Athena SWAN Departmental Submission Process E&D Guidelines ASSESSMENT (EAA) E&D INTERNAL PROCEDURES ATHENA SWAN DEPARTMENTAL SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Transcription

1 Submission Process E&D Guidelines ASSESSMENT (EAA) E&D INTERNAL PROCEDURES ATHENA SWAN DEPARTMENTAL SUBMISSION GUIDELINES 2013/14 1

2 Submission Process E&D Guidelines ASSESSMENT (EAA) E&D INTERNAL PROCEDURES Contents STAGE ONE: Planning and Preparation... 3 STAGE TWO: Self-assessment panel and initial analysis... 3 STAGE THREE: Departmental analysis and actions... 5 STAGE FOUR: Draft submission and action plan STAGE FIVE: Submission to ECU STAGE SIX: Ongoing actions and subsequent submissions 13 The purpose of this guidance is to support Departments with Athena SWAN submissions from getting started to submitting an award and subsequent ongoing actions. The guidelines provide key questions which should be considered by self-assessment panels when considering their commitment to the Athena SWAN Charter and preparing submissions and action plans for an award. 2

3 Submission Process E&D Guidelines ASSESSMENT (EAA) E&D INTERNAL PROCEDURES STAGE ONE: Planning and Preparation 1. Introduction to Athena SWAN The Athena SWAN Awards 1 recognise and celebrate good practice in recruiting, retaining and promoting women in STEMM within Higher Education. The Equality Challenge Unit manages the Athena SWAN scheme nationally. Athena SWAN awards are available in Bronze, Silver and Gold at both University and Departmental levels and are valid for 3 years. The University of Cambridge was amongst the first universities in the UK to receive a Bronze Award in March 2006 in the inaugural round of the awards and successfully renewed the award in 2009 and The University is aiming for a Silver University Award as part of its commitment to excellence. To achieve this goal, we need to show a significant record of activity across the full range of STEMM disciplines, with a majority of Departments/institutions holding individual awards. University-wide Athena SWAN activity is overseen by the Athena SWAN Governance Panel, which meets termly and brings together key expertise and representatives from across the 6 University Schools and Human Resources. The Equality and Diversity Section promotes and co-ordinates Athena SWAN activities across the University. Departmental submissions are overseen by a self assessment panel. 2. Getting Started Head of Department or Senior Academic should express an interest in Athena SWAN either in person or electronically to the Equality & Diversity Section/WiSETI Project Officer (Vivien.hodges@admin.cam.ac.uk, Ext ). 3. The Equality and Diversity Section will nominate an Assigned Contact for the Department who will provide ongoing support and guidance, share examples of good practice, assist with action planning and provide expert feedback on draft submissions. 4. An initial meeting organised with the Head of Department/Departmental Academic Lead and the Assigned Contact (+ WiSETI Project Officer) will provide: Background to Athena SWAN including benefits for the Department Advice on a proposed submission date and level of award Terms of Reference for the Departmental self-assessment Panel Annual timeline of E&D workshops and events to support submissions Information on the University Athena SWAN Network and webpages Recommendation for the self-assessment panel to complete the online E&D training module 1 3

4 4 Athena SWAN Departmental Submission Process E&D Guidelines ASSESSMENT (EAA) E&D INTERNAL PROCEDURES

5 STAGE TWO: Self-assessment panel and initial analysis 1. The Head of Department or Academic Lead should invite membership from across the Department for the self assessment panel, ensuring the opportunity to get involved is widely publicised. 2. Initial panel meetings should consider: Terms of Reference for the Panel including a review of membership A timeline for submission and level of award (see Figure 1 below) Whether there is sufficient administrative support for the submission process NB: Co-ordinating the submission is time-intensive and requires adequate administrative resource. Having a dedicated member of staff is useful in maintaining momentum when compiling a submission. Whether an extended word count should be considered and applied for How often the panel will meet If the Head of Department is not on the panel how regular reports and consultation will be provided Identification of panel members to take responsibility for additional Departmental data collection and analysis and/or allocate specific questions from the submission form to individuals on the panel best placed to take responsibility for collecting quantitative/qualitative information for that section Initial Departmental data provided by the Assigned Contact The Athena SWAN submission form ECU s Athena SWAN Handbook 2 3. Terms of Reference for self-assessment panels are as follows: Purpose: To bring together key expertise, including Academic and research staff, Human Resources, Equality and Diversity representation and administrative support, to oversee Athena SWAN activity and award submissions within Departments. Functions: The function of the self-assessment panel is to oversee the Athena SWAN process within the institution (Department, Faculty or Centre), including gathering and analysis of data and evidence, development of the submission and overseeing implementation of the action plan. The self-assessment panel should decide on the proposed level of award (Bronze, Silver or Gold) and a submission date in consultation with the E&D Assigned Contact, as well as developing a timeline for progressing the submission

6 It is recommended that Panels meet every one to two months when preparing the submission but no less than three times a year. The frequency of meetings may be reduced to termly/annual meetings following submission, as appropriate to monitor the progress of the Action Plan. The Panel may alter the frequency of meetings. Note: the SWAN submission form requests information on when the panel was formed, how often it meets, how it operates and its future plans - in particular, how it intends to monitor implementation of the action plan. The panel undertakes a rigorous and thorough process of self-review of the institution with respect to the Athena SWAN principles and specifically reviews the evidence required for submissions. The panel will identify areas of good practice, as well as areas for improvement, and develop an action plan to ensure the Department can progress gender equality The panel needs to decide how to ensure that their submission accurately reflects Departmental practice. Once the submission has been made, panels will need to report annually to their relevant Departmental governance body/faculty Board and so will need to establish how to achieve this. Panel Membership: The composition of the self-assessment panel is critical to the success of the submission and recommended membership has been outlined by the Equality Challenge Unit. The panel, normally between 5-10 members, will: be chaired by a senior academic (Head of Department/Chair of Faculty Board/Director of institution if possible) to oversee the process and be driven by the Academic community include a member of the E&D team (Assigned Contact) The Assigned Contact can provide guidance, respond to queries, provide action planning support, feedback on draft submissions, advice on finalising submissions, identify issues and concerns with progress, collect and share examples of good practice/key issues both from across the University and nationally. include men and women and a range of academic, academic-related, HR and administrators and assistant staff to ensure that information gathered is relevant and an accurate reflection of the institution. have members with personal experience of: a. balancing work with caring responsibilities b. different working patterns (part time/flexible working/career breaks) c. experience of a dual career family (the partner does not have to be from a STEMM background) include those with recent experience of the institution/department s recruitment and/or promotion processes include those at different stages of careers, particularly those in early and midcareer. Panels may also include student/postgraduate/ postdoc representatives as appropriate. include those with relevant Departmental/institutional/management/University responsibilities e.g. for staff development or equal opportunities A designated Athena SWAN co-ordinator, often with HR /administrative expertise, who can work with the academic lead to progress the submission, is recommended. 6

7 All panel members have an important role to play in ensuing that Athena SWAN principles and gender equality are promoted within the Department. Therefore panel members are expected to have completed the University s online Equality & Diversity training module, or equivalent as part of their panel role 3. Data Protection The data provided to Departments may only be used for the purpose for which they were intended, namely Athena SWAN applications. In order to be compliant with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 we recommend that Departments present data in their applications in such a way as to avoid the disclosure of personal information about any individual. Where sensitive staff information presented in a table includes numbers of less than five (such as Senior Academic Promotions), we suggest either presenting the information as a proportion by gender or aggregating the data by year/staff category to protect the confidentiality of individuals. 4. Advice on applications for an extended word count is as follows: An extra 100 words allowance has been introduced for larger faculties, colleges or other organisational units consisting of numerous departments who wish to apply for a department award (unit of assessment). These words should be employed to demonstrate how Athena SWAN principles are embedded in each constituent unit, and, in the case of Silver award submissions, show impact in these units. The extra words can be used across the submission document, and it should be noted in the word counts at the end of each section where they have been used. Facts to consider are: The size of the unit of assessment (numbers of students and staff) The management structure of the unit of assessment, including Human Resources Are students admitted to the unit of assessment or to constituent departments/centres? Does the unit of assessment oversee promotions etc

8 Figure 1: Bronze vs Silver Award BRONZE DEMONSTRATE AWARENESS Bronze Department awards recognise that in addition to University-wide policies, the department has identified particular challenges and is planning activities for the future. An assessment of where the department is in quantitative (staff and student data) and qualitative (policies, practices, systems and arrangements) terms, which has identified both challenges and opportunities A plan that builds on the assessment, the activities that are already in place and what has been learnt from these; and an organisation (the self-assessment team) to carry proposed actions forward. You are expected to: Have a sound understanding of the data relating to your department and discipline Make some relevant comparisons with national data Provide evidence of current activity under some of the headings and future actions planned under all of the headings. No case studies required SILVER DEMONSTRATE ACTIVITY Silver Department awards recognise that the department has a significant record of activity and achievement and has identified particular challenges, has implemented activities and can demonstrate the impact of these so far. In addition to the assessment and future planning required for Bronze department recognition, a Silver department awards recognises that the department has taken action in response to challenges previously identified (within or without the Athena SWAN process) and can demonstrate the impact of the actions implemented. You are expected to: Have a thorough understanding of the data relating to the department and discipline Assess how your department compares with national data Undertake specific monitoring in areas identified as needing attention Show progress in terms of the proportion of women being appointed, comparable rates of application for and success in promotion for men and women, and an increasing proportion of women at more senior grades Provide evidence of current activity and future action, as well as plans for additional activity where issues are identified in the self-evaluation. The panel also expects to see an assessment of the impact of activities. For Silver department recognition, case studies are required. These provide an opportunity to focus on the career progression of two individuals working in the department, and to show how the inclusive culture and working practices of the department have enabled them to pursue a career in a STEMM subject area. One of these case studies should be a member of the self-assessment team, and the other should be someone else in the department. No more than two case studies should be put forward, even if within the word limit. 8

9 STAGE THREE: Departmental Analysis and Actions 1. The self assessment panel should meet at regular intervals to consider the Athena SWAN submission form. The Bronze Athena SWAN form (boxed text in blue below) includes information on what the panels should consider for each section and the data that can be provided by the central University or must be acquired from within the Department. The submission format required for an Athena SWAN Silver application is the same and the same questions should be considered, however information should also be included regarding specific activity already completed as well as the impact of those activities/overall progress for each section (see Figure 1). 2. The Assigned Contact can provide advice and support throughout this process as well as being the key contact for data provision and queries. 3. The information collected should be considered section by section, with actions identified along the way which clearly link to the conclusions of the section analysis. 4. Think about a Departmental Athena SWAN web presence (ideally intranet and external website) and make Athena SWAN a standing item on management agendas so that regular progress updates can be provided. 9

10 Athena SWAN Bronze department award application Name of university: Department: Date of application: Date of university Bronze and/or Silver SWAN award: Contact for application: Telephone: Departmental website address: Athena SWAN Bronze Department awards recognise that in addition to university-wide policies the department is working to promote gender equality and to address challenges particular to the discipline. Not all institutions use the term department and there are many equivalent academic groupings with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition of a department for SWAN purposes can be found on the Athena SWAN website. If in doubt, contact the Athena SWAN Officer well in advance to check eligibility. It is essential that the contact person for the application is based in the department. Sections to be included At the end of each section state the number of words used. 10

11 1. Letter of endorsement from the head of department: maximum 500 words An accompanying letter of endorsement from the head of department should explain how the SWAN action plan and activities in the department contribute to the overall department strategy and academic mission. The letter is an opportunity for the head of department to confirm their support for the application and to endorse and commend any women and STEMM activities that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission. The covering letter sets the tone of the submission and can highlight senior management buy-in. Should show the Head of Department is involved and engaged in the Athena SWAN work either on self-assessment panel or receiving regular updates Should demonstrate real personal commitment Include one or two key examples of good practice from the Department Should explain how the Athena SWAN action plan and activities in the department contribute to the overall departmental strategy and academic mission Include one or 2 key actions which are going to be implemented (e.g. actions resulting from the staff survey) Highlight the Head of Department will ensure the resources are in place to deliver the action plan (staff and/or funding) 11

12 2. The self-assessment process: maximum 1000 words Describe the self-assessment process. This should include: a) A description of the self assessment team: members roles (both within the department and as part of the team) and their experiences of work-life balance. b) An account of the self assessment process: details of the self assessment team meetings, including any consultation with staff or individuals outside of the university, and how these have fed into the submission. c) Plans for the future of the self assessment team, such as how often the team will continue to meet, any reporting mechanisms and in particular how the self assessment team intends to monitor implementation of the action plan. Does the Self-Assessment Team have a diverse membership, considering gender balance and a range of work-life balance experiences (e.g. part time working, dual career families etc. see Terms of Reference above)? When was the Team formed and how often does it meet? Who does the Panel report to? Describe the management structure of the Department /unit of assessment, including Human Resources What wider consultation has taken place e.g. staff surveys, focus groups? Is there evidence of engagement and support for the Athena SWAN Charter at a senior level? How often will the Panel meet post-submission? Can the Panel become part of the day to day business of the Department? If the Head of Department is not on the Panel, how often are they consulted? For applications for Bronze awards, is there evidence of a commitment to culture change in the department which will affect staff at all levels? For application for Silver awards, is there evidence of real culture change in the department which affects staff at all levels? How is information about Athena SWAN communicated to the wider department? 12

13 3. A picture of the department: maximum 2000 words a) Provide a pen-picture of the department to set the context for the application, outlining in particular any significant and relevant features. Is there anything about the institution/ department that needs to be taken into consideration when judging the submission? Include information on the size of the unit of assessment including brief details of the total numbers of staff and students Include location details, especially if the department split over a number of buildings or sites. Describe how this affects staff. Describe how line management works in the department. Are students admitted to the unit of assessment or to constituent departments/centres? Does the unit of assessment oversee promotions etc.? Remember: It is important that departments show the main trends emerging from the data over the period of time considered (usually three years). Try to make your data as clear and simple as possible. Think about how to present data in order to show key messages. Legends, titles and data labels should make charts understandable without reference to the text. b) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning. Provide student and staff data (3 years for Bronze and Silver, 5 years for Gold), looking at numbers and proportions by gender Data must be considered in context. Comparisons should be made with benchmarking data for the subject using UK-wide HESA figures, gender breakdowns from key comparable Universities if appropriate, and comparisons with School and University level data. These data will be supplied bu the E&D Section via the Departments Assigned Contact. Plot the full pipeline from undergraduates to professors to help identify problematic transition points remembering that students are part of the pipeline to produce the academics of the future. 13

14 Student data (i) Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses comment on the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract women to the courses. The University of Cambridge does not offer Foundation Courses (ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers full and part-time comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the impact to date. Comment upon any plans for the future. Data will be provided centrally from relevant tables available online from the Student Statistics Office reports. All data provided is at 1st December each year. For most Departments, the data in Student Data Excel file (Tab 1) should contain all the necessary information on undergraduate numbers. If undergraduates are admitted to Natural Sciences Tripos, focus on Part II student numbers. Part II numbers can be found in exam results totals (Student Data Excel file Tab 4). Comments may also be included if the Department is involved in significant teaching loads for students at Parts 1A and 1B. Panels should comment on gender breakdown on courses and comparison with national benchmarks. The panel need to consider appropriate actions to redress any imbalances (iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught courses full and part-time comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future. Data tables for taught Masters will be provided centrally (headcount by gender, full-time and part-time) in Student Data Excel File (Tab 2) If no PGT courses are offered, then the department should state that this is the case. A breakdown by individual courses may be required if the percentage of women varies between multiple courses. PGT data should be compared to national benchmarks. The panel need to consider appropriate actions to redress any imbalances 14

15 (iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees full and part-time comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future. Information for Postgraduate students can be found in the student data file (Tab 2), PG Completions (Tab 3) and a breakdown of full time and part time students in PG numbers (Tab 6) Panels should consider the numbers of students by gender on research Masters and PhD courses and comment on the relevant male:female proportions in each case, looking for trends and comparing to the national benchmark. The Department needs to review how Postgraduate students, particularly PhD students are admitted, how places are offered/advertised. Recommend that all those involved in Undergraduate and Postgraduate admissions have passed the University s online Equality & Diversity training module. An example of good practice is that coursework or exams can be done by candidate number rather than by name, thus avoiding unconscious bias. The panel need to consider appropriate actions to redress any imbalances (v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees comment on the differences between male and female application and success rates and describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and their effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future. Course applications to offers and acceptances will be provided centrally. Information for Undergraduate applications to acceptances can be found in the student data file (Tab 1). For many STEMM subjects, the information is only available for admissions to the Natural Sciences Tripos. Departments need to clearly state that it is the Colleges that oversee the applications and admissions process. Panels should consider how the Department engages in the admissions process? Are academics Fellows of Colleges, and thus involved in the applications process, or via Directors of Studies? (vi) Degree classification by gender comment on any differences in degree attainment between males and females and describe what actions are being taken to address any imbalance. Degree results by Tripos part are provided centrally by gender and by subject. Undergraduate degree results are found in the Student Data file (Tab 4). Panels should consider the percentage of firsts, 2.1s etc by proportion by gender, i.e. the number of women gaining Firsts as a proportion of the total number of women in that year. Direct comparison can then be made by gender by each 15

16 class of degree. Panels should consider whether there is a clear difference between men and women obtaining Firsts. Masters degree results should also be considered if available (Distinction, Merit, Pass). Comparison with national benchmarks. Staff data (vii) Female:male ratio of academic staff and research staff Researcher, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader, Professor (or equivalent). Comment on any differences in numbers between males and females and say what action is being taken to address any underrepresentation at particular grades/levels Help panellists interpret the data for example, the definitions of academic grades are not the same everywhere so explain the categories for your Department Staff headcount data is provided centrally in Staff Excel File with the raw data in Tab1, Department, School and University comparative pivots tables in Tab 2 and Departmental numbers and proportions in Tab 3. Data can be analysed for Academic and Research staff (Type concise header) for the following staff categories (where available): Professor Reader Senior Lecturer Lecturer Clinical Lecturer Research Fellow Researcher Note: data for Research Fellows needs to be cross checked at Departmental level as many are not researchers holding independent funding fellowships. Should you wish to look in more detail at specific positions the data supplied will allow you to do that. Panel may also want to look at researchers by category (Senior Research Associate, Principal Research Associate and Director of Research). National Panels like to see the pipeline for female students and staff. Line graphs to show the proportion of women at UG, PG, Researcher, UL, SUL, Reader and Professor are useful. Review of female pipeline from Undergraduate to Professor -where are the major points of attrition? What are the comparative benchmarks (School, University, national, comparative universities)? 16

17 (viii) Turnover by grade and gender comment on any differences between men and women in turnover and say what is being done to address this. Where the number of staff leaving is small, comment on the reasons why particular individuals left. Panel should consider data provided in Staff Additional Data Excel file (Tab 4) Staff data analysed centrally will be provided for turnover by staff category by gender by year. Turnover is the number of leavers divided by the headcount (expressed as a percentage). Staff category is used as a proxy for staff grade. The data will provide a leaving reason as recorded in CHRIS for any individuals who may have left. Destination of leaving also included where possible. Is there a difference between the turnover of male versus female Academic and Research staff? Consider corrected turnover for Research staff (removing researchers who left due to the end of a fixed-term contract). Is destination data for staff available? Consider introducing exit questionnaires, particularly for Research staff. 17

18 4. Supporting and advancing women s careers: maximum 5000 words Key career transition points a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning. (i) Job application and success rates by gender and grade comment on any differences in recruitment between men and women at any level and say what action is being taken to address this. Information is currently available centrally for academic positions but not other appointments. The University is introducing a web-based recruitment system from November 2013 which will provide all the required information in the future. Panels should consider: How information is recorded locally for Academic and Research staff, including applications, shortlisted candidates. What is the trend for appointments over the last 3 5 years (or longer, if data is available and number of positions is small)? How are posts advertised? Who is on interview committees and what is the gender breakdown? Do all appointments panels have at least one female representative? Is there a procedure that is followed? N.B. The University recommends that all staff involved in recruitment should have passed the online Equality & Diversity training. Are there insufficient numbers/proportions of women applying, or insufficient women being appointed? If not enough women are applying, how can this be addressed? Examples of good practice include: wider searches; ing vacancies to worldwide collaborators; examining what the website says about the department and its commitment to gender equality; making changes to further particulars supplied to all applicants. (ii) Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade comment on whether these differ for men and women and if they do explain what action may be taken. Where the number of women is small applicants may comment on specific examples of where women have been through the promotion process. Explain how potential candidates are identified. Staff data analysed centrally will be provided for Senior Academic Promotion by staff category applications by gender by year. Note: Senior Academic Promotion (SAP) data for 2008/09 relates to applications for promotion effective 1 October 2009 and so forth. 18

19 The data will provide numbers of applicants and those who were successful by gender (care may need to be taken when presenting this data due to possible small sample sizes). If numbers are small, panels may want to consider producing data aggregated over three years to avoid the potential identification of individuals, particularly those who have been unsuccessful. Panels should consider: Numbers of men and women who have applied for promotion at each category: USL, Reader and Professor with reference to the numbers eligible for promotion. Success rates is there a difference between men and women? Points to consider (good practice): o Changes to SAP exercise in the last few years o Mentoring/workshops o SAP Open Fora o SAP CV Scheme o Proactive approach from HoD o How promotion candidates identified and supported o Specific actions aimed at women? b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the Department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed. (i) Recruitment of staff comment on how the department s recruitment processes ensure that female candidates are attracted to apply, and how the department ensures its short listing, selection processes and criteria comply with the University s equal opportunities policies. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. Panels should consider: University recruitment protocols. Are the guidelines on recruitment followed? Recruitment process for staff, particularly Academic and Research staff. Is process consistent, fair and transparent? Include information about new University Web-based recruitment process which will record all information, including gender of applicants, shortlisted, interviewed and appointed candidates (from November 2013). Good practice ensures training for PIs re: recruitment of research staff (including online Equality & Diversity training). 19

20 (ii) Support for staff at key career transition points having identified key areas of attrition of female staff in the Department, comment on any interventions, programmes and activities that support women at the crucial stages, such as personal development training, opportunities for networking, mentoring programmes and leadership training. Identify which have been found to work best at the different career stages. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. What are the key attrition points for women (consider the pipeline graph)? What support is in place to specifically support women? What activities, training and personal development opportunities are offered (PPD, Careers Service, Equality & Diversity, Departmental specific) including: o Mentoring programmes o Leadership training o Probation (academic) o Networking Examples of good practice include: Early Research Leaders Development Programme (PPD); Probation mentors (Engineering); New Perspectives workshops (Equality & Diversity); Academic Women s Forum (Clinical School); WiSETI events (e.g. Cake and Careers); Springboard; Women in Engineering Forum. Career development a) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed. (i) Promotion and career development comment on the appraisal and career development process, and promotion criteria and whether these take into consideration responsibilities for teaching, research, administration, pastoral work and outreach work; is quality of work emphasised over quantity of work? No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. How often are appraisals conducted? Is the line manager, or someone else the appraiser? Is career development discussed? Is there a separate scheme for postdocs? If not, is the general scheme fit for postdocs? N.B. University ECMS process for Researchers 4. Examples of good practice include: high training uptake for appraiser and appraise (training courses offered by PPD); staff survey results which comment on effective appraisal; how other contributions are considered, particularly with a view to Senior Academic Promotions (SAP). New scheme for senior researcher promotions to fun in parallel with SAP

21 Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) 2009, 11 and 13 data results are available for appraisal rates for researchers across the University. (ii) Induction and training describe the support provided to new staff at all levels, as well as details of any gender equality training. To what extent are good employment practices in the institution, such as opportunities for networking, the flexible working policy, and professional and personal development opportunities promoted to staff from the outset? No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. University induction as well as local induction. Induction packs include information on Athena SWAN commitment, highlight training opportunities and family friendly policies. Introduce Equality & Diversity training for all new staff. Consider mentoring arrangements for new staff and uptake. Promote PPD/IT training Examples of good practice include: Reviewing data on career support and training by gender for research staff (central provision). Examine take-up rates of training opportunities; survey staff on opinions of training and mentoring opportunities; are new academics given research funds and lower teaching loads? (iii) Support for female students Describe the support (formal and informal) provided for female students to enable them to make the transition to a sustainable academic career, particularly from postgraduate to researcher, such as mentoring, seminars and pastoral support and the right to request a female personal tutor. Comment on whether these activities are run by female staff and how this work is formally recognised by the Department. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. Examples include: Undergraduate and Postgraduate college/tutor support. Specific support in department e.g. Academic with specific responsibility. Events and workshops. Conference attendance. EnterpriseWISE (Judge Business School) 5. Springboard 6 and Careers Service 7. Graduate Education Officers

22 Organisation and culture a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning. (i) Male and female representation on committees provide a breakdown by committee and explain any differences between male and female representation. Explain how potential members are identified. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. Provide 3 years data on committees. Tables work well rather than graphs. Include gender breakdown of all major committees in the Department. Who Chairs the committees? How are posts rotated/are new openings promoted to all? How often are committee roles rotated to give staff the opportunity to build up experience? Consider committee overload for female staff. When numbers of women are low, focus on how a female perspective is fed into committees Can senior female researchers gain committee experience to assist career development and reduce committee overload for female academics? (ii) Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and open-ended (permanent) contracts comment on any differences between male and female staff representation on fixed-term contracts and say what is being done to address them. Date will be provided centrally analysed by fixed term contract vs permanent contract by staff grade and gender. NB Some research staff are recoreded as permanent but funding limited What are the policies about transferring staff to permanent contracts? If staff are not transferred, why not? Are there more academic women in unestablished posts. 22

23 b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the Department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed. (i) Representation on decision-making committees comment on evidence of gender equality in the mechanism for selecting representatives. What evidence is there that women are encouraged to sit on a range of influential committees inside and outside the department? How is the issue of committee overload addressed where there are small numbers of female staff? No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. What are the key committees in the Department? E.g. Planning and Resource, Research, Senior Management Team or Finance committees. How are members invited? Are staff on key committees outside the Department, e.g. Council, Athena SWAN Governance Panel, WiSETI Steering Committee, HR/Equality & Diversity Committee? How are women put forward/nominated for external committees? (ii) Workload model describe the systems in place to ensure that workload allocations, including pastoral and administrative responsibilities (including the responsibility for work on women and science) are taken into account at appraisal and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of responsibilities e.g. responsibilities with a heavy workload and those that are seen as good for an individual s career. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. Does the Department have a formal workload model? If not, does the Head of Department have oversight of workloads research, teaching and general contributions. If there is a model, does it take into account all activities including outreach? Teaching committee/office may have oversight of teaching loads. Are workloads considered during annual appraisals and renewed for SAP? If no workload management, how will this be addressed in the future? Important to note that if applying for Silver, a workload model will need to be in place. An example of good practice is a transparent published league table of departmental responsibilities for all Academic staff 23

24 (iii) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings provide evidence of consideration for those with family responsibilities, for example what the Department considers to be core hours and whether there is a more flexible system in place. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. Are there core hours e.g. 9.30/ /4.00? When do the main staff meetings happen? Timing of regular meetings e.g. journal clubs, seminar series. Timing of Department away days/retreats. What are the social gatherings? E.g. Christmas party? Summer barbecue? Retirement/new staff events? At least some of these should be held at times that give all staff the opportunity to attend. (iv) Culture demonstrate how the Department is female-friendly and inclusive. Culture refers to the language, behaviours and other informal interactions that characterise the atmosphere of the department, and includes all staff and students. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level. Panels should consider: Staff/student survey results Challenges of multi-site locations (if applicable). Champion(s) Visible female role models Open atmosphere/inclusive culture/supportive staff. Networks for staff and students How successful is communication within the Department/School/University Celebration of successes website/newsletters. Tea room/social spaces available to all. (v) Outreach activities comment on the level of participation by female and male staff in outreach activities with schools and colleges and other centres. Describe who the programmes are aimed at, and how this activity is formally recognised as part of the workload model and in appraisal and promotion processes. What examples of outreach are there within the Department e.g. school visits, Science Festival involvement, work experience? Who does outreach (include gender breakdown)? Are women role models promoted during outreach events? N.B. outreach may play a more important role for those departments with a low intake of female undergraduates. 24

25 Flexibility and managing career breaks a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning. (i) Maternity return rate comment on whether maternity return rate in the Department has improved or deteriorated and any plans for further improvement. If the Department is unable to provide a maternity return rate, please explain why. Staff data analysed centrally will be provided by number of staff who have taken maternity leave including the percentage who returned or left the University (Tab 2, staff additional data academic vs research vs other). Note: Employees taking maternity leave are classed as returners if they return for any length of time. Maternity and other family leave data are grouped by year in accordance with the date that the leave commenced. (ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake comment on the uptake of paternity leave by grade and parental and adoption leave by gender and grade. Has this improved or deteriorated and what plans are there to improve further? Staff data analysed centrally will be provided by number of staff by category who have taken parental and adoption leave by gender (Tab 1, staff additional data file). [Note due to low numbers this may be difficult to present without identifying individuals]. Highlight family leave policies including additional paternity leave. (iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and grade comment on any disparities. Where the number of women in the Department is small applicants may wish to comment on specific examples. No central provision evidence must be acquired at a local level for the full three year period. Have there been any formal applications for changes to working hours? NB. Recorded by central University from October Headcount data provided centrally is analysed by number of staff by category who are working less than 1 full time equivalent (FTE), by gender and staff category as a proxy for flexible working. Plot full- and part-time (PT) working from main staff data file pivot tables. 25

26 b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the Department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed. (i) Flexible working comment on the numbers of staff working flexibly and their grades and gender, whether there is a formal or informal system, the support and training provided for managers in promoting and managing flexible working arrangements, and how the Department raises awareness of the options available. The University has a flexible working policy how is it implemented? How are opportunities for flexible working promoted? Most academic and research staff work flexibly via an informal process, including working from home. How are managers trained/supported to promote flexible working? For informal flexibility, all staff should feel that they have the same opportunities to work flexibly. Consider flexible working options for new jobs e.g. Part time, job share, condensed hours. Is there opportunity for staff to specify when they are not available for teaching e.g. after 3PM, Saturday mornings? (ii) Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return explain what the department does, beyond the University maternity policy package, to support female staff before they go on maternity leave, arrangements for covering work during absence, and to help them achieve a suitable work-life balance on their return. It is important to describe what the arrangements are. There may be few, or no, examples of women having taken maternity leave, even so you must have procedures in place. Before maternity leave - how preparations are made to cover teaching, administration and research. During leave - e.g. use of Keeping in Touch (KIT) days and meetings to discuss return arrangements. After how returners are supported e.g. reduction in teaching, support to get research going again, monitoring of how well the returner settles back into work. How are preparations made to cover teaching, administration and research? Returning Carers Scheme 8 Paid KIT days 9. Maternity packs/buddies. Monitoring of how well returners settle back into work. University Family Ties Support Network (to be launched in 2014)

27 5. Any other comments: maximum 500 words Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other SET-specific initiatives of special interest that have not been covered in the previous sections. Include any other relevant data (e.g. results from staff surveys), provide a commentary on it and indicate how it is planned to address any gender disparities identified. Use this section to cover anything there has not been room for in the main submission. Examples include: Survey responses and actions. Additional evidence of progress/impact. Additional University actions/initiatives Senior Gender Equlaity Network (SGEN), Women of Cambridge book, senior commitment. Other STEM-specific initiatives of special interest. Evidence of sharing good practice. Communications webpages, newsletters. 6. Action plan Provide an action plan as an appendix. The Action Plan should be a table or a spreadsheet comprising actions to address the priorities identified by the analysis of relevant data presented in this application, success/outcome measures, the post holder responsible for each action and a timeline for completion. The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next three years. Examples of Action plan templates are given below. See also STAGE 4 below 27

28 Exemplar Action Plan Objective Actions to date Action(s) Required Theme Responsibility Specific Measurable Timeline University Bronze Award Action Plan (2012) 28

29 STAGE FOUR: Action planning and Draft Submissions 1. Action Planning The self assessment panel should be considering actions at every stage of the submission process as each section of the application is considered. The actions must be linked to the Departmental data and should reflect Departmental issues Actions MUST be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely) i.e. should have clear targets, details of how success will be measured, ambitious yet realistic targets, clear responsibilities (named individuals where possible), must have arisen from the priorities identified in the previous sections and detailed timings for completion/delivery The action plan must cover the full 3 years (the validity of the award) - make sure actions are not all due to be addressed in the first year. For departments holding Bronze who are applying for Silver, is there evidence from the previous Action Plan of progress against targets listed? Additionally, has the original plan been updated and modified? Reference actions from your action plan in the application Avoid making HR or Administrative staff responsible for the majority of actions, share across the self assessment panel, wider Department or even University 2. Draft Submission. As the submission is developed the self-assessment panel should ensure there are clear milestones in place for progress along with a target date for a first complete draft The Assigned Contact can be consulted to provide advice and feedback on the submission drafts and action plan. WiSETI Project Officer will review the draft submission and indicate readiness of submission. Ask someone who has not been involved at all with development of the submission to review your application to see whether it is clear and makes sense to someone from outside the Department 3. Notification of intention to submit The submission date and proposed level of award should be confirmed with Assigned Contact/WiSETI Project Officer 2-3 months in advance of November/April deadline ECU are notified by the WiSETI Project Officer of all Departments submitting in each round 29