrabbling wondering where they went wrong….when she became the First Lady of The United States of America….the end

you need serious mental evaluation

It’s certainly a bit… exaggerated.

True equity or even equality would mean they could join the others in the seats in the stadium.

Unless of course all the seats were sold out…

Yeah, but a picture of that just wouldnt work, right? The picture works because it doesnt show a perfect world.

Having a child with peanut allergies and seeing the illustration, I saw my child watching a baseball game from outside the stadium because there are not any accommodations inside which would allow her to watch without being expose to peanuts so I didn’t see the equity or equality.

Have you ever heard of SunButter? It’s like peanut butter, but it’s made from sunflower seeds. They also make Reese’s-style chocolate treats with the SunButter inside. They’re really tasty.

The issue is if you use the metaphor of a starting line in a race, and all of the runners line up on the same stRting line, you may have equality in the sense if the same chance to run the race, but you won’t have equity That is because if you ignore the history of racism and unequal opportunity leading up to the day if the race, then it really isn’t an ‘equal’ chance to run and win because the privileged white runners will be better trained and stronger and more experienced etc adding the extra boxes so the smaller figures can see over the fence is the equivalent of giving the disadvantaged runners a 50 yard lead or an early start. As in education with an admissions preference This is where things fall apart in America though You can give a preference to Betersns or disabled people but if you give any sort of leg up or benefit to black people it’s shouted down as special treatment. The image is meant to show the simply declaring that now we are all equal and each standing on the same box or the same starting line is not enough

*clap clap clap clap clap* THANK you YES

This illustration feels like the way they see affirmative action seeing some as needing to take more resources than others to be equal. A direct result of their own short comings. More accurate is everyone is the same height it is the fence or barrier which is of different height and material. It denies some access despite the same effort and equity deals with the barriers which are created by society not genetics.

I agree completely. This is an excellent suggestion for how to improve the illustration!

Omygosh why does nobody else say this?! Yes yes yes yes YES

Equity should be employed with a view to achieve equality in the end, if that is at all possible. Equity should not attempt to achieve equal outcomes for all by fully compensating individual differences. In other words, equity should not nullify the benefits of competition. Ideally, equitable arrangements should aim to bring everyone to a minimum required level, while keeping some room for further differentiation based on merit-based competition.

A useful illustration if just for the many questions it raises — some of which are captured well in the comments portion of this article.

When did it become fashionable to pit equity against equality? Equity and equality go hand in hand and advocates should work together. The cartoon is divisive and misinformed. The cartoonist should stick to cartooning and leave equity and equality to others. The cartoon builds a straw man concept of equality as formal mathematical identity n=n to refute an argument that nobody is making. Formal mathematical identity does not mean not moral equality or equal justice. Aristotle recognized that equality means treating similar things similarly and different things differently. The children are different heights and need different boxes for equality in the justice sense. End of argument.

Using equity to trash equality denigrates the rich, nuanced conception of equality embedded in equal justice, the Equal Protection Clause, equal rights, and other basic principles that go beyond formal mathematical identity n=n.

Equal justice treats different things differently. For example, if government draws distinctions based on fundamental rights or race, color, or national, the distinctions generally must be narrowly crafted to serve a compelling state interest. This is strict scrutiny. Distinctions based on gender or sex must be substantially related to further an important government interest – that is intermediate scrutiny. Economic distinctions generally need to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest – that is rational basis scrutiny.

Equity is generally undefined and provides no basis for evaluating distinctions based on race, gender, age, or income, for example. Equity may be a useful complement to equality arguments in some contexts.

There is uniform agreement on moral equality or equal justice among thoughtful observers. Fundamental equality means that persons are alike in important relevant and specified respects alone, and not that they are all generally the same or can be treated in the same way. Moral equality can be understood as prescribing treatment of persons as equals, i.e., with equal concern and respect, and not the often implausible principle of treating persons with mathematical equally. This fundamental idea of equal respect for all persons and of the equal worth or equal dignity of all human beings is accepted as a minimal standard by all leading schools of modern Western political and moral culture. Any political theory abandoning this notion of equality will not be found plausible today. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

A case of over-analysis. See the obvious meaning and go with it. Avoid confirmational bias in semantics.

Classical humanism and the idea behind it that most impacted our faith: ad fontes. In order to learn how to think – rather than what to think.

What the heck are you talking about?!?!?!?!?! Everyone getting different things to suit their needs is EQUITY, NOT EQUALITY, and THEY DO NOT GO HAND IN HAND!!!!!!!!!! It is ESSENTIAL to put a little more research into these types of things before making a comment that long. It is so incredibly biased and ungrounded that I considered commenting tips on how to make an argument that people will agree with.

Wow. I clearly don’t have the depth of many of the commenters.

I didn’t see people of color , gender, or other categorizations. I saw three people with the same challenge (seeing an event) and a reminder that if we all looked to our left and to our right (directionally, not politically) and share what we have extra of what we have (time, money, knowledge, love), we can help others with their challenges.

Is the directive “if a man has two coats…” so conceptually distant from “from each according to their ability”?

The answer is obvious in this picture. The real world challenge is that to meet everyone’s expectations for a equilibrium point, we need more than two coats or three boxes. The expectations of modern societies exceed the resources available and we have to temper expectations (across the spectrum).

Actually that is on the same level of thought as most, if not all, of the other people who have (and/or will) comment. Give yourself a pat on the back.

I have always believed this and argued with my female friends trying to prove it. If we look at reality, we will find that there is not a single country in the whole world that gives fathers a paternity leave equal in days to the maternity leave when a new baby is born. This is Justice vs. Equality. It’s not fair or just, on the other hand, to oblige women to be soldiers when 18 for 2 years like men … etc.

Actually, equity would have someone with a hole dug in the ground to take away from their hard work. This picture makes equity look nice and all, but when people aren’t motivated to succeed, then innovation takes a heavy hit. I love what a lot of European countries do with their education and healthcare, but they are now struggling with too many people on welfare, and not enough innovators, because taxes take too much away from those who put in effort and give too much to those who sit around doing nothing.

So, in essence, the picture needs holes dug in the ground to show all the people who are having stuff taken from them to build the mounds for others to stand on. In other words: those who work hard and get nothing from it just to lift up those who are lazy and not willing to put in the effort needed to succeed.

100% agreed.

All three are equally STEALING from the baseball team. Their combined equity to rip someone off will cause the poor guy selling tickets and the single mother working in the concession stand to eventually lose their jobs.

But what if the three people couldn’t afford tickets or they were all sold out?! Then they didn’t have a choice, except not watching. (But this is a hypothetical situation in which we don’t consider the possibility that the even does not occur at all for the people being focused on.) Anyway. Yeah. They might not have been able to get tickets for one reason or another.

What a horrible, ghastly and authoritarian image!

Each person had to build their own box and buy the parts for it, but one was taken away by the man on the left via threat of violence or imprisonment!

You get my point. This is a terrible and limited analogy, which is reliant on the idea that boxes are cheap and easy to find. Also, that he is a father, who has a duty of care to his kids.

It’s utterly meaningless when attempting to compare peers and when the boxes are metaphors for ability and work ethic.

Very, very silly nonsense.

It’s literally just a hypothetical situation. It is symbolicly representing a real-world challenge, but it has a specific purpose and meaning, and I think that if you don’t care about the purpose/meaning, you should buzz off before you offend someone else. Sorry if that seemed rude; I’m a very passionate person and a justice-fighter. Literally.

Come on man. Alex has a point. The image assumes that everyone could easily see the game, but it’s not an either/or situation. In reality it is a spectrum (such as if we talk about income). All of us view justice myopically, so none of us can be the arbiter of what’s just. Better to let everyone guide their own lives.

I love this! I have translated it to Hebrew and used it at my school. I hope that it is ok to share with others (ugh, after the fact, I already shared it with Jewish educators around the globe) I’d love to send you the image that I’ve used with the Hebrew. where can I upload a link? Thank you! The artwork is beautiful and the image is powerful. Even the first/second graders got the message of fairness.

Hi Hadar, we LOVE that you took the liberty to do this (and it’s SO good to hear that young children understood the meaning)!

The original cartoon is not ours and we adapted it with the full-intention of providing the design files so that others could adapt it, too! Please email our Communications team ([email protected]) and someone will be in touch with you about getting a link to the graphic (and hopefully even the graphic itself) posted here.

Thank YOU for taking this gift and running with it!

How can I cite this lovely picture in APA format in a Concept Analysis paper?

I’ve only cited anything for an essay so I don’t know but maybe someone will come along and answer this for the next person who has this same question.

How about the little guy, accepting that he’s shorter and needs an extra box (hey I can relate – I’m shorter than 5′), goes and gets another box (maybe having to get more education to learn how to acquire boxes, or work a second job) rather than standing and sulking waiting for the tall guy to give him his box (which he worked hard to acquire). Maybe the short guy can even eventually rise above the other two and brag about his view. Life is not fair and there are many things we can’t control. But we need to take responsibility for the things we can. It sucks but the fact is some people will have to work twice as hard to get to the same place as others but they nevertheless get there. There are countless examples.

Yes. Great point. Except… the point, I think, was to convey that some people don’t have the means to get what they need and that includes the time and energy to get a second job, in which case the proud, priveleged, and horribly oblivious white people come in, refusing to give up their box (money/food/etc.) that they don’t even need.

It is all well. The picture serves the purpose in the context in which it is situated – which is to differentiate between equality and equity inspite of the natural barriers to real equity in a world inhabited by equally selfish creatures.

Why in the freaking world does no one else say this. May you live a long and happy life.

Very soon this web site will be famous amid all blogging and site-building visitors, due to it’s fastidious posts

You actually make it appear really easy together with your presentation but I find this topic to be actually something that I feel I would by no means understand. It sort of feels too complicated and extremely vast for me. I am having a look ahead in your next post, I’ll try to get the cling of it!

Ok, if anyone else feels this way, here’s the gist: Everyone has one life goal in common, right? To thrive, financially, emotionally, and physically. But, not everyone can get the things they need to meet this goal. People who DO have what they need–privileged white people–do not understand this, and think that giving everyone the same thing *equality* is what will make the goal easier for everyone to reach. But because some people need more resources than others, they have specific needs. If these specific needs aren’t met, they will survive, but they may not thrive. Meeting everyone’s individual needs *equity* will make the goal easier to reach, because there aren’t as many obstacles as there were. Note, and this is essential to understand, that I did not say ALL obstacles. There will still be some. There is a third option, but it is much harder to do. Removing the initial problem altogether *liberation* would mean that nobody has specific needs to be met. HOWEVER, there’s the catch of the problem is eliminated completely. In an ideal world, poverty wouldn’t exist in the first place. But this is a far less than perfect world, and so some barriers can’t even be scratched. Lot’s of information, here’s the summary: equality gives everyone the same thing, but equity gives everyone what they as individuals (or in other terms, families, ethnic groups, etc) need. Liberation eliminates problems altogether, and is therefore much harder to reach. Equity is better because not everyone needs the same thing, and so equality is not the right option.

You can’t be serious. No, everyone does NOT have one life goal in common. Not even a little bit. But, even if they did, no two journeys would be the same. Which is why “equity” is a problem. Giving Frank (who had no desire to work and earn anything and was perfectly content to waste what he was given) resource after resource in order to have an equal quality of life as Stan (who was given zero resources because he was ambitious and acquired what he needed on his own) is absolutely disgusting. In fact, seeing Stan succeed will not motivate Frank to work harder, he gets it handed to him. Stan will see that he doesn’t have to work hard because why should he? Stan can just be lazy and get things handed to him for free, too. The biggest problem with that, though, is that nothing is free. Someone is always paying for it. It’s theft. Everyone loses.

thiet ke ho ca koi No matter if some one searches for his essential thing, thus he/she wants to be available that in detail, thus that thing is maintained over here.

It would have been better with the third image – liberation – with no fence at all blocking the viewers, or even chairs for everyone, or even folks that are seated in the stadium. this image doesn’t go far enough.

Thank you for another fantastic post. The place else may just anyone get that type of info in such a perfect approach of writing? I’ve a presentation next week, and I am on the search for such information.

Oh my goodness! Amazing article dude! Thank you so much, However I am having troubles with your RSS. I don’t know why I am unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody having the same RSS issues? Anyone who knows the answer can you kindly respond? Thanks!!

Moin Moin So beklagen die Patientinnen häufig Rückenschmerzen und Nackenschmerzen.

Hi there, after reading this amazing paragraph i am too cheerful to share my know-how here with mates.

I benefit from looking through your internet site. Thank you!

No time to read through all the responses so perhaps this has been put forward already; but I came across this similar meme and thought it addressed some of the issues even more thoroughly, that is to say, by addressing the inequity involved the props might not be needed at all — and all of the individuals (though in this depiction are “white” or “pink skinned”) have the barriers out of the way and all can enjoy the ballgame in safety and relative comfort.

I think the general reality is that each of the children “could have been depicted differently” so as to create the visual of inequity regardless of “race/color/disability”…

I rather like it however… it seems the bandaids are no longer required. Let’s be realistic-the fence is protection – and we all still need that (regardless of who we are). We all have one or more dis-ability; physical, emotional, financial, long-term, short-term… and in many cases, people need that hand up.

It is in how we deal with the truest of issues — working with the actual diagnosis, rather than pretending there is no issue, no dis-ability (yes, I’m putting the “dash”in there deliberately) that determines the outcome.

We can say the same about the issues our government is facing. Too many bandaids, not enough cleaning up the actual wound so it can heal and the country be whole again. We have these huge infections, and it’s about time we shoveled the tonics, scraped the dirt off and got some real health back into our system.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155073997389832&set=a.10150712123059832.492768.765439831&type=3&theater

Yesssss Although I think what you’re talking about with the fence gone has already been addressed and added as a third option–liberation–in a similar illustration.

An impressive share! I have just forwarded this onto a coworker who was conducting a little research on this. And he actually bought me breakfast because I discovered it for him… lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for spending some time to discuss this subject here on your internet site.

Hi, thank you for allowing the images to be used freely. I am using the image in my PhD regarding equity, justice and change in environmental impact assessment.

Found this on MSN and I’m happy I did. Well written article.

All people in the cartoon are the same age… all 3 have been admitted into a Physics undergrad program…. The tall person has an IQ = 125 The middle size person has an IQ = 100 The short person has an IQ = 75 The tall person gets 1 hour to take exams… The medium person gets 1 + 1 = 2 hours to take exams The short person gets 1 + 2 = 3 hours to take exams How is this ‘equitable’ in any way? By letting ‘anyone’ into the program the tall man’s naturally endowed characteristics are devalued—-the natural characteristics of the other two are ‘inflated’. Nobody asked to be short or tall. The best human intentions cannot ‘outdesign the way things are naturally’.

This depiction is individualism. Re-conceptualise to a society which is cooperative and collective. Create examinations based on collectivity and cooperation, allow teams to answer the examination. Isn’t that how life is post-education? Change the structures to achieve equity.

We match college students’ private studying styles and must tutors who coach them to excessive efficiency and academic success in all school topics, at all levels https://math-problem-solver.com/ .

And to make math attention-grabbing – solely a lovely individual like you are able to do it.

I’m glad that you left space for people to comment. I’ve always had concerns about the diagram as presented. In Canada, Equality Rights are entrenched in Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All of the legal writers and thinkers and all of our courts and tribunals understand Equality to mean both ‘formal’ and ‘substantive’ equality.in 1989, in its very first case on S15, the Supreme Court of Canada said that the Equality Rights section imparts ‘substantive’ equality.

The notion of ‘equality’ as presented in the diagram, depicts an example of ‘formal’ equality or treating like things alike. It was understood in 1989 that this treating like things alike can, as is depicted in the diagram, result in the most perverse injustices. It was further understood that the sort of solution presented in the second panel constitutes ‘substantive equality’ NOTE not equity.

By saying that ‘equality’ is bad and that it is to be contrasted to ‘equity’ the diagram fails to take into account ‘substantive’ equality. In attempting to devise solutions that would result in providing an even playing field for all, none of the legal thinkers or writer and no tribunal member or judge has ever elucidated an idea of ‘equity’ as being opposed to ‘equality’.

To summarize, the equation presented is the diagram has no basis in law and has no basis in the thinking or writing of people who work in equality rights. It’s just patently wrong.

I am aware of this pictures popularity to illustrate the concept of equity and equality. But, I am not a fan. My first reaction was, “why are these people behind the fence?” Why are they not sitting in the stands with the rest of the people.

To better express equity and equality, I like the image of a person wearing prescription eyeglasses better. When a single person requires eyeglasses to improve their quality of vision, we don’t issue everyone else on the planet a pair of glasses as well- they do not need them. The prescribed glasses doesn’t give the person wearing them an edge over non-eyeglass-wearing folks. It only makes them equal to them.

But, …the kids are still outside the park, on the other side of the fence! Boxes or no boxes they are not included, – …not even in the cheap seats?

Yes, as an educator I do realize the purpose of the rendition, to create an understanding of equality and equity, but they are still outside the fence. Is it a start? …maybe. But if the bar is set to “outside” then outside is all we will achieve.

David Fonseca Assistant Superintendent of Schools Burke County Public Schools Morganton, NC

If people stop over thinking and take this photo exactly as it is then they’d appreciate it a lot more. My 7 year old understood the basic principle- shouldn’t be too hard for adults.

I used it as an example for my daughter as to why she’s treated differently and held to a higher standard than my ASD son. Her version of “fair” is on the left at her age- it was helpful to explain why I have different expectations. She finally understood and knows that I’m not playing favorites and love her just as much as her sibling. Thank you!

The picture says to me that even there in reality there is no such thing as Equality, society should do there level best to see to it that the playing field is leveled so everyone can have an opportunity to rise as high as they wish in life. Thanks!

What if the tall man worked hard for his box? Is it “fair” to say his work shouldn’t be compensated equally with the work of others? Let’s make a comparison. We require less work for short one to have enough boxes in this instance. We can’t do that in every instance though. Eventually, accustomed to a lower level of work for more boxes, he will feel like everything is stacked against him when he doesn’t measure up elsewhere. Compare this to affirmative action. Fewer blacks are graduating college now than before affirmative action programs. Those admitted with lower standards don’t go on to be successful in college. Admissions isn’t just a sorting mechanism. It gauges someone’s readiness to handle the workload of a university. It doesn’t help to give someone boxes when it only stunts their growth. (Excuse the limitations of the drawing in this real-world comparison)

Real life is not like watching a baseball game but reaching for food. Imagine that there is a tall tree full of fruits and there were three hungry people like the ones in the picture. It is only that all crates have to be put under the tallest person that they could reach the fruits. Otherwise they would all starve to death. What would you do? This is the reality today: to make enough progress for the whole human race, we need to put enough resources under small number of “tallest” people. Think about it, who benefited the most from the mass production of automobiles. Was it the rich, who already owned several horse carriages, or the general public, who had to walk by foot?

The fallacy of this picture is the lack of distinction between equal opportunities and equal assistance. Also, regarding a cause-and-effect timeline, Equality is on the front-end, and Equity is on the resultant-end.

The equal-height boxes would be Equal Assistance [one size fits all] but not Equal Opportunities [i.e., Equality]. (No one is “more equal” than another!) The unequal-height boxes would be Equal Opportunities [Equality on the front-end, so all 3 CAN see], that could bring about Equal Outcomes [i.e., Equity, so that all 3 WILL see]. Otherwise, if the shortest one insists on closing his eyes, there would not be Equal Outcomes [i.e., Equity, since only 1 or 2 are seeing]. (Equity may opt to force.)

Of late college quotas do not give equal opportunities based on merit only but based on ethnic and gender characteristics. However, colleges have always sought and still seek to give equal opportunity along with unequal assistance, be it financial help with tuition or extra tutoring or physical/mental disability arrangements. Colleges give out different-height boxes with equal opportunity.

This conversation highlights some of the ambiguities and different understandings around the ideas of equality and equity. The different sized boxes are, as Larry N. Baker said, about ‘equal assistance’. They lead to an ‘equality of outcome’ in the picture, but only because all the individuals shown are putting in the same effort – ie they are all standing up (rather than sitting). Were one of the people choosing to just sit on their box, the person would be unable to see – but this would not be inequitable, just an unequal otcome. As an economist, my understanding of equity is that it involves a value judgment about the desert or merit of different people. Thus, (under certain commonly-held value judgments), someone who doesn’t “try” as hard as another would not deserve the same rewards (in this case, the same view). Indeed, giving such people an equal outcome (for example, giving them a higher box that allows them to sit and see) would, in that case, be INequitable!

Dear All, The picture doesn’t show equity as it doesn’t include girls/women. In its current version it is similar to this one where the religious/ethnic diversity of India is intended to be shown but it only shows men: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d5/6d/af/d56dafa4ea1ef5e810c0d9397cd3ebac.jpg

Regards, Elly

Why is there a fence? Why are they on the outside?

Here’s another variation. A bit gruesome, but the underlying point — that in the name of equity sometimes the result is everyone suffers (or perhaps put another way, “If everyone can’t enjoy or benefit from X, then nobody will get it.).

(Link removed for graphic depictions of violence)

Wondering how does this concept applies to the athletes on the field considering genetics is a massive factor.

Everyone should have an equal amount of time on the field regardless of ability or effort

Appreciate your perspective. Looking forward to more posts!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Aisha Shillingford
• Alia Lahlou
• Anastacia Thomas
• Andrea Nagel
• April Nishimura
• Charlie Jones
• Curtis Ogden
• Cynthia Silva Parker
• Danielle Coates-Connor
• Gibrán Rivera
• Glenn Johnson
• IISC Author
• Jasmine Williams
• Jen Willsea
• Kelly Bates
• Lawrence Barriner, II
• Linda Guinee
• Louise O'Meara
• Madison (Matt) Thompson
• Marianne Hughes
• Melinda Weekes
• Miriam Messinger
• Mistinguette Smith
• Sara Oaklander
• Stevie Johnston
• Thomas Rice
• Learning Edge
• Sustainability
• Uncategorized
• Spiritual Activism
• Equitable Initiatives
• IISC Inward-facing Thoughts
• Collaboration
• Social Innovation
• Your Experiences
• Facilitative Leadership
• Social Media
• Inspiration
• Testimonials
• IISC Outward-facing Thoughts
• Power, Equity, Inclusion
• LoveLiberates
• Big Democracy
• Structural Transformation
• Systems Thinking
• What We Are Reading
• Press Release
• Decision Making
• Facilitative Leaders

Send a message .

Subscribe to our mailing list.

Recent IISC Clients

• Alliance for Digital Equity
• The Barr Fellowship Network, Barr Foundation
• The Boston Foundation
• Common Justice
• Community Economic Development Assistance Corp of Massachusetts - Building Stronger Centers
• DC Legal Aid Transformations Network, DC Bar Foundation
• Embrace Boston: Arts and Culture
• Food Policy Council Network Community of Learning and Practice, capacity building for racial equity, economic justice and network weaving
• Food Solutions New England: Network support & leadership development within a racial equity frame
• Ford Foundation: Design, facilitation, capacity building for racial equity
• Full Frame Initiative: Network capacity building
• Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Network, The Nature Conservancy
• Massachusetts Department of Public Health: Bureau of Substance Abuse Services
• Mississippi Food Justice Collaborative and Food Policy Council
• Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Vermont - strategic planning consulting
• NYC Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene: Race to Justice Team and projects with multiple divisions and bureaus
• Purpose Built Communities
• Vermont Food Bank, Equity consulting and collaborative leadership development
• Wallace Center at Winrock International: Food Systems Leadership Network

10 Emerging Artists Share What Systemic Equality Means to Them

A future that roots out injustice, challenges our racist institutions, and ensures that every person can achieve their highest potential, unhampered by structural and institutional racism. We asked them to be bold in envisioning this reimagining of systems: from bridging the racial wealth gap, to reconciling our past, to ensuring our future expands access for all and empowers all communities. Their work is inspired by these results. Accompanying each piece is a personal statement from the artist about the world they envision on issues such as student debt, fair housing, voting rights, and more.

Greg Dubois

“A large step towards systemic equality is ensuring that high speed internet access is expanded out to the millions of people of color who don’t have access to it. My graphic is an idealistic portrayal of an America in which that basic necessity is provided to all — giving everyone real access to education, health care, financial growth, governmental support systems, and overall connections that can uplift and empower those who’ve been held back from years of systemic inequality.”

Greg is an award winning Haitian-Canadian visual designer, who started his design journey over 10 years ago. His passion for visual storytelling drives him to constantly create art and designs that weave together colors, textures, patterns, and typography to craft his vision. Greg hopes that his work, if nothing else, captivates, inspires, and provides insight to who he is and what he believes in.

Sophia Zarders

The message is clear: this country was built on the thankless hard work and immense suffering of our ancestors. We demand reparations.

“The intersections of race, history, and ancestry have frequently been at the core of my work. The generational tradition of storytelling, looking through old photos and mapping the family tree have been powerful tools in discovering and understanding my ancestry and America’s history. ‘Demand Reparations’ is a continuation of these themes by conveying a shared history of Black and Indigenous communities. Though none of the figures depicted are based on anyone in particular, I wanted to create a specific yet familiar familial lineage that viewers could identify with in some aspect. The message is clear: this country was built on the thankless hard work and immense suffering of our ancestors. We demand reparations.”

Sophia Zarders (she/they) is an illustrator, comic artist, and independent zine publisher from Long Beach, California. Their work has been published by HarperCollins, The Nation, PRISM, Fiyah Literary Magazine and Razorcake Magazine. They’ve been commissioned by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, SaveArtSpace, Forward Together, and the Arts Council of Long Beach. In 2018, they exhibited their first solo show at Somos Gallery in Berlin, Germany. Sophia is currently pursuing their MFA in Visual Art from Emily Carr University of Art & Design in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Jade Orlando

“I imagine inequality and racism as weeds with roots burrowing deep into our country’s foundation. This piece highlights a future where we dig out and destroy the roots of injustice, allowing a more beautiful country to bloom for every American.”

Jade Orlando is a Black biracial illustrator working in Atlanta, Georgia. Her illustrations are featured in books such as Generation Brave, Hey You! and the Activists Assemble series. In addition to book illustration, her art can be found on products ranging from greeting cards to calendars. Jade lives with her husband, four cats, and a Greyhound named Petra. When she’s not illustrating, you can usually find her curled up with her pets and a really good book.

“Equity can be configured when accessibility is finally given. People have the human right to obtain and experience the freedom they have been promised.

Accessibility dismantles the pillars that barricade our communities from experiencing progression and healing.

Accessibility dismantles the pillars that barricade our communities from experiencing progression and healing. Beyond the endless cycle of disconnection, people can finally see their lives at true value and being to see communities flourish. This change would offer us the opportunity to build various aspirations and resources to secure a sturdier foundation for everyone.”

Memphis-native illustrator and designer Mia Saine is a non-binary Black creative seeking to share a more positive, inclusive narrative. Saine’s colorful, minimal digital illustrations strive to normalize and amplify minorities’ voices and experiences. Saine triumphs the constant cycle of injustice, tropes, and stereotypes by showcasing minorities, especially Black individuals, embracing their self-empowerment and happiness.

Kahlief Steele

“Do my loved ones truly see me? Do they hear me? Do they feel me? Caught in the crossfire between my white family and friends and my Blackness, I often feel lost in the void.

This work is a natural way for me to communicate these sentiments. Harsh lines and contrast show the differences we have, but the shared range of values recognize that reconciliation is still within reach. The only colors in the piece, green and red, hearken back to our roots in the Pan-African flag. Texture bursts throughout, indicating the gritty nature of the work we’ve done and have yet to do.

Taking broken fragments and piecing them together to make something captivating, I show that the sometimes confused and complicated feelings we have are valid and worthy of being heard.”

Graduating in 2015 from Missouri Southern State University with a BFA in graphic design, Kahlief Steele finds ways to use his design skills to solve problems for a variety of clients, including large businesses, nonprofits, friends, and family. Having been raised by a white family, he has a deep longing for knowledge about his heritage. As such, every February, he amasses a trove of information related to Black History and publishes art to educate those who are unfamiliar. In the summer following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, he hosted a Q+A session to foster conversation with those who were unsure of the next steps to take. He continues to create work that inspires others to greater understanding and to take action.

Nadia Fisher

“I created this piece to emphasize the importance of protecting voting rights for everyone. I wanted to illustrate something to show that in order to fight democracy and equity, we have to protect voting rights. The stars in the background represent the states, as they are the ones that are currently trying to pass laws, at an alarming rate, to suppress voting rights, and the flag represents the rights that we are trying to protect and expand.”

Nadia Fisher is a children’s book and freelance illustrator based out of Washington, D.C. striving to normalize inclusion in children’s books and the illustration world. A lot of her art focuses on social justice, and Nadia hopes to encourage people to find their voice and show up for others.

Daniella Uche-Oji

“I created a design about the Tulsa Race Massacre. There was a thriving Black community in the U.S.! There was a successful Black community in the U.S. but, of course because, ‘Black people aren’t supposed to own anything’ they didn’t let it survive. This is another incident I feel should have been taught in schools abroad, especially African countries, but unfortunately wasn’t for whatever reason — I personally never learned about it until I moved here. Despite all that has happened to all Black people around the world, be it slavery or colonization, there has always been a dire need to take things away from us. Things that we have ‘owned;’ natural resources on our land, and this same mindset caused the Greenwood District of Tulsa, Oklahoma to be raided and destroyed for NO REASON AT ALL.”

Daniella Uche-Oji is a designer and storyteller based in Los Angeles, California. She was born in Houston, Texas and raised in Lagos, Nigeria. Her obsession for storytelling and technology drove her to becoming a designer. She is skilled at graphic and motion designs that tell stories she didn’t get to hear earlier in her life. Her designs are largely inspired by culture, music, fashion, and technology.

“What would our society look like for Black and Indigenous people of color if systemic racism no longer thrived? Drawing from a video recording of Nina Simone back in 1968 being asked ‘what is freedom to you?’ the artist was inspired to convey her response through the medium of digital collage. Simone states that freedom to her meant ‘absolutely no fear!’ With this piece, the artist explores what true freedom would look like for her people when absolutely nothing is hindering us, including fear, and we are able to live our truly authentic lives.”

With this piece, the artist explores what true freedom would look like for her people when absolutely nothing is hindering us, including fear.

Alexa Lima is an interdisciplinary artist who resides in Marietta, Georgia with her husband, two step-kids, a dog named Zelda, and a cat named Benny. Creating movement through the lens of minimalism is the constant idea that she aims to convey through her work, and centers her design ethos around illuminating that which has been cast aside throughout time. Currently, she is running Ulterior Studio, self-publishing short-run zines, and trying not to consume all the pastries, all the time.

Justine Swindell

“This illustration depicts the collaboration it takes across policymakers, institutions, and individuals to close the racial wealth gap. There are many symbolic references including a nod to the many pins and bumper stickers that surface during social movements. The image is layered on a flat black and white divide with all-American denim on both sides. On the denim jacket there are several pins and patches highlighting a few solutions. Lastly, the closure of the jacket represents possibility for a better future, a real and tangible shift to equal opportunity for all.”

Justine Swindell is a multidisciplinary artist based in Washington D.C. In her neo-pop style she tells visual stories of city life, cultural identity, and social change.

Nicole Abrokwa

“This piece represents the fear and overwhelming feeling of having student debt. It’s like being lost at sea, helpless with nothing supporting you but your cap. A life preserver enters the scene literally saving you, because at this point student loans are loans paid off for life.”

Nicole Abrokwa is a multidisciplinary artist. Her work pulls from her life experiences, whether that be her Ghanaian heritage, her childhood memories, or everyday life. Her work puts focus on human emotions and capturing moments of closeness. Over the years, Nicole has worked on honing her skills in various mediums ranging from digital animations to traditional paintings. When not creating, you can find her unsuccessfully attempting to grow tomatoes and starting another book only for it to be left unfinished.

Learn More About the Issues on This Page

• Racial Justice
• Voting Rights

Related Content

Our New 4/20 Merch and Ongoing Fight for Legalization

Live from Brooklyn Public Library: The Power of Poetry and Magical Thinking

Texas Second Court of Appeals Reverses Crystal Mason’s Conviction in Major Voting Rights Victory

ACLU Statement on OMB Memo for AI Use by Federal Agencies

• Search the site GO Please fill out this field.
• Newsletters
• Mental Health
• Social and Public Health

What's the Difference Between Equity and Equality?

People often use "equity" and "equality" interchangeably, but these are different concepts. Equality is the even distribution of resources across all people. Equity, on the other hand, is the distribution of resources based on need.

Does equity mean fairness? Yes, equity programs aim to even the playing field to ensure fairness and justice. Read on to learn the difference between equity and equality and what these concepts look like in action.

Maskot / Getty Images

What Does Equality Mean?

Equality is the access to and distribution of a set of resources evenly across people. Equity, in contrast, is the access to or distribution of resources based on need. Equality and equity are separate concepts. Both have to do with fairness and justice , but how society achieves them and what they ultimately look like are different. 

Here's a visual representation of how equity differs from equality:

Each person is given the same box in the equality drawing. The access to and distribution of resources is spread evenly across the population. The shortest person, however, still cannot see over the fence. The tallest person can see even higher over the fence than before.

The people are given either one, two, or no boxes to stand on in the equity drawing. The access to or distribution of resources is spread based on need. All three people can see over the fence at the same level, regardless of their height.

Why Is Equity Important?

You can't achieve equality without first achieving equity. Is "equality" an outdated term? No. Equality works if everyone needs the same thing. Equality is not enough, however, if you are trying to help people live better lives and rectify unfairness .

Equality assumes that everybody is the same and everybody needs the same thing. Some people need more, however, because they started with less. These people may not have what they need if everyone gets an equal shot or piece of something.

Equity vs. Equality Examples

Equity is both an ultimate goal and a process. Achieving equity means that no part of a person's identity (e.g., age, disability, gender , race, religion, and sexual orientation) gets in the way of their ability to thrive.

Here are some examples of equity vs. equality:

Being equitable means recognizing, taking accountability for, and changing the systemic and structural barriers that get in the way of people being able to thrive. The people affected by inequality must be meaningfully involved in the change process.

Some might think that those targeted efforts in and of themselves are racist and discriminatory , but that's not the case. The only way to correct abuse, lack of access, and neglect is to have a special intervention.

Equity Programs in Action

The call for more significant equity spans everything from education to work to politics. The systemic and structural barriers that prevent people from thriving can prevent them from being the healthiest they can be. Inequity in education, for example, might have prevented you from going to college. It can be difficult, as a result, to find a job that pays well and offers health insurance.

Equitable practices help the specific groups and people they target and society as a whole, even if you are not the direct target. That's especially true when it comes to health equity.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has identified several Healthy People 2030 objectives that it will target to achieve health equity. These include:

• Expanding access to safe drinking water
• Increasing the number of national surveys to collect data on LGBTQ+ populations
• Reducing the number of people with disabilities who delay care because of cost

Health equity challenges us to understand these disparities. There may not be enough healthful food or not as much access to care in a particular neighborhood. It can be hard to find transportation or take off from work to see a healthcare provider. These factors can make it difficult to manage a chronic (long-lasting) disease for some people.

How Can You Practice and Promote Equity?

Policy at every level dictates equity. Federal and state policies—policies in organizations, such as when picking board members—are essential. Your organization lacks a voice at the table for everyone if it's not entirely representative of its members.

There are things you can do to help promote equity, even on a personal level. Take stock of where you go to school or work, live, spend your free time, and worship. Think about who might be unfairly disadvantaged in these areas.

Consider what services you can bring to help promote equity. You might ask yourself questions like:

• Can you be an ally to help them feel better included, to make them better aware of opportunities and resources?
• Can you partner with them and be a friend? 
• Because of your status, can you become a leader in those domains that initiate change?
• Do you have support services that make things go better for people?
• Do you have the material capacity to create change in these spaces by funding programs and initiatives? 

Any degree of help toward equity matters, whether you only have the means to be a friend, confidant, or supporter. Raising awareness is also essential. Not everyone understands the difference between equality and equity. Talk meaningfully with people who are impacted by inequity, and check your biases . They are ultimately the experts of their experiences.

A Quick Review

Equality and equity are essential concepts regarding fairness and justice, but these are two separate concepts. Equality is the access to and even distribution of resources across people. Equity, on the other hand, helps even the playing field so everyone can thrive. This involves changing the systemic and structural barriers that disproportionally affect marginalized communities.

You can help inspire equality and equity in your community, even if that simply means being a friend or ally to someone who experiences disadvantages.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Focusing on health equity .

United Nations. Recognizing and overcoming inequity in education .

Department of Health and Human Services. Health equity in healthy people 2030 .

Related Articles

Visualizing the data: Women’s representation in society

Date: 25 February 2020

Women’s full and equal participation in all facets of society is a fundamental human right. Yet, around the world, from politics to entertainment to the workplace, women and girls are largely underrepresented.

The visualizations below take a closer look at this gender-imbalanced picture over time, revealing just how slow progress is. Rooted in patriarchal norms and traditions, the consequences are far-reaching with detrimental, negative consequences on the personal, economic and future well-being of women and girls, their families and the community at large.

Building a sustainable future for all, means leaving no one behind. Women and girls are critical to finding solutions to the biggest challenges we face today and must be heard, valued and celebrated throughout society to reflect their perspectives and choices for their future and that of the advancement of humanity.

How many more generations are needed for women and girls to realize their rights? Join Generation Equality to demand equal rights and opportunities or all. Share this piece today using #GenerationEquality, #IWD2020 and #CSW64.

Politics 

Women’s political representation globally has doubled in the last 25 years. But, this only amounts to around 1 in 4 parliamentary seats held by women today. 

Women continue to be significantly underrepresented in the highest political positions. In October 2019, there were only 10 women Head of State and 13 women Head of Government across 22 countries, compared with four Head of State and eight Prime Ministers across 12 countries in 1995.

Source:  Inter-Parliamentary Union (Data as of 1 January 2020); Report of the UN Secretary-General E/CN.6/2020/3

In June 2019, the Fortune 500 hit a milestone with the most women CEOs on record. While every gain is a win, the sum as a whole is a bleak picture: Out of the 500 chief executives leading the highest-grossing firms, just under 7 per cent are women.

When looking at the workforce as a whole, the gender gap in labour force participation among prime working age adults (25 to 54) has stagnated over the past 20 years. Improved education among women has done little to shift deeply entrenched occupational segregation in developed and developing countries. Women continue to carry out a disproportionate share of unpaid care and domestic work. In developing countries, that includes arduous tasks such as water collection, for which women and girls are responsible in 80 per cent of households that do not have access to water on the premises.

Source:  Fortune 500 (Data as of 1 June 2019); Catalyst ;  Report of the UN Secretary-General E/CN.6/2020/3

Culture and sciences

Bestowed annually to recognize intellectual achievement and academic, cultural and scientific advances, the Nobel Prize has been awarded to more than 900 individuals in the course of its history from 1901 to 2019. Only 53 of the winners have been women, 19 in the categories of physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine. Marie Curie became the first female laureate in 1903, when she and her husband won a joint Prize for physics. Eight years later she was solely awarded the Chemistry Prize, making her the only woman in history to win the Nobel Prize twice. Although women have been behind a number of scientific discoveries throughout history, just 30 per cent of researchers worldwide and 35 per cent of all students enrolled in STEM-related fields of study are women.

Source:  The Nobel Foundation  (Data as of 2019);  Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The gender snapshot 2019 , UN Women

When it comes to equality of men and women in news media, progress has virtually ground to a halt. According to the largest study on the portrayal, participation and representation of women in the news media spanning 20 years and 114 countries, only 24 per cent of the persons heard, read about or seen in newspaper, television and radio news are women. A glass ceiling also exists for women news reporters in newspaper bylines and newscast reports, with 37 per cent of stories reported by women as of 2015, showing no change over the course of a decade. Despite the democratizing promise of digital media, women’s poor representation in traditional news media is also reflected in digital news, with women making up only 26 per cent of the people in Internet news stories and media news tweets. Only 4 per cent of traditional news and digital news stories clearly challenge gender stereotypes. Among other factors, stereotypes and the significant underrepresentation of women in the media play a significant role in shaping harmful attitudes of disrespect and violence towards women.

Source:  The Global Media Monitoring Project (Data as of 2015); Report of the UN Secretary-General E/CN.6/2020/3

Entertainment

Like other forms of media, film and television have a powerful influence in shaping cultural perceptions and attitudes towards gender and are key to shifting the narrative for the gender equality agenda. Yet, an analysis of popular films across 11 countries found, for example, that 31 per cent of all speaking characters were women and that only 23 per cent featured a female protagonist—a number that closely mirrored the percentage of women filmmakers (21 per cent). 

The gross underrepresentation of women in the film industry is also glaringly evident in critically acclaimed film awards: In the 92-year history of the Oscars, only five women have ever been nominated for the Best Director Award category; and one woman—Kathryn Bigelow—has ever won. And, Jane Campion remains the only woman director to have won the Cannes Film Festival’s top, most prestigious prize, the Palme d’Or, in its 72-year history. The only other women to have received the prize—but jointly—were actresses Adèle Exarchopoulos and Léa Seydoux with the movie's male director Abdellatif Kechiche. If a picture is worth a thousand words, the message is worth a million: If we are to shift stereotypical notions of gender and reflect women’s realities, we need more women in film, on-screen and off-screen. 

Source:  The Official Academy Awards® Database (Data as of 2020); A Brief History of the Palme d’Or, Cannes Film Festival (Data as of 2019)

Sports has the power to inspire change and break gender stereotypes—and women have been doing just that decade after decade, showing that they are just as capable, resilient and strong as men physically, but also strategically, as leaders and game changers (Generation Equality pro tip: Watch Billie Jean King’s history-altering tennis match Battle of the Sexes).

Today, women are far more visible in sports than ever before: The Tokyo 2020 Olympics is projected to have close to equal representation of women and men competing for the first time in its history. For comparison, only 22 women (2.2 per cent) out of a total of 997 athletes competed in the modern Olympics for the first time in 1900. Women and men will compete in almost all sports categories with an exception: Rhythmic gymnastics and artistic swimming are women’s-only events and Greco-Roman wrestling is a men's-only event—although women can compete in freestyle wrestling.

Despite progress, women still continue to be excluded in certain sports in parts of the world and are paid far less than men in wages and prize money globally. UN Women is working to level the playing field for women and girls, including through partnerships with the International Olympic Committee, and UN Women Goodwill Ambassador and all-time top scorer of the FIFA Women’s World Cup Marta Vieira da Silva. 

Source:  The International Olympic Committee (Data as of 2020); FIFA (Data as of 2019)

Culinary arts

Despite women being prescribed stereotypical roles in the kitchen at home, the upper echelons of the restaurant industry have remained relatively closed to female chefs. As detailed in the documentary A Fine Line , women must often overcome active discrimination and navigate a culture that both glorifies masculinity and tacitly condones harassment. Paired with long, unpredictable and inflexible working hours, unfriendly family and childcare policies and lower salaries, women face enormous challenges when entering the restaurant business. The numbers match the story: Today, just under 4 per cent of chefs with three Michelin stars (the highest rating you can get) from the prominent restaurant guide are women. 

Source:  Michelin (Data as of 2019)

• ‘One Woman’ – The UN Women song
• UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous
• Kirsi Madi, Deputy Executive Director for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships
• Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, Deputy Executive Director for Normative Support, UN System Coordination and Programme Results
• Guiding documents
• Report wrongdoing
• Programme implementation
• Career opportunities
• Application and recruitment process
• Meet our people
• Internship programme
• Procurement principles
• Gender-responsive procurement
• Doing business with UN Women
• How to become a UN Women vendor
• Contract templates and general conditions of contract
• Vendor protest procedure
• Facts and Figures
• Global norms and standards
• Women’s movements
• Parliaments and local governance
• Constitutions and legal reform
• Preguntas frecuentes
• Global Norms and Standards
• Macroeconomic policies and social protection
• Sustainable Development and Climate Change
• Rural women
• Employment and migration
• Facts and figures
• Creating safe public spaces
• Spotlight Initiative
• Essential services
• Focusing on prevention
• Research and data
• Other areas of work
• UNiTE campaign
• Conflict prevention and resolution
• Building and sustaining peace
• Young women in peace and security
• Rule of law: Justice and security
• Women, peace, and security in the work of the UN Security Council
• Preventing violent extremism and countering terrorism
• Planning and monitoring
• Humanitarian coordination
• Crisis response and recovery
• Disaster risk reduction
• Inclusive National Planning
• Public Sector Reform
• Tracking Investments
• Strengthening young women's leadership
• Economic empowerment and skills development for young women
• Action on ending violence against young women and girls
• Engaging boys and young men in gender equality
• Sustainable development agenda
• Leadership and Participation
• National Planning
• Violence against Women
• Access to Justice
• Regional and country offices
• Regional and Country Offices
• Liaison offices
• UN Women Global Innovation Coalition for Change
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Economic and Social Council
• General Assembly
• Security Council
• High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
• Human Rights Council
• Climate change and the environment
• Other Intergovernmental Processes
• World Conferences on Women
• Global Coordination
• Regional and country coordination
• Promoting UN accountability
• Gender Mainstreaming
• Coordination resources
• System-wide strategy
• Focal Point for Women and Gender Focal Points
• Entity-specific implementation plans on gender parity
• Laws and policies
• Strategies and tools
• Reports and monitoring
• Training Centre services
• Publications
• Government partners
• National mechanisms
• Civil Society Advisory Groups
• Benefits of partnering with UN Women
• Business and philanthropic partners
• Goodwill Ambassadors
• National Committees
• UN Women Media Compact
• UN Women Alumni Association
• Editorial series
• Media contacts
• Annual report
• Progress of the world’s women
• SDG monitoring report
• World survey on the role of women in development
• Reprint permissions
• Secretariat
• 2023 sessions and other meetings
• 2022 sessions and other meetings
• 2021 sessions and other meetings
• 2020 sessions and other meetings
• 2019 sessions and other meetings
• 2018 sessions and other meetings
• 2017 sessions and other meetings
• 2016 sessions and other meetings
• 2015 sessions and other meetings
• Compendiums of decisions
• Reports of sessions
• Key Documents
• Brief history
• CSW snapshot
• Preparations
• Official Documents
• Official Meetings
• Side Events
• Session Outcomes
• CSW65 (2021)
• CSW64 / Beijing+25 (2020)
• CSW63 (2019)
• CSW62 (2018)
• CSW61 (2017)
• Member States
• Eligibility
• Registration
• Opportunities for NGOs to address the Commission
• Communications procedure
• Grant making
• Accompaniment and growth
• Results and impact
• Knowledge and learning
• Social innovation
• UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women
• About Generation Equality
• Generation Equality Forum
• Action packs

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

When trying to demonstrate the difference between equity and equality, one image offers a particularly visual representation that captures the essence of the difference in an instant.

The image is a cartoon designed by artist Angus Maguire , that illustrates the difference between the two concepts by showing a side-by-side comparison of three people of varying heights watching a baseball match over a fence. 

The first side of the cartoon illustrates equality and shows the three people standing on equal-sized crates, leaving the shortest person unable to see the game and the tallest person with the most advantage. Next to that, illustrating equity, the cartoon shows each person standing on the amount of crates that they actually need in order to easily watch the baseball game. 

It’s an image that’s often shown in classrooms and at office team training sessions that best describes the difference between the two concepts without the use of words. While Maguire’s cartoon is a simple yet powerful demonstration, it leaves these questions unanswered: how do you define equity and equality using words? And why is it so important to know the difference between them? 

Inequity or inequality are embedded in the world’s most pertinent issues , and understanding the difference between the two concepts is important for overall global development, and creating a world where the most vulnerable are protected and supported most effectively. 

What’s the difference between equity and equality?

Equality essentially means providing everyone with the same amount of resources regardless of whether everyone needs them. In other words, each person receives an equal share of resources despite what they already have, or don’t have. 

Equity is when resources are shared based on what each person needs in order to adequately level the playing field. 

What key facts should people know about these concepts?

• You can’t achieve equality without implementing equity.
• Inequality and inequity affect almost all of the United Nations’ Global Goals.

Why is it important to know the difference between them?

While they have two entirely different meanings, equity and equality work hand-in-hand and cannot be achieved without the other. Understanding the difference between the two brings us one step closer to achieving equality as the final outcome.

This means that in order for the world to reach a place where everything is fair, just, and equal, we need to prioritize equity and distribute resources based on who needs them most. In other words, to reach equality as an outcome, we have to tackle the causes of inequity within major issues.

Take vaccine nationalism as an example, where richer countries are hoarding more than enough COVID-19 vaccines to inoculate their populations, despite poorer countries not having vaccines to begin with. 

The fact that some countries will have more vaccines than others is an example of inequality in health care. The inequity lies in the fact that richer countries have the resources to acquire vaccines, whereas poorer countries do not. 

Reaching a place where all countries have enough vaccines would be achieving equality. In order to get there, richer countries have to share their resources with those in need and this act would be achieving equity. 

Without equity, inequality will persist and those who are most vulnerable will remain or become even more vulnerable; in contrast to those who are already most fortunate becoming even more so. 

Another example of where we can use equity to achieve overall equality is in the argument of "Black lives matter" vs "all lives matter".

While all lives have always mattered, Black lives have consistently been considered less important than others for centuries, resulting in Black people facing persistent struggles in their everyday lives because of this massive inequality. 

In order for us to reach an outcome where all lives can truly matter equally, Black lives need to be protected and supported in an equitable manner. 

What issues do equity and equality affect most?

There are evident inequalities globally in race, gender, sexual orientation, disabilities, education, economic status, and so much more. The lack of equity is at the core of so many global issues and understanding this is important to achieving overall equality as an outcome. 

We shouldn’t be aiming to treat people or distribute resources equally, we should aim to do so equitably in order to reach equality. For example, we cannot close the gender pay gap without tackling the inequity that is caused by men being considered more valuable than women in society. Similarly, we cannot defeat racial inequalities without approaching the inequity that considers people of color as lesser than white people. 

How do they both relate to ending global poverty?

Ending poverty for all means striving for justice and fairness, and this can only be done if we demand equity. Poverty is caused  by deep inequalities , and is deepened by situations where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. 

By distributing resources such as food, water, wealth, and more, as well as treating people equitably, we can bring poverty to an end and create a world that is truly equal. 

What action can we all take to achieve equity?

Educate yourself on what major inequalities there are in the world and how they affect your community. Knowing where the issues lie is important to understanding how to tackle them. You can do this by reading the news, researching social issues, and speaking to activists and community leaders in different spaces. 

Demanding equity is also at the core of Global Citizen’s Recovery Plan for the World campaign and mission to end poverty for all, you can join us and demand equity across multiple issues by taking action here . 

Global Citizen Explains

Demand Equity

Equity vs Equality: What’s the Difference?

March 19, 2021

Still counting: why the visual arts must do better on gender equality

Lecturer in Art in Public Space, RMIT University

Disclosure statement

Julie Shiels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

RMIT University provides funding as a strategic partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

You have to get more than a bit mad to single-handedly launch a campaign against inequality. At a recent forum, visual artist Elvis Richardson wryly described how anger was the catalyst that sparked her to start CoUNTess , a blog that assembles and reviews data on gender representation in Australia’s contemporary art scene.

Since 2008, Richardson has analysed the gender breakdown of who gets exhibited, collected, reviewed and rewarded. Converting indignation into statistics and emotion into hard facts, her blog provides irrefutable evidence that gender bias is an ongoing problem besetting the visual arts.

The most current snapshot illustrates that only 34% of the artists shown in state museums are women. In commercial galleries , the proportion is 40%. In the art media , 34% of feature articles and reviews are about women, but 80% of magazine covers are dedicated to male artists.

Change needs to be embraced at every level, not least in developing art curriculum in secondary schools. Victorian students who sat their final Studio Art exam last week were given 14 images to write about, of which only one was produced by a woman. A cursory survey of exams in previous years and other states suggests such bias is entrenched.

Over the past decade, the gatekeepers of the Australian art scene have started responding to the unconscious bias Richardson documents. When comparing the graphs and charts in her old posts with the 2016 CoUNTess Report , it is possible to identify small improvements. Still, as Richardson says in her report introduction :

The closer an artist gets to money, prestige and power the more likely they are to be male.

A recent study by David Throsby and Katya Petetskaya also shows the gender pay gap is substantial in the Australian art scene.

Further reading: The gender pay gap is wider in the arts than in other industries

The 2016 CoUNTess Report was made possible with support from the Cruthers Art Foundation . This organisation is making a substantial contribution towards rebalancing the statistics via the Cruthers Collection of Women’s Art , the only dedicated public collection of art by Australian women.

Begun in 1974 as a private family collection acquiring women’s art, the collection consists primarily of portraiture, self portraiture and art that is focused on still life, abstraction, early postmodernism and second wave feminism.

The collection was gifted to the University of Western Australia in 2007 and is housed at Lawrence Wilson Art Gallery . Cruthers curator Gemma Weston believes the collection plays a role in valuing and making visible the work of women artists, which in turn can provide a pathway to its acceptance in the institutional domain. Individual works are often loaned to other art museums around Australia.

Weston identifies visibility as a key factor in determining what gets collected and how an artist gets traction in her career. She says institutional recognition is a long and complicated process of gathering momentum, which often begins with the private collector rather than the art museum.

There is no doubt that all-women collections and exhibitions can help to change the depressing statistics assembled by Richardson. There is concern, however, that this strategy can cause ghettoisation.

Weston is conscious of this conundrum. Cruthers’ current show Country and Colony moves beyond the concerns of previous exhibitions to document “women’s art” and “women’s issues” through biography, autobiography and portraiture.

While gender and feminist politics are a subtext, Colony and Country profiles new acquisitions that deal with the fraught history of colonialism. The paintings, prints and objects by Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists tell stories about land, landscape, the body, industry and culture.

Building momentum for change

While the speed of change appears glacial, the momentum to overcome structural inequality for female artists appears to be building. In September, 11 top gallery directors, curators and arts organisation chiefs in the UK united in a call for greater representation of female artists.

A month later, possibly encouraged by the fall of the American movie producer Harvey Weinstein, the call-out of sexist and abusive behaviour in cultural industries spread to the visual arts. Numerous sexual harassment allegations were made against powerful and prominent gatekeeper, Artforum co-publisher Knight Landesman.

Landesman’s resignation from the international art publication has prompted many more women to come forward with stories about his alleged behaviour. An open letter written by women in the art world, “ We are not surprised ”, has morphed into a larger campaign linking abuse of power with structural inequality.

By providing a graphic illustration of inequality, Richardson’s CoUNTess project has done much to bring the issue into view in Australia. Together with Weston’s thoughtful management and curation, the Cruthers Collection of Women’s Art is another important step in changing the status quo. Many arts organisations and individuals who have the capacity to bring about change have started counting and making an effort to rectify the imbalance.

Yet when part of the cost of overlooking structural inequality is sexual harassment it is time for more decisive action. While extreme examples of sexual misconduct have not (yet) been exposed in Australia, demeaning behaviour is regularly meted out by the art scene gatekeepers. There are also anecdotal stories of grooming and sexual advances by powerful male gatekeepers. At present, few speak up because they fear damaging their career prospects.

The CoUNTess Report recommends that “stakeholders in the Australian visual art sector routinely collect, analyse and publish gender representation data and use it to inform their policy decisions”.

A rebalance of gender representation will only occur if all institutions that have a role in shaping the value of artists’ work start counting.

As in the tertiary sector, many more girls than boys study art at school. In Victoria, for example, 73% of the cohort who completed Studio Art in 2016 were girls. Unless there is significant improvement, why would future generations of women pursue a career in the visual arts?

Country and Colony runs until December 16 2017.

• women and art

Program Manager, Teaching & Learning Initiatives

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

Visual Methods for Social Justice in Education

• First Online: 30 April 2023

Cite this chapter

• Laura Azzarito 2  

253 Accesses

Recent images of protests worldwide have captured the ongoing struggle for social justice in the US and in other countries around the world. In the US, the #BlackLivesMatter movement has been at the forefront as many marginalized voices have raised serious concerns about racism, violence, LGTBQIA+ human rights, and inequalities. Since 2013, #BlackLivesMatter has created a visible and needed socio-educational and political space for asserting a social justice agenda. Parallel to #BlackLivesMatter, the recent COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating consequences and disproportionate effects on people from historically oppressed groups have exacerbated social inequalities, further underscoring the urgent need to embrace and sustain a social justice agenda. In the past few years, the “Remain in Mexico” policy has also intensified the anti-immigrant rhetoric, increasing discrimination, racism, violence, and fears of asylum seekers and refugees. Around the world, vulnerable and disadvantaged communities are disproportionally impacted by climate injustice but climate (in)justice remains an underdeveloped research topic. Decolonizing education, at-risk communities, and schools is an urgent enterprise. Visual Methods for Social Justice in Education is inspired by images of protests, social justice movements, and human rights activists crying out about the need for equality, representation, recognition of difference, and re-imagining of “communities of risk” for social change. When research is conducted with , for , and about marginalized identities and oppressed, minoritized, and underrepresented groups, the incorporation of images in research processes can decolonize research and research methods and thus mobilize social justice–oriented research for re-imagining a more equitable, inclusive, and peaceful world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Aldridge, J. (2007). Picture this: The use of participatory photographic research methods with people with learning disabilities. Disability & Society, 22 (1), 1–17.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aydarova, E. (2019). Flipping the paradigm: Studying up and research for social justice. In K. K. Stunk & L. A. Locke (Eds.), Research methods for Social Justice & Equity in education (pp. 151–162). Palgrave Macmillan.

Google Scholar  

Azzarito, L., & Kirk, D. (2013). Pedagogies, physical culture, and visual methods . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Azzarito, L. (2016). “Permission to speak”: A postcolonial view of racialized bodies and PE in the current context of globalization. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87 , 141–150.

Azzarito, L. (2019). Social justice in globalized fitness and health: Bodies out of sight . Routledge.

Baker, T., & Wang, C. (2006). Photovoice: Use of a participatory action research method to explore the chronic pain experience of adults. Qualitative Health Research, 16 , 1405–1413.

Banks, M. (2007). Visual methods in social research . Sage Publications.

Barrett, D. (2004). Photo-documenting the needle exchange: Methods and ethics. Visual Studies, 19 (2), 145–149.

Becker, H. (1998). Forward: Images, ethics and organizations. In L. Gross, J. Kats, & J. Ruby (Eds.), The moral rights of subjects in photographs, films, and television (pp. xi–xvii). Oxford University Press.

Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing . Penguin.

Blinn, L., & Harris, A. W. (1991). Combining native instant photography and photo-elicitation. Visual Anthropology, 4 , 175–192.

Burke, C. (2005). “Play in focus.” Children’s visual voice in participative research. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Doing visual research with children and young people (pp. 1–19). Routledge.

Clark, A. (2012). Visual ethics in a contemporary landscape. In S. Pink (Ed.), Advances in visual methodology (pp. 17–35). Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Clark, A., Prosser, J., & Wiles, R. (2010). Ethics issues in image-based research. Arts & Health, 2 (1), 81–93.

Clark-Ibanez, M. (2004). Framing the social world with photo-elicitation interviews. American Behavioral Scientist, 47 (12), 1507–1527.

Clark-Ibanez, M. (2007). Inner-city children in sharp focus: Sociology of childhood and photo-elicitation interviews. In G. C. Stanczak (Ed.), Visual research methods: Image, society, and representation (pp. 167–196). Sage.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43 (6), 1241–1299.

Cridland-Hughes, S., Brittain, M., & Che, S. M. (2019). Using photovoice to resist colonial research paradigms. In K. K. Stunk & L. A. Locke (Eds.), Research methods for Social Justice & Equity in education (pp. 151–162). Palgrave Macmillan.

Croghan, R., Griffin, C., Hunter, J., & Phoenix, A. (2008). Young people’s construction of the self: Notes on the use and analysis of the photo-elicitation methods. Journal of Social Research Methods, 11 , 365–356.

De Lange, N., Nguyen, X. T., & Nghiem, T. T. (2016). Creating dialogue on inclusion in Vietnam: Girls with disabilities exhibiting their work. Girlhood Studies, 9 (1), 104–117.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? Columbia University Press.

Delgrado, R. (2000). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. In R. Delgrado & J. Stefancic (Eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed.). Temple University Press.

Delgrado, R. (2011). Rodrigo’s reconsideration: Intersectionality and the future of critical race theory. Iowa Law Review, 96 , 1247–1288.

Dingwall, R. (2008). The ethical case against ethical regulation in humanities and social science research. 21st Century Society: Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences, 3 (1), 1–12.

Economic and Social Research Council. (2015). ESRC Framework for Research Ethics. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved August 26, 2020, from https://www.esrc.ac.uk/_images/framework-for-research-ethics_tcm8-33470.pdf .

Finley, S. (2008). Arts-based inquiry: Performing revolutionary pedagogy. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 407–420). Sage Publications.

Finney, N., & Rishbeth, C. (2006). Engaging with marginalized groups in public open space research: The potential collaboration and combined methods. Planning Theory & Practice, 7 (1), 27–46.

Fraser, N. (2010). Scales of justice. Reimagining political space in a globalized world . Columbia University Press.

Gauntlett, D., & Holzwarth, P. (2006). Creative visual methods for exploring identities. Visual Studies, 21 (1), 82–91.

Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo-elicitation. Visual Studies, 17 , 13–26.

Harper, D. (2003). Framing photographic ethnography: A case study. Ethnography, 4 , 241–266.

Hubbard, J. (1991). Shooting back: A photographic view of life by homeless children . Chronicle Books.

James, A., & Prout, A. (1990). Constructing and deconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociology of childhood . Falmer Books.

Katzew, A., & Azzarito, L. (2013). From media images to body narratives: Photo elicitation as a method for triggering young people’s ‘body talk’. In L. Azzarito & D. Kirk (Eds.), Pedagogies, physical culture, and visual methods (pp. 62–75). Routledge.

Keller, C., Fleury, J., Perez, A., Ainsworth, B., & Vaughan, L. (2008). Using visual methods to uncover context. Qualitative Health Research, 18 , 428–436.

Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Problematizing methodological simplicity in qualitative research: Editor’s introduction. Qualitative Inquiry, 18 (9), 728–731.

Leitch, R. (2008). Creatively researching children’s narratives through images and drawings. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing visual research with children and young people (pp. 37–58). Routledge.

Luttrell, W. (2016). Children framing childhoods and looking back. In J. Moss & B. Pini (Eds.), Visual research methods in educational research (pp. 172–188). Palgrave Macmillan.

Luttrell, W. (2019). Children framing childhoods. Working-class kids’ visions of care . Bristol University Press.

MacLure, M. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research . Open University Press.

Mannay, D. (2010). Making the familiar strange: Can visual research methods render the familiar setting more perceptible? Qualitative Research, 10 , 91–111.

Mauthner, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J., & Miller, T. (2002). Ethics in qualitative research . Sage Publications.

McIntyre, A. (2003). Through eyes of women: Photovoice and participatory research as tools for reimagining place. Gender, Place and Culture, 10 (1), 47–66.

Mitchell, C. (2015). Looking at showing: On the politics and pedagogy of exhibiting in community-based research and work with policy makers. Educational Research for Social Change, 4 (2), 48–60.

Mitchell, C., & De Lange, N. (2011). Community-based participatory video and social action in rural South Africa. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The Sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 171–185). Sage Publications.

Mitchell, C., De Lange, N., & Moletsane, R. (2017). Participatory visual methodologies. Social change, community and policy . Sage.

Mutua, K., & Swadener, B. B. (Eds.). (2004). Decolonizing research in cross-cultural contexts: Critical personal narrative . University Press, New York.

Packard, J. (2008). ‘I’m gonna show you what it’s really like out there’: The power and limitation of participatory visual methods. Visual Studies, 23 (1), 63–77.

Papademas, D., & International Visual Sociology Association (IVSA). (2009). IVSA – Code of research ethics and guidelines. Visual Studies, 24 , 250–257.

Pauwels, L. (2000). Taking the visual turn in research and scholarly communication: Key issues in developing a more visually literate (social) science. Visual Sociology, 15 , 7–14.

Pauwels, L. (2008). Taking and using: Ethical issues of photographs for research purposes. Visual Communication Quarterly, 15 (4), 1–16.

Pink, S. (2003). Interdisciplinary agendas in visual research: Re-situating visual anthropology. Visual Studies, 18 (2), 179–192.

Pink, S. (2013). Dong visual ethnography . Sage.

Prosser, J. (2000). The moral maze of image ethics. In H. Simons & R. Usher (Eds.), Situated ethics in education research (pp. 116–132). Routledge.

Prosser, J. (2006). Image-based research: A sourcebook for qualitative researchers . RoutledgeFalmer.

Prosser, J., & Burke, C. (2008). Image-based educational research: Childlike perspectives. In J. G. Knowles & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 681–694). Sage Publications.

Restler, V., & Luttrell, W. (2018). Gaze interrupted: Speaking back to stigma with visual research. In P. Alldred, F. Cullen, K. Edwards, & D. Fusco (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of youth work practice (pp. 454–469). Sage.

Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies. An introduction to researching with visual methods . Sage publications.

Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8 (1), 23–44.

Soto, L. D., & Swadener, B. B. (Eds.). (2005). Power and voice in research with children . Peter Lang.

Spivak, G. C. (1993). Outside in the teaching machine . Routledge.

Spivak, G. C. (2006). Conversations with gayatri Chakravorty Spivak . Seagull Books.

Stanczak, G. C. (Ed.). (2007). Visual research methods: Image, society, and representation . Sage.

Thompson, P. (2008). Doing visual research with children and young people . Routledge.

Trafi-Prats, L. (2009). Destination Raval Sud: A visual ethnography on pedagogy, aesthetics, and the spatial experience of growing up urban. Studies in Art Education, 51 (1), 6–20.

Veale, A. (2005). Creative methodologies in participatory research with children. In S. Green & D. Hogan (Eds.), Researching Children’s experience: Approaches and methods (pp. 253–272). Sage.

Walls, J., & Holquist, S. E. (2019). Through their eyes, in their worlds: Using photo-elicitation to amplify student voice in policy and school improvement research. In K. K. Stunk & L. A. Locke (Eds.), Research methods for Social Justice & Equity in education (pp. 151–162). Palgrave Macmillan.

Wang, C. C., & Pies, C. A. (2004). Family, maternal, and child health through photovoice. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 8 (2), 95–102.

Wang, C. W. (1999). Photovoice: A participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health, 8 (2), 185–192.

Wiles, R., Clark, A., & Prosser, J. (2011). Visual research ethics at the crossroad. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), The Sage handbook of visual research methods (pp. 685–706). Sage Publications.

Yang, K.-H. (2015). Voice, authenticity and ethical challenges: The participatory dissemination of youth-generated visual data over social media. Visual Studies, 30 (3), 309–318.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 8 (1), 69–91.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Laura Azzarito

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Azzarito .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Azzarito, L. (2023). Visual Methods for Social Justice in Education. In: Visual Methods for Social Justice in Education. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25745-2_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25745-2_1

Published : 30 April 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-25744-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-25745-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Visualizing Health Equity: Qualitative Perspectives on the Value and Limits of Equity Images

Sarah s. willen.

1 University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

Colleen C. Walsh

2 Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA

Abigail Fisher Williamson

3 Trinity College, Hartford, CT, USA

Associated Data

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-heb-10.1177_1090198121994520 for Visualizing Health Equity: Qualitative Perspectives on the Value and Limits of Equity Images by Sarah S. Willen, Colleen C. Walsh and Abigail Fisher Williamson in Health Education & Behavior

Health educators and advocacy groups often use side-by-side visual images to communicate about equity and to distinguish it from equality. Despite the near-ubiquity of these images, little is known about how they are understood by different audiences.

To assess the effectiveness of an image commonly used to communicate about health equity.

In 167 interviews with health stakeholders in Greater Cleveland, Ohio, in 2018 to 2019, a commonly used health equity image was shown to participants, who were asked to interpret its meaning. Interviewees included 21 health professionals, 21 clinicians, 22 metro-wide decision makers, 24 community leaders, and 79 community members.

About two thirds of our socioeconomically, racial/ethnically, educationally, and professionally diverse sample said the equity image helped clarify the distinction between “equality” and “equity.” Yet less than one third offered an interpretation consistent with the image’s goals of foregrounding not only injustice but also a need for systemic change. Patterns of misinterpretation were especially common among two groups: ideological conservatives and those of lower socioeconomic status. Conservatives were most likely to object to the image’s message.

Conclusions

Equity images are widely used by public health educators and advocates, yet they do not consistently communicate the message that achieving equity requires systemic change. In this moment of both public health crisis and urgent concern about systemic racism, new visual tools for communicating this crucial message are needed.

As the entwined crises of COVID-19 and systemic racism pull the United States toward what may become a genuine moment of reckoning, both population health and health communication strategies are very much in the public eye. Americans around the country, and across the political spectrum, are learning that Black, Latinx, and indigenous people face significantly greater risk of exposure, infection, and death from COVID-19 than their White counterparts ( Bowleg, 2020 ; Devakumar et al., 2020 ; Gee et al., 2020 ; Hardeman et al., 2020 ). From a public health communications standpoint, this is an opportune moment to take stock of the tools we use to communicate about the causes of health inequities in the United States ( Bailey et al., 2017 ; Geronimus et al., 2006 ; Hicken et al., 2018 ; Williams et al., 2019 ) and the larger goal of achieving health equity.

Specifically, the public health community must ask, Are our current tools for communicating about health equity and inequity—including terms and concepts as well as metaphors, parables, and images ( Dorfman et al., 2005 ; Griffith et al., 2017 ; C. Jones, 2016 ; C. P. Jones, 2000 ; Krieger et al., 2012 )—sufficiently clear and effective? Are they useful in communicating with the general public, or might their power be limited to people of certain political orientations, or to stakeholders in public health and adjacent fields?

In this article, we analyze the effectiveness of one commonly used tool: an image designed to convey the distinction between equality and equity ( Figure 1 ). This image, and others like it, have been used by educators and advocacy groups for nearly a decade to communicate two interlinked messages: First, when people have dramatically different levels of need, simply distributing resources equally will not produce just outcomes. Second, achieving justice and equity requires systemic change. Although equity images are widely employed to convey these paired messages, little is known about how they are understood by various audiences.

Equity image.

Note . Adapted from © 2014, Saskatoon Health Region.

We asked 167 individuals of diverse backgrounds and ideologies to respond to the apple tree image shown in Figure 1 as part of a two-phase interdisciplinary research study. We used the image (slightly adapted, as described below) with permission from the Saskatoon Health Region, which developed it in 2014. The image reenvisions a more commonly used baseball image, designed in 2012 by Craig Froehle (2016) . The original image shows three spectators of different heights trying to see over a wooden fence into a baseball stadium. The scenario on the left represents equality. The figures depicted receive the same level of “support”—a single box to stand on—but only two can see over the fence. The right represents an equitable scenario: Each spectator has enough boxes to see the game.

Since its creation, Froehle’s original image has been critiqued and redesigned in myriad ways ( Cultural Organizing, n.d .; Sippin the EquiTEA, 2018 ). One variation depicts a racetrack with staggered starting points, and another shows figures of different sizes and abilities riding bicycles adapted to their needs ( Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, n.d .). Another variation, riffing on children’s author Shel Silverstein’s (1964) The Giving Tree , includes four panels depicting inequality, equality, equity, and—using a system of pulleys and supports to reengineer the tree itself—a desired goal of justice (Ruth, cited in Maeda, 2019 ; cf. critique by Leong, 2020 ). In addition, a revamped version of Froehle’s original image became the basis for “#the4thbox,” a website, tool kit, and online digital game in which three images labeled “equality,” “equity,” and “liberation” are paired with a fourth, empty box whose content participants are invited to envision for themselves ( Cultural Organizing, n.d .). In short, images of this sort have come to play an outsized role in conversations about equality and equity, yet we do not know how they are understood by different groups of stakeholders.

We used the apple tree image for this study because it addresses several key critiques of the original baseball image. Whereas Froehle’s image depicts three White males, race/ethnicity, and gender in this image are unmarked. Also, some contend that baseball lacks universal appeal, contra ripe fruit. Last, since participants were less likely to have seen the apple tree image, we expected it was more likely to elicit substantive reactions.

Although this image is composed of simple visual elements, the narrative it encodes demands a fair amount of abstract thinking. As we understand it, the image conveys not a single story, but two stories in parallel, bridged by a third, synthesizing narrative that unfolds in four steps:

• Even if resources (the boxes) are apportioned equally, individuals still have different levels of need and, consequently, different levels of opportunity.
• The existence of unequal opportunities is unfair or unjust.
• Justice—or equity—requires the distribution of resources according to need.
• Achieving equity, and thereby justice, will require change in how the system itself is organized.

The first three messages are clearly encoded in the image, while the fourth—which is arguably the most important from a policy or action-oriented standpoint—is implied but not spelled out explicitly. We were especially interested in knowing whether interviewees’ understandings of the image would match these communication goals—and if not, where interpretations diverge.

This intended interpretation of the image aligns with prevailing understandings of health equity, itself a “forceful term tending to imply a strong judgment about causality” ( Braveman et al., 2011 ), as well as the public health field’s deep-rooted commitment to social justice ( Beauchamp, 1976 ; Krieger & Birn, 1998 ). From an equity standpoint, everyone deserves “a fair and just opportunity to be as healthy as possible” ( Braveman et al., 2017 , p. 2; cf. Office of Minority Health & Health Equity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020 ). Unlike descriptive terms such as health disparities , terms such as equity and inequity highlight population-level differences that are, as Whitehead (1992) famously put it, “avoidable, unnecessary, and unjust” (p. 431). Importantly, the language of equity and inequity calls for “special attention to the needs of those at greatest risk of poor health, based on social conditions” ( Braveman, 2014 , p. 6). In essence, the logic of health equity is fundamentally about addressing injustice through systemic change.

Do equity images succeed in conveying this message? We assessed the degree to which different groups of health stakeholders recognized and responded to this image, including whether any groups might struggle to understand it, resist its intended meaning, and/or present alternative ways of communicating about equity that merit attention. To anticipate our findings: the image is largely successful in conveying a sense of injustice, but does not prompt discussion of systems change, in part because it “frames” ( Dorfman et al., 2005 ; Entman, 1993 ; Knight et al., 2016 ; Viladrich, 2019 ) equity as an individual-level concern as opposed to a systemic or structural issue.

Data Collection

In 2018 to 2019, we conducted ethnographic participant-observation and semistructured interviews with 170 residents of diverse backgrounds and ideologies in Greater Cleveland, Ohio, as part of a larger study of individual perspectives on “heath-related deservingness” ( Willen, 2012 ; Willen & Cook 2016 ; cf. Viladrich, 2019 , p. 1449). In most interviews ( n = 167), following a discussion about understandings of the term health equity , participants were shown the apple tree image in Figure 1 on a double-sided, laminated page. On the first side, interviewees saw the image without “equality” and “equity” labeled. They were asked to explain the image in their own words and to describe whether they identified with any of the figures depicted. We then displayed the labeled image and asked whether interviewees found it useful in communicating the distinction between these terms.

The sample included public health professionals ( n = 21), clinicians ( n = 21), metro-wide decision makers ( n = 22), community leaders ( n = 24), and community members ( n = 79). The study was conducted in partnership with a local health and equity initiative in which some interviewees, but few community members, participated ( n = 53). As Table 1 illustrates, the community member subsample reflects the demographics of the county in which the study was conducted. Interviewees were recruited through community partners, snowball sampling, and outreach in community venues. Interviews lasted approximately 1½ hours, and participants completed a postinterview demographic survey. The interview guide was developed in consultation with a diverse advisory board of researchers, health professionals, and community advocates.

Interview Sample, With Comparison to Cuyahoga County.

Note . Source. Demographic data: 2010–2016 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. Partisan data: Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, registered voters data, accessed 2018.

Data Analysis

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis using Dedoose, an online mixed-methods data analysis platform (Version 8.0.35). Analysis proceeded in four stages: (1) writing of analytic memos for each interview; (2) index coding to divide transcripts into salient sections for deeper analysis ( Deterding & Waters, 2018 ); (3) inductive review and iterative generation of an analytic codebook by a team of coders; (4) preliminary coding followed by discussions to achieve consensus around code definitions and resolve coding discrepancies; and (5) completion of coding of relevant interview segments. Since codes are not mutually exclusive, multiple thematic codes could be applied to participant responses.

Drawing on postinterview demographic survey responses, we analyzed patterns of response by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, political ideology, interview type (public health professional, clinician, decision maker, community leader, community member), and participation in the health equity initiative. The findings below highlight patterns from two-sided tests of proportions and multivariate probit analyses that control for the above characteristics ( p values reported parenthetically). Two-sided tests compare a given subgroup to the sample as a whole (full analyses are available in the Supplemental Appendix ).

The 167 interviews we conducted in Greater Cleveland suggest that familiarity with equity images is relatively common, especially—but not only—among individuals in health professions. Many participants reported that the image helped clarify the distinction between equality and equity. Participants also tended to see the scenario depicted as unjust but, importantly, they did not consistently interpret it as a call for systems change. Rather, many interpreted the image as calling for localized or individual, as opposed to systemic, solutions. Others actively pushed back against its message for ideological, pedagogical, or strategic reasons. Interpretations of the image varied systematically by socioeconomic status, political ideology, and participant type, but not by race/ethnicity or gender.

Familiarity With Equity Images

Three quarters of participants were asked directly whether they had seen this image or another like it. Of this group, 61% (76/125) responded affirmatively. Of course, our sample includes some people who are likely to encounter equity images in professional contexts, including both public health professionals and participants in a health equity initiative. Eighteen of the 21 public health professionals (86%) had previously seen either this specific image or another like it. Of public health professionals uninvolved in the health equity initiative, fewer had seen an equity image (70%; 7/10). Only two thirds of community members were asked directly whether they had seen such an image, but among those asked, 40% (20/50) reported that they had, and none were participants in the health equity initiative. In short, public health professionals were especially familiar with equity images (test of proportions: p = .01; multivariate [five-category interview type]: p = .07), but some members of the public were familiar with them as well.

Clarifying the Distinction Between Equality Versus Equity

As a first level of analysis, we sought to establish whether images like this one are useful in clarifying the distinction between equality and equity. Of the 86% of participants asked this question (144/167), nearly two thirds (64%; 92/144) said it did, while only 8% (12/144) said it did not. Others were unsure or offered an inconclusive response (28%; 40/144).

Some participants described the images as illuminating, or even indispensable to their own understanding of society. One White public health professional said, “I don’t think that I could ever articulate equality and equity until I saw these images,” and another reported that “this is a very powerful way to express the difference between the two.” Responses like these were common among professionals, with nearly three quarters of public health professionals, clinicians, and community leaders finding the image clarifying, along with just over two thirds of metro-wide decision makers.

For others, especially those with less education or a conservative political ideology, the image was less successful in conveying this distinction, though differences between groups fell below conventional levels of statistical significance. Among those with less than a bachelor’s degree, only 55% found it clarifying (18/33; test of proportions: p = .21; multivariate: p = .09). For instance, a Black community member with some college education said the image was “not really” clarifying because, “I don’t really hear about equality or equity too much . . . on an everyday basis.” Notably, less than half of conservatives said the image clarified the distinction (46%; 11/24; test of proportions: p = .07; multivariate: p = .35).

Intended and Unintended Interpretations

In addition to distinguishing between these terms, equity images intend to convey two other messages as well: (1) that an equal distribution of resources will fail to achieve equity when people have dramatically different levels of need and (2) that justice cannot be served simply by divvying up resources equally—rather, it requires systemic change. In our interviews, most participants picked up on the first of these messages, interpreting the image as conveying an unjust arrangement. Relatively few, however, perceived a need for systemic change. Alternative solutions proposed included individual effort or hard work, sharing or cooperation, or direct help to those in need.

Seeing Injustice

As Figure 2 illustrates, 74% of participants (123/167) expressed a sense of moral discomfort with the injustice they perceived in the image. Such qualms were exceedingly common among public health professionals (95%; 20/21; test of proportions: p = .02; multivariate [five-category interview type]: p = .08), but less common among community members (61%; 48/79; test of proportions: p = .00; multivariate [five-category interview type]: p = .08). Notably, they were least commonly expressed by people who identified as conservative (27%; 8/30; test of proportions: p = .00; multivariate: p = .00).

Percent perceiving injustice in the image, by interview type, education, and ideology.

Note . CM = community member; CL = community leader; DM = metro-wide decision maker; PH = public health professional; C = clinician.

* p < .05 in two-sided tests of proportions.

Changing Systems as the Solution

While recognizing injustice was a relatively common response, fewer than a third of participants (31%; 51/167) saw the image as calling for systematic redistribution or systems change ( Figure 3 ). Among those who perceived this message, one Black community leader said that “the most equitable way” would look quite different: “not that people have to reach up, but that all of these apples have fallen off the tree. They’re on the ground, and they can be picked up by anybody.” Similarly, a White public health professional with a graduate degree described the need for structural change in terms of “building up the boxes or just pulling the branches down.” She continued “if there’s a reason that we need boxes, then can we fix the reasons so that we don’t need boxes?”

Percent identifying need for systemic change in the image, by interview type, education, and ideology.

Public health professionals (43%; 9/21) and metro-wide decision makers (50%; 11/22) were most likely to offer interpretations like these, which were offered much less frequently by clinicians (19%; 4/21) and community members (22%; 17/79), although only decision makers’ and community members’ responses were statistically distinct (decision makers test of proportions: p = .03; community members test of proportions: p = .02; multivariate [five-category interview type]: p = .69). In contrast, those without ready access to a vocabulary of systems change were especially unlikely to raise these themes. For instance, only 18% of interviewees without a bachelor’s degree did so (7/40; test of proportions: p = .04; multivariate: p = .17).

Other Proposed Solutions

Many interviewees pointed to solutions at the individual or communal level that fall far short of full-on systemic change, including (1) individual effort or hard work; (2) sharing, cooperation, or solidarity; or (3) direct help to individuals in need.

In all, 13% of interviewees (22/167) mentioned individual effort or hard work—a theme raised with particular frequency by conservatives (40%; 12/30; test of proportions: p = .00; multivariate: p = .02). One college-educated White conservative interviewee, for example, appreciated that the figures were reaching for the fruit. He supported “giving people a foot up, but . . . not handing it to them.” “If this was a picture where it was being handed to them,” he explained, “that would be wrong.” Notably, more than one quarter of interviewees earning less than $30,000/year mentioned this theme (27%; 7/26; test of proportions: p = .04; multivariate: p = .09).

A slightly smaller proportion of participants (11%; 19/167) pointed to cooperation, sharing of resources, or solidarity as distinct from broader systems-level change. This interpretation was offered more often by low-income participants, including almost a quarter of those earning less than $30,000/year (23%; 6/26; test of proportions: p = .04; multivariate: p = .04), as compared with just 4% (3/73) of those making more than $100,000/year.

Last, for 20% of participants (34/167), the image suggested a need for direct help to those in need, whether family members, people in one’s social networks, or people in general. Conservatives were most likely to offer this response (33%; 10/30; test of proportions: p = .04; multivariate: p = .07). One college-educated White man, for instance, responded, “See, that’s what I do for my friends. . . . that’s what I do with my whole life. I find somebody who can’t reach and I put a step stool under their feet, but they have to reach. You don’t reach for them.”

Nearly a quarter of participants (21%; 35/167) resisted the image’s message or design in some way—albeit for divergent reasons. Of this group, more than two-thirds (69%; 24/35) expressed personal reservations about either the moral or the political implications of the image—including over a third of conservatives (40%, 12/30; test of proportions: p = .01; multivariate: p = .27), as compared to just 8% of liberals (6/79). A smaller number pushed back against the image for a different reason; they suggested the image has limited value as a communications or educational tool. Ten (6%) saw it as oversimplifying, and another five (3%) noted that others had resisted, or would be likely to resist, the image’s message or design.

Expressions of resistance from conservatives merit particular attention, since they raise larger questions about the relative strengths and limitations of equity images. One form of pushback hinged on ideas of both dependence and zero-sum logic. A college-educated, conservative White community member described the image as “extremely biased,” stating that

This taller person with only one box doesn’t deserve to be punished because the shorter person needs more boxes. . . . Okay shorter person, . . . I’ll help you get this box. . . . I’m not gonna give him two more boxes to get to the apple. . . . What can I do to help you build the box? I’ll get you some wood, let’s build the box. . . . I don’t believe in just “oh, let’s give you three boxes.” . . . They need to figure out how to get to the box.

A very different form of resistance came from another corner: from those who felt the image tells the wrong story—specifically, that it focuses on inequities between individuals as opposed to deeper inequities in infrastructure. For example, an African American public health professional with a graduate degree explained that

No one should have to have a box to stand on to reach an apple . . . they [should] all start off with the same foundation, and the same ability to grow. . . . If you put . . . two plants in the same soil, you know, same amount of water, same sunlight, then you would never have to boost one up. They’re just going to naturally grow.

A college-educated decision maker of mixed ethnicity made a similar argument, albeit in spicier language:

Rather than saying “equality versus equity”—where’s liberation? Like, why does the tree even have to be that tall to begin with? We should . . . GMO the [expletive] out of trees until they are short enough so that everyone can reach them! How’s that?

In short, some conservatives interpreted the “equity” side of the image as an unwarranted allocation of unearned resources, presumably to the detriment of those who work hard. For some public health professionals and decision makers, in contrast, its focus on individuals is misplaced, and the optimal response involves an overhaul of how society is organized in the first place.

As the COVID-19 pandemic wreaks havoc across the United States and around the world, the nuts and bolts of public health practice and communications are squarely in the public eye. Public health officials are household names, and preventive measures, contact tracing, and epidemiological data appear in daily news headlines. At the same time, growing awareness of systemic racism and the risks it poses to the health—and the lives—of Black, Latinx, Asian American, and other U.S. citizens and residents is producing tidal waves of fierce emotion and political response. In this tense moment, we are witnessing a stunning stand-off between what Bellah et al. (1985) call the first language of American values, individualism, and its second language: interconnectedness, interdependence, and community—the core values of public health ( Wallack & Lawrence, 2005 ; cf. Beauchamp, 1976 ; Krieger & Birn, 1998 ).

Many in the U.S. are now ready for tough conversations about the fundamental causes ( Link & Phelan, 1995 ) of health inequities—in relation to COVID-19, police violence, and other issues—and about the urgent if uphill work of advancing health equity ( Walsh et al., 2020 ). Others actively reject both the basic logic of public health and the “second language” of interconnectedness, at times in favor of a radical individualism that sees such tough conversations themselves as a threat ( Exec. Order No. 13950, 2020 ; NPR Staff, 2020 ). In this moment of health crisis and political discord, what tools does the public health community need in order to communicate effectively with the public? Equity images are among the tools public health educators have come to rely on most. But how effective are they?

From one angle, our findings appear encouraging. Images like these are prevalent. Over 60% of interviewees volunteered that they had seen the apple tree image in Figure 1 or another like it. They are also memorable, or “sticky.” When asked to explain “health equity” in her own words, one White community leader with a graduate degree anticipated the next portion of the interview, referencing the Froehle image: “You know what’s funny? They have burned the image in my mind of the boy standing at the baseball diamond.” For many, including 64% of our interviewees, such images are useful in clarifying the distinction between equality and equity.

However, if these images aim not only to demonstrate injustice but also to garner support for systemic change, they are less effective than expected. Nearly three quarters of interviewees (74%) saw the image as conveying an unjust situation. Yet fewer than one third (31%) offered an interpretation involving redistribution or another form of systemic change. Strikingly, less than half of public health professionals (43%) and only 19% of clinicians pointed to systemic change in their explanations. Thinking back to the four-step narrative outlined earlier, the first three steps consistently “land” with viewers, but the fourth—arguably the most important—does not.

In addition, we also found noteworthy patterns of resistance to the messages the image is meant to convey. More than a third of conservatives (40%; 12/30) expressed reservations about the image’s moral or political implications, often suggesting that the inequalities depicted should be remedied through private or community-level actions such as individual effort, direct help, or cooperation and sharing. Conservatives were more likely to perceive individual-level problems, and to resist systemic—that is, government—solutions.

A handful of knowledgeable public health professionals, community leaders, and decision makers also resisted the image’s individual-level focus, but for different reasons altogether. For them, the image simply fell short of communicating what we define here as its fourth, implicit message—the message that confronting health inequity is fundamentally about systems and structures, not individuals. From this standpoint, a focus on individual limitations or opportunities is the wrong frame at best. At worst, it distracts from the urgent work of raising awareness about fundamental causes and building durable solutions.

We can certainly imagine settings in which images like this one might serve as meaningful catalysts of substantive conversation and reflection—and we suspect the “#4thbox” tool kit mentioned above may operate in precisely this way. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that these images—when presented without opportunities for elaboration or further discussion—invoke what health communications researchers would call the wrong frame ( Entman, 1993 ; cf. Dorfman et al., 2005 ; Wallack & Lawrence, 2005 ) or mental model ( N. A. Jones et al., 2011 ; Southwell et al., 2020 ). By depicting individuals, they bring to mind common-sense frames associated with what Beauchamp (1976) calls “market justice” values of rugged individualism, self-discipline, limited government, and personal effort. They do not consistently convey the values of interconnectedness, shared responsibility, and appreciation of the role of government that are foundational to public health ( Bailey et al., 2017 ; Beauchamp, 1976 ; Krieger & Birn, 1998 ; Wallack & Lawrence, 2005 ), and that bolster broader arguments for societal restructuring.

Given that our sample includes 167 interviewees in one metro area, the generalizability of our findings is limited. Also, asking interviewees which figure they identified with may have yielded more individual and less systematic interpretations. In addition, we asked interviewees to offer their interpretations as opposed to introducing the image as a starting point for collective reflection on the image and its meaning. Future research could explore the efficacy of this or other equity images as starting points for conversation—including versions that include alternatives to equality and equity such as liberation or justice. Similarly, it may be useful to investigate the comparative effectiveness of variations that represent and juxtapose communities rather than individuals (e.g., Kinshella, 2016 ).

In this moment of widespread awakening to the vast scope and cascading implications of structural racism and other forms of structural injustice, health researchers and advocates need to reflect carefully on the terms, metaphors, and—in particular—the visual imagery in our communicative tool kit. If we aim to communicate that genuine systemic change is required to eliminate health inequities and ensure that all people can lead a healthy and flourishing life, then we may well need to go back to the proverbial drawing board.

Supplemental Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors thank the ARCHES Research Team and Advisory Board; Advisory Board members and interviewers Heide Castañeda, Erica N. Chambers, Ronnie Dunn, Katherine Mason, William Tootle, and Ruqaiijah A. Yearby; the leadership of Health Improvement Partnership-Cuyahoga (HIP-Cuyahoga); and research assistants Yuliya Faryna, Mikayla Hyman, Ava Iannitti, Anne Kohler, John Lawson, Anneke Nyary Levine, Noor Malik, Lucy Pereira, Tracy Segall, Julia Tempesta, Shayna Thomas, Mary Tursi, and Brooke Williams.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Support for this research was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Grant No. 74898). The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.

Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online at https://journals.sagepub.com/home/heb .

The Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Toolkit

• Collections
• Mission & Team
• Work With Us

• Only 9% of iStock’s most downloaded sports visuals depict women and girls actively participating in sport.
• iStock’s VisualGPS research shows 75% of people want to see authentic portrayals of female athletes which emphasize their skill and athleticism, rather than focusing on beauty, glamour, or sex appeal.
• 8 in 10 people of all genders consider it crucial to provide female athletes with the same level of coverage as their male counterparts.
• Choose visuals which showcase the athletic capabilities and key action moments of female athletes rather than focusing on their appearance, thereby avoiding sexualization. 
• Images and videos which show the realities of women and girls in sports at both the elite and grassroots levels create deeper engagement.
• Look for visuals which include female support staff (such as coaches), as it provides a more comprehensive representation of the power, skill, and sustained involvement of women in sports as a whole.
• Think about using visuals which consider a wide range of emotions beyond joy, such as anger, disappointment, determination, frustration, love, pain, and happiness.
• Don’t forget to represent fans of all genders supporting women’s sports and tap into the strong sense of community that women sports offer.
• Above all, ensure your visuals represent diversity in age, ethnicity, ability, and realistic body shapes for the sport you are showing.