Athena SWAN Bronze department award application/file/Athena-Swan... · Athena SWAN Bronze department award application ... such I believe that she has become a strong role-model,

Athena SWAN Bronze department award application

Name of university: University of Sheffield

Department: Civil & Structural Engineering

Date of application: April 2013

Contact for application: Prof. Matthew Gilbert

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 0114 222 5418

Departmental website address: www.shef.ac.uk/civil

1. Letter of endorsement from the head of department: maximum 500 words

<Please see letter attached [493 words]>

Department Of Civil & Structural Engineering.

Sarah Dickinson Athena SWAN Charter Equality Challenge Unit 7th Floor, Queens House 55/56 Lincoln’s In Fields London WC2A 3LJ 29 April 2013

Professor Harm Askes Head of Department Professor of Computational Mechanics Sir Frederick Mappin Building Mappin Street Sheffield S1 3JD Tel: +44 (0) 114 222 5796 Fax: +44 (0) 114 222 5793 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.shef.ac.uk/civil

Dear Ms Dickinson I am writing to strongly support the application being made by my Department for an Athena Swan Bronze award. A key achievement in recent years has been to increase the number of female academics in the Department. Prior to taking over as Head in summer 2009 we had four female academics. Since then a further four female academics have taken up posts (or will by 1st May 2013). To achieve this we have focussed primarily on appointing staff near the beginning of their academic careers, who show strong potential. Also, to ensure new staff are properly supported, we have instigated robust mentoring arrangements, and I was also keen that such staff should contribute to the development of a new easily editable, web-based, staff handbook, helping to ensure procedures are transparent as well as equitable. However, these new academic appointments have not addressed the disparity between the numbers of males and females which exists at senior grades, and this is something that I have for some time been working hard to remedy. For example, as Head I have proactively taken the opportunity to talk to people deserving of promotion, and have helped them to articulate their cases effectively; a relatively high proportion of these have been female academics. Whilst this process has been piloted for the last few years, I welcome the proposal to formalise and properly embed this practice into the ‘DNA’ of the Department, via a new Promotions and Advancement Panel.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/

Traditionally career breaks and family commitments are likely to affect women disproportionately, since many measures of achievement (e.g. volume of publications and measures of esteem) are adversely affected by time spent away from the workplace. We are trying to address this, for example by focussing primarily on quality rather than volume of research outputs in Departmental promotion panels. Another issue is that we find that female colleagues are more likely than their male counterparts to take pride in their administrative responsibilities, often steering through innovative and in some cases transformative ways of doing things, saving others significant time and effort in the process. We are now trying to ensure that such work is properly rewarded, and the new Promotions and Advancement Panel will help us achieve this. Positive role models are also important. In 2011 I appointed Dr Rachel Horn, then a University Teacher, as Deputy Head. Rachel is the recipient of numerous institution-level and national-level awards for her innovative teaching, and has since been promoted to Senior University Teacher. She has also played a pivotal role in reshaping the teaching in the Department. As such I believe that she has become a strong role-model, particularly for female colleagues in the Department. To conclude, I am fully supportive of this application, and am committed to ensuring that female members of the Department have the opportunity to flourish in a supportive environment, and to reach their full potential. Yours sincerely

Professor Harm Askes Head of Department/Professor of Computational Mechanics

2. The self-assessment process: maximum 1000 words [968 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

In June 2012, Professor Matthew Gilbert and Dr Abigail Hathway (academic staff) together

with Natalie Killeen (support staff) were invited by the Head of Department to ‘champion’

the Department’s bid for an Athena SWAN Bronze award. Following Athena SWAN

guidance, male and female staff drawn from across all staff categories (academic, support,

and research) were included in the Departmental self-assessment panel. The panel was

established to initiate self-assessment exercises according to Athena guidelines, analyse the

resulting data, and devise a strategy for the Department to fulfil Athena SWAN Bronze

criteria.

Professor Harm Askes: Harm was a Lecturer in the Netherlands from 1999 to 2004 before

joining the Department in 2004 as Professor of Computational Mechanics, and has been

Head of Department since 2009. He is responsible for a Department with an annual

turnover of approximately £10M, over 100 staff and 600 students. He is in a dual academic

career marriage and his wife is a full-time Lecturer in the Department of Mechanical

Engineering in the University. He has two young daughters.

Danielle Densley-Tingley: Danielle has been a PhD student in the Engineering

Environmental Buildings research group since 2009. Her current role in the Department is

as a part-time Research Associate on the ‘Big Energy Upgrade’ project, exploring the

environmental impact of retrofit treatments on homes. She also works part-time within the

Department, teaching in the areas of sustainability and embodied carbon.

Professor Matthew Gilbert: Matthew joined the Department as Research Associate in 1993,

subsequently progressing to Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and finally Professor. He

currently chairs the Information, Communication and Procedures Committee (ICPC), a body

set up in the Department to develop clearer and more efficient procedures, and also leads

the Computational Mechanics and Design Research Group. Outside the University he is the

MD of a spinout company and is married with two school-age children.

Dr Abigail Hathway: Abigail joined the Department as a Research Associate in 2008,

following PhD studies at the University of Leeds. She took up a Lectureship towards the end

of 2009, successfully completing her probation period at the end of 2012. She currently

oversees the undergraduate and MSc degree programmes that are run jointly between the

Department and the School of Architecture. She balances her academic work with active

involvement as an instructor at a local Taekwondo club.

Mrs Natalie Killeen: Natalie is the Department’s Undergraduate Recruitment and

Admissions Coordinator (since 2006) and looks after the entire admissions process,

including marketing and recruitment activity. She is in a dual career marriage and her

husband works full-time in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of

Sheffield.

Mr Chris Todd: Chris is a Research/Teaching Laboratory and Workshop Technician and is

responsible for providing technical support for research, teaching and commercial testing

activities in the Department’s Materials and Structures Laboratories. He has worked in the

Department since 2000. He is married and has three school-age children.

Dr Virginia Stovin: Virginia joined the Department as a researcher in 1992, became a

Lecturer in 1996 and Senior Lecturer in 2009. She is an internationally recognised researcher

in the fields of sustainable drainage and green infrastructure. She has a full portfolio of

teaching and administration, and is in a dual career marriage. She has two school-age

children, and has experience of taking maternity leave and of part-time working. She

currently works full-time, but flexibly, and is actively involved as an Engineering Mentor to a

female researcher.

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

The champions met with their counterparts in other Faculty of Engineering departments in

November 2012 and January 2013, to discuss strategy, how best to access central university

data, and to discuss the most effective means of approaching their work.

Following the first such meeting the champions arranged for a series of focus group

meetings to be held in the Department, facilitated by an external agency (Claire Smith

Consultancy). One or more members of the self-assessment team, along with a wide range

of colleagues drawn from across the Department (including academic and support staff),

attended each focus group meeting, which covered the following topic areas: ‘Where do

you see yourself in the Department?’, ‘Lack of senior female academics in the Department’,

‘Paternity / maternity / child-care / part-time working’, ‘What qualities / working

environment attracted you to the Department?’ and ‘What might be the barriers to

promotion?’ The full Departmental Athena SWAN self-assessment panel met in December

2012 and January 2013 to discuss outcomes from these focus groups, and to plan future

activities.

Subsequently, in January 2013, an online gender analysis survey was sent to all

Departmental staff and research students, and results from this were used to inform the

action plan (see Part 5 for more details).

Since then, in addition to communicating regularly via email, the champions have met

physically on a monthly basis, and have collaborated on completion of the present

application via the use of shared documents. Finally, feedback on a near-final draft of the

submission document was obtained from gender diversity consultants C:Change.

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.

Following submission of the present application, the self-assessment team will be replaced

by a new ‘Athena’ committee, with a goal of monitoring overall progress with the Action

Plan points, of developing new actions as necessary, and of encouraging staff to recognise

and contribute to the wider aims of Athena. The committee will meet three times a year and

will report directly to the Head of Department (Action: M1). For the first year the

composition of the committee will be the same as that of the current self-assessment team;

subsequently members will be replaced on a rotating basis with a normal term of 3 years. To

ensure the committee retains a diverse membership, each outgoing committee member

will, where possible, be replaced by a colleague of similar background (e.g. staff category),

and the male / female balance of the committee will be closely monitored.

3. A picture of the department: maximum 2000 words [1715 words]

a) Provide a pen-picture of the department to set the context for the application,

outlining in particular any significant and relevant features.

The Department is a member of the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Sheffield,

which also covers the following subject areas: Aerospace, Automatic Control and Systems

Engineering, Bioengineering, Computer Science, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and

Electronic Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, and Chemical and Biological

Engineering.

The Department was founded in 1917 and provides six undergraduate (MEng & BEng) and

nine postgraduate (MSc & PG Cert) courses in the main branches of civil engineering. As of

1st May 2013 the Department has 41 academic staff (of which 7 are female), including 10

professors (all male); historic staff number data is provided in Fig 3-10. The Department

also employs 28 researchers (of which 7 are female), 18 administrative support staff (17

female & 1 male), and 18 technical support staff (17 male & 1 female).

At present (academic session 2012/13) we have 522 undergraduate students (25%

female), 134 postgraduate students (40% female), and 60 research students (18% female).

All our undergraduate courses are accredited by the Institution of Civil Engineers and the

Institution of Structural Engineers. Because of its unique course content, the MEng in

Structural Engineering and Architecture is also accredited by the Royal Institute of British

Architects. Also our Architectural Engineering Design course is the only course in the UK to

be accredited by both the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the Joint Board of

Moderators (representing the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural

Engineers and two other bodies).

Research work is based in two large groups, ‘Structural Engineering’ and ‘Environmental

Engineering Science’. The Department did extremely well in the 2008 Research Assessment

Exercise (RAE), with 100% of our research being 'recognised internationally', of which 85%

'world leading' or 'internationally excellent'.

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.

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.

Foundation courses are run jointly by departments within the Faculty of Engineering, and

typically five to ten students will follow the foundation course before joining the

Department each year. The number of female students on foundation courses is low, partly

because foundation students commonly join the University after completing a BTEC, which

have high male: female ratios. Additionally some students take the foundation year because

they have taken subjects at A-level which provide inadequate preparation for an

engineering degree. However, these students are attracted to the Department through the

usual recruitment methods. The Faculty of Engineering are currently implementing

initiatives around Widening Participation (WP) to encourage more female students into

STEM subjects and engineering in particular. This WP activity is designed to diversity the

background of students coming into engineering, and will also enhance the intake into the

foundation year. The Department is involved in many related events, which are described

further in section 4 (outreach activities).

Figure 3-1: Number of students who accepted a place on the foundation course split by

gender.

(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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2009 2010 2011

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

Female

Male

Figure 3-2: Number of undergraduate students in year 1 of their programme by gender.

The ratio of females on the undergraduate courses is slightly higher than the national

average with the percentage of female students varying between 24% and 26% in the

academic years commencing 2008-2010. (The national average for Civil and Structural

Engineering for Russell group universities in the same period varied from 21-23% - HESA

data). Both our specialist courses, Structural Engineering and Architecture, and Architectural

Engineering Design maintain a higher proportion of females (43%-47% female between

2008 and 2011). We are reviewing the implications of this on recruiting female students to

our other programmes (Action: R1). We currently have 25 students on the Institution of Civil

Engineer’s Quest scholarship scheme which we actively promote to students at open days,

of which 8 are female.

Pre-application open days are open to all school students interested in applying to the

Department. At these events we ensure that females are well represented on all

promotional material used on the Department’s stand (posters, banners, Departmental

brochures, videos etc). We ensure that we have female academic staff amongst those

representing the Department at these events, and also female representation amongst the

student helpers we engage to talk to potential applicants. We also make sure the

percentage of female students is mentioned, helping to ensure potential applicants realise

that this is a female friendly department, welcoming female students as a positive addition

to our student body. The Faculty of Engineering are implementing many initiatives to

promote Widening Participation and Women in Engineering (see ‘Outreach’ section for

more information). The Department actively contributes to all activities to increase interest

in our courses, and to raise the profile of the subject; however we nevertheless intend to

review and enhance activities in this area. (Action: R4)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

Female Male

(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.

Figure 3-3: Number of postgraduate taught students by gender.

The proportion of female students on postgraduate taught courses has increased over the

last three years to be approximately in line with the national average in 2010/11 (30%:29%,

Sheffield: National Average). Our newer programmes tend to be more attractive to female

applicants, with our Environmental Management and Water Engineering programmes

having a higher proportion of females (>38% between 2008-2011). The success of the

undergraduate Architectural Engineering Design programme, along with the need to attract

more high quality male and female students into Building Services Engineering, has led to

the development of an MSc ‘conversion’ course. This provides a platform for able students

from engineering, architecture or science backgrounds to learn the technical aspects of

building engineering. Providing the opportunity for students to study engineering at a later

stage attracts more females from degrees such as architecture, who may not have

considered this route at eighteen. For example, one female student with a first degree in

architecture, and work experience in advertising, was encouraged to gain the technical

expertise necessary for a career as an engineer (this student is now Graduate Sustainability

Consultant with the engineering consultancy Hoare Lea). As with the specialist

undergraduate programmes which span architecture, this new postgraduate programme

draws a higher ratio of females (>37% in the first three years); as this programme grows this

is likely to have a positive impact on numbers of females in the Department. The majority of

our MSc programmes are offered on a part time basis (to be studied over a period of 2-5

years). This allows those with other commitments, such as families, to undertake the

courses.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

Female Male

(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.

Figure 3-4: Number of post graduate research students in the first year of study by gender.

The number of new postgraduate research students entering each year is relatively small,

making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about trends. Also the true number of female

postgraduate research students is difficult to define as there is as yet no simple way to

monitor the number of students coming through doctoral training centres into the

Department, and these students are not included in the numbers shown above. Gathering

better data on our female postgraduate research students will be a key priority in our action

for better data collection (Action: M4)

(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.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Nu

mb

er o

f st

ud

ents

Female Male

a) Applications : Offers b) Applications : Acceptances

Figure 3-5: Ratio of applications to offers and acceptances for undergraduate students


Figure 3-6: Ratio of applications to offers and acceptances for postgraduate taught students


Figure 3-7: Ratio of applications to offers and acceptances for postgraduate research

students.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Rat

io A

pp

licat

ion

s:o

ffer

s

Female Male

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Rat

io A

pp

licat

ion

s:ac

cep

tan

ces Female Male

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Rat

io A

pp

licat

ion

s:o

ffer

s

Female Male

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Rat

io A

pp

licat

ion

s:ac

cep

tan

ces Female Male

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Rat

io A

pp

licat

ion

s:o

ffer

s

Female Male

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Rat

io A

pp

licat

ion

s:ac

cep

tan

ces Female Male

For undergraduate and postgraduate taught female students the ratios of applications to

offers and/or acceptances, has stayed relatively steady over the last three years and is

similar to that for male students. UCAS days play a significant role in converting offers to

acceptances and many staff, including females, attend both coffee and lunch time events.

The promotional material for the course has many images of students, including females

(e.g. in the most recent email communication to offer holders, three of the four student

profiles featured female students). At Departmental open days, we again ensure that all

promotional material contains images of women. The student ambassadors employed also

have appropriate female representation, and again we always mention the percentage of

female students in our current cohort. In order to improve the conversion of offers to

acceptances by female students we will initially monitor these open days to identify any

areas of change (Action: M3).

Although numbers of postgraduate female research students is low, in the last two years the

proportion of applications that have been converted to offers and accepted places has

increased from 2008/9.

(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.

a) 2008/09

b) 2009/10

c) 2010/11

Figure 3-8: Degree attainment by gender for undergraduates.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1st 2.1 2.2 3rd Other Pass

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f fe

mal

e o

r m

ale

stu

de

nts

Female Male

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f fe

mal

e o

r m

ale

stu

de

nts

Female Male

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f fe

mal

e o

r m

ale

stu

de

nts

Female Male

Figure 3-9: Number of students completing PGT courses (incl MSc, PG Diploma, and PG

certificates) by gender.

The number of female undergraduate students graduating is relatively small (22 : 10 : 25 in

2009 : 2010 : 2011 respectively) and the proportional split between grades varies depending

on cohort; therefore it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from this data.

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 under representation at particular grades/levels

The number of female staff is low, and no female members of staff have to date progressed

above the level of senior lecturer. Currently within the Department there is one female

Senior Lecturer, and one female Senior University Teacher. In the last year two new female

Lecturers have started, with another due to begin this year. In the same period one retired

(at Lecturer level). The ratio of female to male Lecturers is similar to that of female to male

researchers; however, there is a significant drop off in female staff at the higher grades. To

address this for some years there have been informal mechanisms for encouraging female

colleagues to seek promotion (e.g. see Head of Department’s letter). However, formalising

this is a key priority in the action plan (Actions: PA1-PA5). More details are included in Part

4 (in the section covering key career transition points).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2008 2009 2010

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Female Males

a) 2009/10

b) 2010/11

c) 2011/12

Figure 3-10: Numbers of male and female academic and research staff. (N.B. Senior

University Teachers and University Teachers are included in the grades Lecturer and Senior

Lecturer respectively.)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Researcher Lecturer Senior Lecturer

Reader Professor

Nu

mb

er

of

staf

f

male female

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Reader Professor

Nu

mb

er o

f st

aff

male female

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Reader Professor

Nu

mb

er

of

staf

f

male female

(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.

a)2009/10

b)2010/11

c)2011/12

Figure 3-11: Staff leaving numbers, split by role and gender. ‘Research’ includes both Post-

Doctoral Research Associate and Research Assistants.

0

2

4

6

Academic Research Teaching Clerical & Secretarial

Management &

Professionals

Technician

Nu

mb

er

of s

taff

leav

ing

female male

0

2

4

6


Management &

Professionals

Technician

Nu

mb

er

of s

taff

leav

ing

female male

0

2

4

6

8

10


Management &

Professionals

Technician

Nu

mb

er

of s

taff

leav

ing female male

Numbers of female staff in the Department are relatively small, but there have been no

female academic staff leaving in the last three years other than for retirement (this is not

shown in the data due to the end of the University year falling just before the retirement

date). We also had a female University Teacher employed for a short period of time in 2011-

12 to cover a period of illness. The post doctoral researchers that left the department in the

period July 2010-July 2012 remained in engineering with most continuing in academia, and

in several cases returning to their home country. Of the female postdoctoral researchers

that left in this period all have continued in academia (2x lectureships, 1 research manager,

1 research fellow). However, the process was not necessarily easy. One of the researchers

was struggling to find a job towards the end of her appointment at Sheffield, and went

down to 14 hours per month at one point. Although this individual indicated that her

colleagues and line manager in the Department were very supportive, the only university

support was to be placed on the redeployment register. The support of our researchers is an

important part of our action plan and we are aiming to improve this situation. This includes

actions focussed on induction and mentoring for PDRA’s (Action: IM1 to IM3), increasing

the numbers of females applying to be members of staff (Action: R3) and minimising the

career disruption of maternity leave (Action: WLB3).

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 words [3686 words]

Key career transition points

a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical



(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.

Job application data is shown on the next page in figure 4-1. Due to a changeover in

reporting systems, it has only been possible to extract data for individual departments from

2010; therefore data for the entire Faculty of Engineering is shown for the year 2009/10.

The percentage of applications from females for research positions in the Department (28-

33% from 2008/12) is greater than the percentage of female PhD students (13-30% over the

three years data), indicating that we are successfully attracting females who have pursued

PhDs to take up post-doctoral positions. However, the applications for academic positions

from females is significantly lower (9-14%), indicating that this is a key transition point to

focus on. Hence, a key aspect of the action plan is developing researchers, providing

inductions incorporating career advice, and mentoring and training opportunities (Action:

IM1-IM4). In order to attract more females to the Department, all job adverts have female

friendly policies clearly stated, with links to relevant web links (Action R2).

a) 2009/10 (in this case data is for the entire Faculty of Engineering)

b) 2010/11

c) 2011/12

Figure 4-1: Percentage of job applications by gender. The data for 2009/10 is for the entire

Faculty of Engineering. Data from 2010 onwards is for the Department of Civil and Structural

Engineering. The number of applicants in each gender is annotated on the figure.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Academic Researcher Teaching Clerical & Secretarial

Technician Management

Pe

rce

nta

ge a

pp

lica

tio

ns

fro

m e

ach

ge

nd

er

Female Male

51

326

291

1017

11

53

403

215

5

9

13

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ap

pli

cati

on

s in

eac

h g

en

de

r

Female

Male

111

76

151

5 1 12

45

13

12

13

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Technician Management Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f ap

plic

ants

in e

ach

ge

nd

er

Female

Male

118

34

87

22

180

50

16

163

312

a) 2009/10 (in this case data is for the entire Faculty of Engineering)

b) 2010/2011 (clerical and secretarial is 100%)

c) 2011/12

Figure 4-2: Success rates (% applications to offers for each gender) of job applications by

role and gender. The number of successful applicants for each gender is annotated on the

figure.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%



Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f su

cce

ssfu

l ap

pli

can

ts

Female Male

2

5

21

51

2

5

119

1

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%



Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f su

cce

ssfu

l ap

pli

can

ts

Female Male

5 3

1

1

8

1 1

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%



Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f su

cce

ssfu

l ap

pli

can

ts Female Male

2

4

9

1

2 2

8

(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.

The number of female academics in the Department is small, and therefore the number of

applications for promotion from female academics has also been small. Over the last three

years we have had two female members of academic staff go forward to promotion at

Faculty level, one of whom was successfully promoted.

In 2009/10 only one male and one female member of academic staff went for promotion (to

Senior Lecturer), neither of whom were successful.

In 2010/11 two males went for promotion (1 Researcher, 1 Reader), both of whom were

successful.

In 2011/12 four members of academic staff, including one female, were put forward to

Faculty for promotion (1 researcher, 1 Reader, 1 Senior University Teacher and 1 Professor),

all of whom were successful. The promoted female was a Senior University Teacher, who

had already been invited to take on the senior leadership role of Deputy Head of

Department, with specific responsibility for teaching. Her promotion was actively sought

and supported by the Head of Department. She is now also Assistant Faculty Director of

Learning and Teaching and is being further supported by the Head of Department in

developing her experience, with a view to potentially securing further promotions, and

through Sheffield SWAN /STEM network events (Resilience and Promotion / Leadership

Ladder and informal discussions with the SWAN network).

The Head of Department also has an annual meeting with all Lecturers in their probationary

period (the first three years of their appointment), and at the end of this period discusses

with them the next steps required for promotion. This is considered particularly important

in the case of female academics.

Table 1: Promotion applications and successes.

Number of applications for promotion

Number of successful applications

Year Position Male Female Male Female 2009/10 Senior Lecturer 1 1 0 0 Technician 1 1 2010/11 Researcher 1 1 Reader 1 1 Support 1 1 2011/12 Researcher 1 1 Senior

University Teacher

1 1

Reader 1 1 Professor 1 1 Support 2 2 Specialists 2 1

The formal promotion process involves candidates putting themselves forward to the

Departmental panel, who then recommend which candidates should go forward to the

Faculty panel. Candidates can, if they wish, bypass the Departmental process. Informally the

Head of Department encourages individuals, particularly females, to go for promotion.

Further actions to formalise the encouragement of deserving individuals to go forward for

promotion through a Departmental “encouragement committee” have been developed, and

are detailed in the action plan (Actions: PA1, PA2, PA3, PA4).

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

In order to encourage females to apply for Departmental jobs all adverts state the

University’s commitment to policies that are likely to be important to females. Applicants

are directed towards the University Human Resources page on policies on flexible working,

pay plus for child care and time off for dependents. The job adverts also advertise the

University’s Athena Swan Bronze award. Further review and improvement of these

procedures are included in the action plan (Action: R3).

To ensure compliance with the University’s equal opportunities policies all interviews must

be chaired by a member of staff who has undergone the University’s ‘Mandatory

Recruitment & Selection Training for Chairs of Interview Panels’, which includes unconscious

bias training. Additionally, all academic interview panels now include at least one female

academic staff member.

Over the last three years the success rate of female candidates has increased, with two new

female appointments in the 2011/12 period. Both these were internal candidates who

benefited from informal Departmental mentoring and who attended several Faculty

workshops, 1-to-1 careers advice sessions and careers management training aimed at all

research staff.

(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.

Available data shows that the transition between researcher and academic positions is a key

attrition point for female staff. Therefore the Department actively encourages students,

researchers and academic staff to participate in the following Faculty initiatives designed

specifically to address this:

● Career development activities for women in STEM subjects in academia, such as 1-

to-1’s, C.V. writing workshops, career planning workshops and networking activities

(run at Faculty and University Level).

● Appointment of mentors for research staff (University initiative for male and female

staff).

● Induction for all research staff, including research career development activities (run

by the Faculty).

● Appointment of mentors for new academic staff, chosen with particular

consideration of the needs of the individual.

● PhD students are assigned a second, ‘doctoral development’ supervisor, who assists

the student in developing a training plan for completing their PhD and for further

career progression.

In addition to the above, a Departmental initiative is to invite PhD students and researchers

to view presentations by longlisted candidates for academic positions, with a view to

demystifying the process.

In the Departmental survey, staff generally felt they were encouraged to take up career

development opportunities (82%, 87% and 86%: for staff, PhD Students and PDRA’s

respectively), indicating that the Department is actively promoting the uptake of such

activities, and allowing staff time to attend. For female academic staff, PhD students and

PDRA’s this rose to 100%.

Career development

a) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what



(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?

The staff data shows a significant fall in the numbers of females in higher grades for

academic and research staff (e.g. see Fig. 3-10).

Since 35% of staff surveyed (54% in the case of PhDs and PDRAs) indicated a lack of

understanding of the promotion process in the survey, transparency of the promotions

process has been identified as an area where action is required (Actions: PA4, CT3). Equally

several staff members do not agree, or do not know, whether pastoral, outreach, teaching

and administration is considered in promotions (46%, 52%, 53%, staff, PhDs and PDRAs

respectively). Addressing issues around the promotions process therefore forms a significant

portion of the action plan (Actions: PA1, PA3, PA4, PA5).

As described in Part 1, the Head of Department has for some time been actively encouraging

staff worthy of promotion to apply for it, and has helped individual staff to articulate their

cases effectively (e.g. as stated earlier he encouraged our female University Teacher to take

on the role of Deputy Head of Department, and to then put herself forward for her

promotion to Senior University Teacher in 2011). In order to embed this approach in the

culture of the Department, the action plan includes the formation of a new ‘Promotions and

Advancement Panel’, which will convene an ‘Encouragement Panel’ in advance of the main

promotions round to identify individuals who should be encouraged to apply for promotion

(Action: PA3).

Furthermore, it is known that unconscious bias may influence recruitment of female staff.

Therefore the action plan includes rolling out unconscious bias training to staff (Action:

DC3). It will also be ensured that there is always one member of the Athena committee and

a minimum of one female representative on the Promotion and Advancement Panel

(Action: PA1).

(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?

Formal Faculty led inductions have recently been introduced for research staff and new

academics. These sessions include workshops focussed on career development and

obtaining funding, alongside more practical information about human resources.

Encouraging research staff to take full advantage of this is included in the action plan

(Action: IM1). A lack of opportunities for disseminating informal yet useful information to

staff and for networking with colleagues was identified and this has been addressed through

monthly ‘coffee and cake’ sessions (Action: DC2) held in core hours, and also the

introduction of a staff newsletter (Action: DC1) (this has for example provided updates on

the progress of the present Athena Swan submission, and is planned to continue to update

colleagues with progress with gender equality initiatives (Action: DC4)). A new easily

editable online staff handbook has been developed with extensive input from new members

of staff. This ensures more formal information is easy to find by existing and new members

of the Department (Action: CT1). The success of the handbook is such that it has been cited

as an example of good practice around the University.

(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.

Female PhD students are included in all Departmental activities, and have access to research

group seminars and the services of a second supervisor to help them with their ‘Doctoral

Development Plan’. Faculty and University training courses are also provided, some of which

are for women only. The Department actively encourages participation at these events. For

instance, women only courses are run on subjects such as Resilience, Dealing with Conflict

and Networking. Recently a student Women in Engineering network has been developed.

Since Civil & Structural Engineering is a vocational subject, we actively encourage our

students to take up placements and to enter high profile competitions. For example, in April

2013 it was announced that two of our female students won prizes at the prestigious Target

Jobs Undergraduate of the Year Awards Ceremony held in London. Sarah Leggett won the

Undergraduate of the Year for Construction Engineering and Design, winning an

international placement with the sponsor, Laing O'Rourke. Giovanna Sinisgalli won the

Future Business Leader Award and won a placement with the sponsor, Mars, which includes

a week in Russia. Our students won two of the twelve awards available - no other UK

university or civil engineering department had so much success. Both these students were

actively encouraged to enter the competition and were supported by members of academic

staff during the application process. The Department also runs a careers calendar, providing

sessions to students to work on their CV and to practice employability skills, such as

interview techniques. We also participate in the Degree with Employment Experience

Scheme (in conjunction with the Careers Service) to encourage students to seek vacation or

one year placements in industry, to enhance their employability.

As many research students pursue a career in industry following completion of their studies,

the Department also actively supports students in gaining Chartered Engineer (CEng) status

through an approved training scheme, seminars and mentoring.

Organisation and culture




(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.

Representation of females on Departmental committees, particularly the Departmental

Executive Committee, is generally good. There is, however, the risk of committee overload

for certain female staff as there are currently only two members of female staff at Senior

Lecturer (or equivalent) level. This is addressed through the work load model described later

(Action: CT4).

a) 2009/10

b) 2010/11

c) 2011/12

Figure 4-3: Number of people on Departmental committees split by gender.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Departmental

Executive Committee

Departmental

Review Panel for SRDS

Grade 9

Promotions Panel

Other Grades

Promotions Panel

Nu

mb

er

of

staf

f

female

male

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Departmental

Executive Committee

Departmental

Review Panel for SRDS

Grade 9

Promotions Panel

Other Grades

Promotions Panel

Nu

mb

er

of s

taff

female

male

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Departmental Executive

Committee

Info, Comms and

Procedures Committee

Departmental Review Panel

for SRDS

Grade 9 Promotions

Panel

Other Grades Promotions

Panel

Nu

mb

er o

f sta

ff

female

male

(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.

The Department follows the University criteria for appointing staff on fixed term contracts.

Researchers on fixed term contracts are funded by temporary funding with a specified end

point. The one academic member of staff on a fixed term contract was covering teaching for

period of illness of one member of staff. The number of research staff on open ended

contracts has increased gradually over the last three years. University policy is that ‘a review

of contractual status will take place at the first renewal point after a member of staff has

accrued 4 years’ service through the use of successive fixed term contracts. The purpose of

this review will be to consider whether the continuation of a fixed term contract remains

justified or whether transfer to an open ended contract is appropriate, (this became a legal

requirement from 1 July 2006)’. The increase in staff on open ended contracts has largely

been due to the number of long term researchers in the Department who have moved onto

an open ended contract.

a) 2009/10

b) 2010/11

c) 2011/12

Figure 4-4: Number of staff on Fixed term or Open ended contracts split by role and gender.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Academic Research Teaching Academic Research Teaching

Nu

mb

er

of

staf

f

Male

Female

Fixed term Open Ended

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Nu

mb

er

of s

taff

Male

Female


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Nu

mb

er

of s

taff

Male

Female





(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?

The most important decision-making committee in the Department is the Executive

Committee, which meets fortnightly and provides support to the Head of Department on a

wide variety of strategic and policy matters. There has for many years been a healthy

gender balance on this committee, which has regularly had a 50:50 male:female split

(composition: Head of Department, Deputy Head of Department (Teaching), Director of

Research, Director of External Affairs, Chair of Information and Communications Committee,

Departmental Administrator, Laboratory Superintendent). Nevertheless, the gender balance

of this committee and others will be monitored (Action: M2).

(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.

The Department was amongst the first in the University to introduce a workload allocation

model (WAM) for academic staff, and this has now been in place for almost twenty years.

The Department’s WAM takes account of teaching duties (incl. personal tutoring),

administration and research activity, and has been used as the basis of a scheme now used

across the Faculty. The tariffs associated with various activities were reviewed in 2009/10,

following extensive consultation with staff.

Nevertheless, free-text comments in the staff survey indicated concerns over: (i) the

accuracy of some of the centrally collected data used in the model, and (ii) the potential for

some of the inputs to be open to lobbying by ‘pushy’ individuals (e.g. the number of hours

allocated to new initiatives - such as new courses). Also, duties with a heavy workload are

not always rotated as frequently as they could be, which means that whilst workload may

be fair, opportunities for advancement may inadvertently be being limited (e.g. if these

duties are not highly valued) (Action: CT4).

(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.

Departmental meetings are generally held around the middle of the day, e.g. staff meetings

are held at 11am and executive committee meetings are held at 2pm. Christmas parties are

held at lunchtime. We will continue to ensure Departmental meetings are held within core

hours, and discourage important meetings being held outside these times (Action: WLB2).

(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

The Department is often described as being open and friendly to all, irrespective of gender.

This was confirmed by the results from our Departmental staff survey, which showed that

the vast majority of staff and postgraduate research students thought it was ‘a great place

to work’ for both men and women. Only two members of staff thought the Department was

not a great place to work for females, with these respondents being male.

However, some negative comments did surface in the survey. For example, some

respondents felt that it is not made explicitly clear that unsupportive language and

behaviour is not acceptable; however it was clear from free text comments that this is

implicit in the culture of the Department, and not a problem in practice. The only real

concern raised was in relation to securing access to resources (e.g. technician time) and, in

order to address this, greater transparency in resource allocation and procedures have been

identified as key action points (Actions: CT1, CT2).

(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.

The Faculty of Engineering are implementing many initiatives to promote Widening

Participation (WP) and Women in Engineering, e.g:

The Faculty has appointed a Women in Engineering Support Officer to coordinate

new initiatives.

The Faculty has just introduced a Women’s Society (linked to the Students’

Union), to enhance the profile of women in engineering and encourage female

recruitment to engineering courses. The society aims to champion women in

engineering through public engagement, and aims to have a high profile

presence at open days. They will have a specific stand at all University-wide

open days to attract female students.

The Women in Engineering Experience is a targeted activity which takes place

each spring and involves inviting local school girls (Yrs 9-11) to the University to

publicise engineering subjects. Around 300 girls attended this year, and involved

staff and demonstration activities from the Department. Local teachers also

pledged to promote STEM subjects to girls in schools in a more female friendly

way.

The Experience Engineering Day is an annual event aimed at high-achieving Yr 12

girls from across the country. This enables students to experience engineering for

a day in the Faculty, and includes input from the Department.

Discover STEM is a Widening Participation initiative which involves a cohort of

students from local schools. The students come from low socio-economic

backgrounds and/or high Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) areas. This two

year programme was based on a successful programme run for potential medical

students. Approximately half the students on the programme are female.

The Headstart/Summer School programme takes place each summer and is

aimed at high-achieving Yr 12 students from schools from all over the country. It

aims to increase engagement in engineering through a week long summer school

held in the Faculty, and provides the opportunity for students to take taster

sessions in each department in the Faculty. The Department is involved in

running lectures and lab demonstrations to promote civil and structural

engineering. (Headstart are a charitable trust who run the programme, and they

also have their own initiatives to encourage girls to take up places on the

programme http://www.etrust.org.uk/)

As a Department we contribute to all of the above activities, providing academic and

support staff, attending demonstrations, giving taster lectures, providing equipment to

promote the basic principles of civil engineering and generally helping where we can to

increase engagement in the subject. The Department has an Outreach and Recruitment

Officer, a female member of academic staff, who acts as a focal point for activities in this

area, and who feeds interested applicants into our Departmental admissions processes.

This role is a specific administrative role, complementing the undergraduate admissions

team, and is included in the Department’s workload model. All Departmental staff

(academic/technical/administrative) are encouraged to support outreach activities, and the

Faculty provides the Department with funding to enhance and develop such activities.

http://www.etrust.org.uk/

http://www.etrust.org.uk/

Flexibility and managing career breaks




(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.

There has been only one maternity return in the last 3 years (a member of clerical staff).

With relatively few female academic staff there have been relatively few cases of maternity

return in the Department. One of our two senior female academics took maternity leave in

2000 and 2003/4 for periods of approximately seven months in each case. This member of

staff was well supported when she returned to work, supporting her choice to return to

work on a part time basis (40%, 60%, 70% and 80%), before finally returning to work on a

full time basis in January 2012. She continues to benefit from flexible working arrangements

which enable her to collect her children from school two days a week. Her promotion to

Senior Lecturer occurred after the two periods of maternity leave, and these and her

periods of part time working were taken into account when judging the quantity of outputs

produced. She also benefitted from informal mentoring from a senior female academic from

a different Department. Also, between 2000 and 2007, reflecting the part-time nature of her

position at that time, she was not allocated any significant administrative tasks. However,

she is now actively involved at Departmental, Faculty and University level administration.

She currently sits on the Departmental Executive committee, and was nominated by her

Head of Department for Faculty Leadership and Management training in June/July 2011.

In 2012, after the end-date of the turnover data shown in Part 3, a female Research

Associate was made redundant when she went on maternity leave, as at the time she was

on a rolling contract renewed every one to two months. The member of staff states that she

felt supported by the Head of Department, her line manager and administrative staff in the

Department, and significant efforts were made to help her. However, there was little

support from the University centrally, other than being provided with the standard

redeployment form. She was also given little information about when or how she could

return. Since this time the University has made significant progress in the area of maternity

return, which is described below in Part b(ii). The progression of Post-Doctoral Research

Associates, and reducing the impact of maternity leave on career progression, is included in

our action plan (Action: IM1 to IM3, WLB3).

(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.

One researcher has officially taken paternity leave in the last three years. More recently, in

2013, the Head of Department has taken paternity leave. It was clear from the survey

responses that staff have little knowledge about policies in this area, which is likely to affect

take up. The action plan addresses this, through clearer communication of policies and

procedures in the Department (Actions: CT1, WLB1).

(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.

All applications for flexible working in the last 3 years have been successful. The number of

males and females applying is roughly equal (3:2, female:male).




(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.

Seven people (5 female, 2 male) are currently working flexibly. However, informally this

number is likely to be larger. The staff survey highlighted that there was a general lack of

knowledge across the Department about the opportunities available (although it was also

acknowledged that this may have been because respondents had not been seeking the

information). One member of support staff (female) works flexibly in an unofficial capacity

(because of childcare needs). HR guidelines state that staff must work their contracted

hours and in order to work flexibly they must first fulfil the needs of their department. This

is judged internally by departments. Requests to work flexibly in an informal capacity are

submitted to line managers, who must judge whether departmental needs would be

compromised.

(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.

University guidelines are adopted for maternity procedures, and no special Departmental

procedures are in place. Our one maternity return in the last three years did so on a part

time basis and the support she received has been described in a preceding section.

However, concerns that there is a lack of support for staff returning to work after maternity

leave have been raised in Faculty Athena Swan workshops. This has been the focus of

University-wide Athena Swan activity, with a series of workshops held at the beginning of

the year. Following on from these workshops, a number of resources have been developed,

including an online maternity tool kit available on the University website. Furthermore,

there is a Women Academics Returners Programme, which provides funding to ensure

research activities can be concentrated upon return. To ensure these resources are taken

advantage of, the Department will encourage staff to access them prior to going on

maternity leave, and will ensure all information is easy to find by providing suitable links in

the staff handbook. (Actions: WLB1, WLB3)

5. Any other comments: maximum 500 words [484 words, excl. quotes]

Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g.

other STEMM-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.

In January 2013, an online gender analysis survey was sent to all Departmental staff and

research students, and results from this were used to inform the action plan. Issues raised in

the survey and focus groups has fed directly into the Department’s action plan.

The survey response rate was very high, with 73 out of 75 staff (excl. research staff)

responding, and 72 out of 98 research staff and research students responding. The survey

was devised in accordance with the guidance issued by the UKRC and National HE STEM

Programme, according to Athena guidelines. For the analysis and action planning the data

was split by job type and gender. However, the figures below show the results for the whole

Department, split by gender for clarity as the main messages were fairly consistent across

staff categories. We were pleased, though not surprised, to see that overall the feeling is

that the Department is a great place to work (Figure 5-1 and 5-2).

Figure 5-1: “I feel my department is great place to work for women”.

Figure 5-2: “I feel my department is great place to work for men”.

We actively encourage staff to pursue career development opportunities, and the survey

confirmed this (figure 5-3), with the majority of staff indicating that they are encouraged to

take up such opportunities. Those that disagreed where a mixture of professors (3), PDRA’s

(1) and support staff (4). Therefore a component of our action plan is to ensure all staff have

access to training (Action: IM3)

Figure 5-3: “I am encouraged to take up career development opportunities”

Worryingly, some members of staff thought that it was not clear that unsupportive language would not be tolerated. However, several of the free text comments indicated that it was implicit, e.g. “I don't think the Department needs to explicitly make this clear unless there are issues - in this day and age it should be obvious”.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Strongly disagree

Disagree Agree Strongly agree

Don't know

Nu

mb

er o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Strongly disagree


Don't know

Nu

mb

er o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

Figure 5-4: “My department makes it clear that unsupportive language and behaviour are

not acceptable “

It was clear from the survey results that many staff hadn’t undertaken unconscious bias

training; furthermore, many staff members commented that they “weren’t biased” in the

free text comments, indicating a lack of awareness of unconscious bias and its implications.

A newsletter article highlighting this has already been produced and there are two actions

to provide training in this area (Action: R5, DC3).

Figure 5-5: “I have undertaken training in understanding unconscious bias”

It was clear in the survey that that many staff members are not clear about the promotions

process (Figure 5-6). Therefore a significant portion of the action plan is dedicated to the

promotions process, and to ensuring that procedures are clear (Action: PA4).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Strongly disagree


Don't know

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don't know

Nu

mb

er o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Yes - online Yes - course or workshop

No Don't know

Yes - online Yes - course or workshop

No Don't know

Nu

mb

er o

f re

sp

on

de

nts Female

Male

Prefer not to say

Figure 5-6: “I understand the promotion process and criteria in my department”.

There were many free text comments, one of which we felt was significant enough to

reproduce below:

“Academic staff are generally aware of what is appropriate behaviour. However, my experience is that this is not sufficiently reinforced to RAs, PhDs and support staff in research groups. I have had women in key positions of authority at different times in my research labs and in each case I do not think academic staff were sufficiently diligent in reinforcing the Authority of these individuals within research groups. It may be a coincidence that both staff are women, but my sense is that the posts would have been treated with greater respect and authority if they had been held by men. There is a need to reinforce attitudes of professional respect for such staff. The Department is under heavy pressure on technical and lab support. This means a lot of heavy work from lab support staff in negotiating allocation of scare resources and hence lots of potential for conflict that can be managed better by reinforcing attitudes of mutual respect.”

This, along with further comments about the “ brash self-confidence/dismissiveness of (certain) male colleagues” have led to action points on communication and transparency, and in ensuring fair resource allocation, to avoid resources going to those with the loudest voice (Action: CT2).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Strongly disagree


Don't know

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Don't know

Nu

mb

er o

f re

sp

on

de

nts

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

6. Action plan

Provide an action plan as an appendix. An action plan template is available on the Athena

SWAN website.

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.

<See Action Plan table attached>

Action Objective Action Description Current status Responsibility Timescales/Milestones Outcomes/Success Measure

Promotion and Advancement

PA1 Ensure Department takes a more pro-active role in the promotions process

Create new Departmental Promotions and Advancement Panel. To include at least one representative of the Athena Committee and a minimum of one female representative.

Accepted by Head of Department

Athena Committee

Timescales

Planned to start in 2013/14.

Milestones 1. Pilot panel covering academic

staff to convene - summer 2013.

2. Outcomes to be reviewed -

autumn 2013.

3. Roll out to all staff categories -

summer 2014.

Outcomes

Meetings of new panel take place

and minutes published; clear

actions, followed up in a timely

manner.

Success Measure New panel operating, with Athena Swan and female representative (as indicated in meeting minutes).

PA2 Ensure circumstances of individuals are properly taken account in the promotions process

Data on part-time working etc. to be included in a briefing sheet for Promotions and Advancement Panel. Accompanying best practice guidance to be developed which describes how the data can be used to help fairly evaluate the performance of an academic who has had career breaks and periods of part-time working.

Awaiting formation of Promotions and Advancement Panel

Promotions and Advancement Panel

Timescales Planned to start in 2013/14. Milestones 1. Develop pilot briefing sheet –

summer 2013.

2. Develop full guidance - summer

2014.

3. Review process - spring 2015

Outcomes Data and guidance on taking account of staff circumstances available to panel. Success Measure 100% of part time staff considered for promotions are evaluated using the provided guidance from 2014/15 onwards. Success assessed based on minutes from panel.

PA3 Ensure able but modest individuals, disproportionately female, are encouraged to seek and achieve promotion

Promotions and Advancement Panel to meet in advance of deadline for promotions, with the remit of encouraging deserving candidates to apply ('Encouragement panel'). Panel to liaise closely with supervisors/line managers who will be encouraged to provide information on such candidates.



Timescales Planned to start in 2013/14 round. Milestones 1. Pilot ‘Encouragement Panel’ for academic staff - summer 2013 (including defining ‘encouragement criteria’). 2. Review - spring 2014. 3. Implement for all staff and

implement related mentoring -

Outcomes Increase in nos. of staff being considered for promotion, especially amongst staff who have not sought promotion for some time. Gender breakdown of those promoted to be monitored. Success Measure At least 75% of staff who meet ‘encouragement criteria’ to apply for promotion. Success assessed based on minutes from panel.

summer 2014

4. Review - spring 2015.

5. Each year thereafter - annual

review of gender breakdown of

promotions.

PA4 Ensure promotion procedures are clear, properly publicised, and are those actually applied

Promotions and Advancement Panel to formulate and then circulate guidance to all staff, and also use a briefing sheet when considering cases in the panel meeting.



Timescales Planned to start in 2013/14 round (pilot phase). Milestones

1. Establish promotion procedures

and identify anomalies - summer

2013.

2. Produce guidance for staff and briefing sheet for panel – summer 2013. 3. Each year thereafter – annual review (in the light of faculty / department changes to promotions criteria).

Outcomes Better awareness of promotions procedures amongst staff. Success Measure 80% of surveyed staff indicate that they are aware of the promotions criteria. Briefing sheet used in panel, assessed based on minutes from panel meeting.

PA5 Ensure team players are rewarded

Published promotion criteria should place due value on individuals undertaking their administrative/support duties in a collaborative manner, and this should be taken into account by the panel.

Planned Promotions and Advancement Panel

Timescales Planned to start in 2014/15 round.

Milestones

1. Discuss published promotions

criteria with Faculty HR contacts -

spring 2014.

2. Publicise promotions to criteria to staff – summer 2014. 3. Each year thereafter – annual review.

Outcomes More instances of 'team players',

whether male or female, being

promoted.

Success Measure Evidence of administration support duties being considered in promotion (success assessed based on minutes from panel).

Communication and Transparency

CT1 Ensure Departmental procedures clear and easy to find

Instigate new easily editable staff handbook. Also ensure new staff are made aware of this at an early opportunity (see IM4)

Brought online for 2011/12 Session.

Information, Procedures and Communications Committee (ICPC)

Timescales On-going. Milestones 1. Review handbook use via

webstats and staff survey - autumn

2013.

2. Identify changes required and implement - summer 2014. 3. Each year thereafter - annual

review.

Outcomes Departmental procedures fully documented in online staff handbook. Success Measure Ensure there is web traffic to the

staff handbook each month.

Survey showing 80% of staff aware of how to access information on procedures.

CT2 Greater transparency in resource allocation

Instigate new online technical service requisition system, with various metrics made available to 'users'.

Piloting (for IT resource allocation) since 2011.

ICPC Timescales Pilot for IT support instigated 2011; more general usage planned for 2013/14. Milestones

1. Discuss requirements for new

system with key stakeholders -

summer 2013.

2. Bring new system online, with documentation in staff handbook - spring 2014. 3. Each year thereafter - annual review.

Outcomes Existing paper and ad-hoc systems for resource allocation no longer used. Success Measure 100% of all jobs should be allocated through the system. Actual jobs carried out will be assessed through liaison with the appropriate line manager and compared to jobs submitted through online system.

CT3 Transparency in how promotions are communicated

Ensure reasons are provided as to why individuals are promoted.

Planned Promotions and Advancement Panel

Timescales Planned to start in 2014/15 round. Milestones 1. Liaise with HoD to define

information to be circulated -

spring 2014.

Outcomes Greater transparency in promotions. Success Measure 80% of surveyed staff happy with the transparency of the promotions process. (Staff surveys before and after introduction.)

2. Implement for 2014/15

promotions round - summer 2014.

3. Review success via staff survey -

spring 2015.

CT4 Ensure workload model (WLM) is as accurate as possible

Review workload model to ensure this is accurate and is not e.g. affected by lobbying by ‘pushy males’. Propose that cases for modifying hours are considered in formal system rather than in ad-hoc manner. Also review rotation of significant administrative duties and monitor allocation of duties by gender.

Discussions with Head of Department planned for summer 2013.

Executive Committee

Timescales Updated systems to be in place in time for 2013/14 workload model. Milestones 1. Discuss proposed changes with

Departmental Administrator -

autumn 2013.

2. Review accuracy of WLM –

summer 2014.

3. Set up monitoring of admin.

duties - autumn 2014.

4. Survey academic staff on WLM -

autumn 2014.

Outcomes Increased confidence in WLM, and resulting workload allocations. Success Measure 80% of surveyed academic staff happy with accuracy of the workload model and workload allocation. (Survey staff after introduction of changes.)

Recruitment

R1 Increase attractiveness of degree courses to female students

Review degree titles – are they as attractive to female students as they could be? Also review marketing materials, in each case consulting female students.

Planning phase: summer 2013.

Admissions team Timescales 2013/14. Milestones 1. Review degree titles - autumn 2013.

2. Implement changes - spring 2014. 3. Review impact on admissions -

summer 2015.

Outcomes New admissions marketing materials and/or degree courses. Success Measure Active engagement of female

students in consultation process;

proposed changes implemented.

Measurable increase in nos. of

applications from female students.

R2 Review and enhance current outreach activity

Review current outreach activities, evaluate their effectiveness and plan future activities, with a view to informing female school pupils about STEMM opportunities, and those in the Department specifically.

Planning phase: summer 2014.

Admissions team Timescales 2014/15. Milestones 1. Review outreach activities - summer 2014.

2. Pilot new outreach activities -

2014/15.

3. Review activities - summer 2016.

Outcomes Effective outreach leading to increase in female applicants from admissions data. Success Measure Increase female UG students to 28% of cohort and female PGT students to 32% of cohort.

R3 Increase no. of females applying to become a member of staff

Ensure female friendly policies are clear on all job adverts. Also consider positive action wording, such as 'we particularly welcome applications from women' and ensure that PDRAs are provided with appropriate advice/support when academic posts become available (see IM2).

Underway Departmental HR contact

Timescales On-going. Milestones 1. Create checklist for job adverts - summer 2013.

2. Ensure checklist used - summer

2013.

(See IM2 for support to PDRAs.)

Outcomes Availability of data on male/female applications from HR; increase in female applicants from HR data. Success Measure Increase female applications for lectureship posts to 30% of all applications1.

R4 Ensure female applicants meet female staff and students at open days

Review UG open day procedures Planned Admissions team Timescales To be in place for 2013/14 admissions. Milestones 1. Amend existing staff / student

allocation procedures - autumn

2013.

2. Assess success - summer 2014 3. Implement changes (if

necessary) - autumn 2014.

Outcomes Female staff and student presence at all open days. Success Measure At least one member of female

academic staff involved in each

open day, together with at least one

female student helper. (Success

checked using open day

staff/student rota lists.)

R5 Minimise instances of unconscious bias

Ensure unconscious bias 'refresher' provided to all staff involved in recruitment.

Planned Athena Committee

Timescales 2013/14. Milestones 1. Develop ‘refresher materials’ in 2013/14, for implementation in summer 2014.

2. Refresher materials to be

provided with recruitment

information.

3. Review staff awareness - autumn 2014.

Outcomes Increased awareness of unconscious bias. Success Measure 70% of staff participating in refresher training; 100% of academic staff should indicate awareness of unconscious bias on staff survey.

Induction & Mentoring

IM1 All new research staff to have a good understanding of the University, opportunities for advancement, etc.

New researcher induction sessions introduced to Faculty staff in early 2013, and its effectiveness to be evaluated at Departmental level.

Underway ICPC Timescales On-going. Milestones 1. Initial review through liaison with engineering researcher society and staff survey - 2013 /14.

2. Implement changes /

improvements - summer 2014.

3. Review - autumn 2014.

Outcomes Improved induction measures for new research staff. Success Measure 80% of research staff happy with

the induction provided (found via

survey following implementation of

new measures).

IM2 All new post-doc research staff to have the opportunity to discuss aspects of academic life with independent mentor

Mentoring made available for all post-doctoral researchers

Underway ICPC Timescales On-going. Milestones 1. Initial review of awareness through staff survey - spring 2013.

2. Improved promotion of

mentoring opportunities at

Departmental level -summer 2014.


Outcomes Greater awareness and/or uptake of mentoring amongst male and female post-doctoral researchers. Success Measure 80% of post-doctoral staff happy with the availability of mentoring (found via survey after implementation2).

IM3 Ensure research (and other) staff have knowledge of training opportunities

Publicise training opportunities better, particularly to research staff

Planned ICPC Timescales To be in place for 2013/14. Milestones

1. Initial review of awareness

through staff survey - spring 2013.

2. Improved promotion of training

opportunities at Departmental

level -summer 2014.


Outcomes Greater awareness and/or uptake of training opportunities amongst male and female research staff. Success Measure 100% of research staff aware of training opportunities.

IM4 Ensure new staff become familiar with Departmental practices at an early stage, including flexible/part-time working

Ensure new staff are provided with access to staff handbook at an early stage

Underway ICPC Timescales

On-going.

Milestones

1. Update staff handbook - summer

2013.

2. Check all new staff are directed

to staff handbook - summer 2013.

2. Review - summer 2014.

Outcomes

Ensure high awareness of

Departmental practices amongst

male and females.

Success Measure

100% of staff aware of staff

handbook (evaluated through

survey in 2014/2015).

Monitoring

M1 Ensure progress with Athena action plan points is monitored

Create new Athena Committee, to meet three times each year.

Self-assessment team to become inaugural members of committee when application submitted

Head of Department / self-assessment team

Timescales To start immediately following

Bronze award submission.

Milestones 1. First meeting - summer 2013.

2. Review committee membership -

summer 2014 (and then annually).

Outcomes Meetings of Athena committee take place and minutes published; clear actions, followed up in a timely manner. Success Measure Actions are progressed against

timeline given in this document.

M2 Ensure balance of male and females on committees

Monitor committee memberships Planned Athena Committee

Timescales Start summer 2013. Milestones 1. Obtain monitoring data - autumn

2013.

2. Committee memberships

reviewed and actions passed to

HoD - summer 2014 (and then

annually).

Outcomes Data on committee membership obtained. Success Measure Data on male/female committee membership obtained and actions to address any imbalance taken as necessary.

M3 Ensure recruitment process is as female friendly as possible

Monitor open day conversions for male and female applicants


Timescales Start summer 2013. Milestones 1. Obtain monitoring data - by

autumn 2013.

2. Review conversions annually.

Outcomes Open day conversion monitoring data obtained. Success Measure Monitoring data obtained as planned.

M4 Better data collection Liaise with HR, the Faculty and other University divisions to ensure high quality data is fed to the Department on a regular basis.


Timescales Start summer 2013. Milestones 1. Identify data required and set

frequency for data collection - by

autumn 2013.

2. Identify any issues with data

accuracy - by summer 2014.

3. Review data collection procedure with HR - autumn 2014.

Outcomes Spot checking of data to verify accuracy. Success Measure Issues with data identified 2013/14.

Data accuracy improved 2014/15.

Data 95% accurate from 2015/16

onwards.

Departmental Culture

DC1 Better communication and opportunity to celebrate success

Departmental newsletter Instigated January 2012, and published monthly thereafter.

ICPC Timescales On-going. Milestones

1. Review newsletter use – summer

2014.

2. Implement changes as necessary – autumn 2014.

Outcomes Vibrant staff newsletter with active readership. Success Measure 80% of staff accessing at least one ‘feature’ news story over a six month period (measured via webstats, summer 2014).

DC2 More opportunities for networking with colleagues in core hours.

Monthly coffee and cakes get-together

Instigated 2012 Dept. Administrator

Timescales On-going. Milestones 1. Review format through survey – spring 2014. 2. Amend format if necessary – summer 2014.

Outcomes Number of participants. Staff Survey Success Measure Approximately 50% of staff on average attending regularly (staff survey to indicate at least 50% of staff find useful).

DC3 Minimise instances of unconscious bias

Ensure unconscious bias training is rolled out to staff


Timescales Roll out early in 2013/14 academic year. Milestones 1. Identify appropriate training -

autumn 2013.

2. Roll out training -spring/summer

2014.

Outcomes Greatly increased staff awareness of unconscious bias. Success Measure 75% of academic staff attending

training.

DC4 Promote the ethos of Athena Swan Charter in Dept.

Articles on Athena SWAN in the newsletter etc.

Underway (e.g. various newsletter articles already published)

Athena Committee

Timescales On-going. Milestones 1. Regular slot in staff meetings -

autumn 2013.

2. Articles published approx.

quarterly in staff newsletter

(ongoing).

Outcomes Increased level of awareness among staff of Athena Swan. Success Measure 100% of all staff surveyed aware of the Athena Swan process, action plan and ethos.

Work-life Balance

WLB1 Ensure existing family friendly policies properly publicised

Ensure flexible working policies and case studies are included in the staff handbook, and are referred to in the newsletter.


Timescales Introduce early in 2013/14 academic year. Milestones 1. Update staff handbook with

policies – autumn 2013.

2. Review (as in CT1).

3. Update handbook with case

studies - autumn 2015.

Outcomes Good staff awareness of existing family friendly policies. Success Measure Measurable increase in awareness of family friendly policies (by surveying staff again in 2014/15).

WLB2 Discourage meetings outside core hours

Determine suggested 'core hours' and publicise to staff in newsletter etc.


Timescales Introduce early in 2013/14 academic year. Milestones 1. Define core hours and

publicise – autumn 2013.

2. Collect and review data on Departmental meetings - summer 2014. 3. Take corrective action as necessary - autumn 2014.

Outcomes All key meetings take place in ‘core hours’. Success Measure 100% of key Departmental meetings

held in core hours.

WLB3 Minimise the career disruption of maternity leave

Ensure existing University initiatives to minimise career disruption due to maternity leave are properly publicised to staff.

University initiatives in place but need publicising.

Athena Committee

Timescales Introduce early in 2013/14 academic year. Milestones When relevant3.

Outcomes Good awareness of initiatives to minimise career disruption. Success Measure University help accessed and found to be helpful (measured via discussions with maternity leave returners).

1. This value is in line with the % of applicants for research positions. With the mentoring and support for women to ‘aim higher’ we hope to increase lectureship applications to be in line with this.

2. We are not aiming for a specific number of staff to undertake formal mentoring as we find many staff members find the informal mentoring they obtain from close colleagues to be very effective.

3. Since there has only been one maternity return in the last three years, uptake of this is likely to be small. Therefore success will be measured based on the outcomes of discussions with those staff members it affects.

Documents

Athena SWAN Bronze department award application/file/Athena-Swan... · Athena SWAN Bronze department award application ... such I believe that she has become a strong role-model,