1

Athena SWAN Bronze university award application

Name of university: University of Kent

Date of application: 29 November 2013

Contact for application: Professor Mark Burchell, Dean of the Faculty of Sciences

Email: M.J.Burchell@kent.ac.uk

Telephone: 01227 827833

Contents _____________________________________________________

1. Letter of endorsement from Vice-Chancellor (500 words) see cover letter

Glossary of Terms Page 2

2. Description of the self-assessment process (1000 words) Page 3

3. Description of the university (1000 words) Page 7

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers (4500 words)

A. Key career transition points Page 17

B. Career development Page 23

C. Organisation and culture Page 26

D. Flexibility and managing career breaks Page 30

5. Other comments (500 words) Page 34

6. Action plan Page 35

2

Glossary of Terms

Athena SWAN Working Group (ASWG) = Self-Assessment Team School = Academic Department Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Leadership Foundation for Higher Education ( LFHE) Oxford Research and Policy (ORP) Post Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) Reflect, Plan Develop (RPD) Appraisal Scheme Senior Lecturer (SL) Unit for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching (UELT) University Promotions Committee (UPC)

NOTE FOR THE READER

For the public version of this submission:

Small data are denoted by <5, with corresponding values denoted by (…), in line with

reporting guidance from the Equality Challenge Unit.

Some references to individuals or individual science departments have been removed.

3

2. The self-assessment process: 1000/1000 words

Describe the self-assessment process. This should include:

a) A description of the self-assessment team: members’ roles (both within the university and as part of the team) and their experiences of work-life balance.

The University of Kent is fully and actively committed to work with its STEMM Schools towards

Athena SWAN accreditation at University and at School levels. The activity of the self-assessment

team to date has included:

Surveying current practice to identify issues and share good practices

Collecting and analysing relevant data and identifying areas for action

Reflecting on the surveys and data analysis

Embedding Athena SWAN principles across the University and developing the University

submission and Action Plan

Supporting all School level working groups develop Action Plans for Athena SWAN recognition

Acting as ambassadors for Athena SWAN and communicating about the initiative within the

Faculty and across the University

Ensuring that appropriate resources are secured to support the work of the group

The self-assessment team at Kent is the Athena SWAN Working Group (ASWG), see Table 2.1. The

group is chaired by the Dean of the Faculty of Sciences, supported by the Faculty Administration

Manager. Of the 24 members of the Working Group, 16 (66%) are female. Each Sciences School

has two full members: all Schools include staff at Professor/Reader level as members and five of

the seven Schools have their Head of School as a member. The role of the School members is to

act as an interface between the Schools and the University-level Working Group and to lead

Athena SWAN activity in each School. Senior representatives from HR/EDI, the Planning and

Business Information Office, and the Unit for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching are

members of the group. A sub-group of the ASWG has led the application submission process.

4

Table 2.1 Athena SWAN Working group membership Athena SWAN Working Group Current Membership listed by academic School, followed by central services

Includes reflective statements by representative team members (marked with *)

Member Title School/Department

*Prof Mark Burchell Chair of ASWG and Dean of Faculty of Sciences Faculty of Sciences

When I was an UG…less than 10% of students on my course were women and we never had an UG lecture by a woman - an astonishing but common situation and in my career I want to help break this cycle of unequal access.

Prof David Brown Professor of Structural Biology Biosciences

*Dr Gary Robinson Senior Lecturer in Microbial Technology Biosciences

We can all make plans but they’re individual plans and not all can be accommodated in a large organisation. It’s a partnership between individual and organisation and each have responsibilities to achieve a workable work / life balance.

Prof David Chadwick Professor of Information Systems Security Computing

Prof Frank Wang Professor in Future computing and Head of School

Computing

*Janet Carter Lecturer in Computing Computing

Academic life seems to provide flexibility but perhaps not balance. I can take half an hour out one day per week to get my primary school aged daughter to an after school club and then rush back to work until it finishes, but I end up working all Sunday morning while my husband takes her swimming.

Angela Doe School Administration Manager Computing

*Prof Sarah Spurgeon Professor of Control Engineering and Head of School

Engineering

As one of a population of only two per cent of female professors of engineering and as the mother of three school age children I find it very difficult to maintain an acceptable work life balance.

*Ania Bobrowicz Senior Lecturer in Digital Arts Engineering

I find juggling work commitments, academic career and being a carer of a child on the autistic spectrum particularly challenging. As a carer, I find it difficult to be away from home which has had, and will continue to have, an adverse impact on my career.

*Prof Peter Clarkson Professor of Mathematics and Head of School Mathematics

As a disabled member of staff, I face a number of challenges in order to be an academic, e.g. access of rooms and suitable teaching facilities. Further, my wife is a female Science Professor so I appreciate the challenges she's had to overcome to achieve this.

Dr Ana Loureiro Lecturer in Mathematics Mathematics

Prof Iain Cumming Professor of Pharmacy and Head of School Pharmacy

Dr Sarah Corlett Clinical Lecturer and Head of Clinical and Professional Practice

Pharmacy

*Dr Donna Arnold Senior Lecturer in Forensic Science Physical Sciences

As an early career researcher/academic with no husband or children, work life balance has been focussed far more heavily on the work side of the equation. I am actively trying to redress this.

Dr Anna Corrias Reader in Chemistry Physical Sciences

*Jane Glew Acting Head of School and Medway College Master

Sport and Exercise Sciences

As a female Acting Head within an Academic School I feel that although the role is very demanding it is also fulfilling. I have been able to maintain a work-life balance appropriate for myself and I look forward to being part of the development of further initiatives to enable colleagues to benefit more fully in a work-life balance that both meets their individual needs and those of the University.

Dr Samantha Winter Lecturer Sport and Exercise Sciences

Linda Lough Faculty Administration Manager Faculty of Sciences

Dr Louise Naylor Director; also Chair of the Women’s Network and previously Senior Lecturer in Biosciences

Unit for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching

Silvia Dobre Head of Planning and Business Information Planning and Business Information Office

Cindy Vallance Head of Organisational Development; Co-Chair of the Researcher Development Working Group

Human Resources

Simon Smith Faculty of Sciences HR Manager Human Resources

*Tracey Lamb Equality, Diversity & Inclusivity (EDI) Manager Human Resources

My current role is a full time post although I have experienced a variety of working patterns. As a student, I recently completed a master’s level narrative study about the lived experiences of women in the leaky pipeline.

*Jess Cockell Athena SWAN Adviser Human Resources

Extended illness meant I came to the University of Kent as a mature student and the start of my career was delayed. We shouldn’t get only one chance to follow the traditional man-made route to a fulfilling career; there should be different paths.

5

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 Vice-Chancellor and Dean of Sciences agreed in 2010 that the lack of progression of female sciences staff had to be addressed and to use the Athena SWAN principles as a basis for change. The Athena SWAN Working Group (ASWG) was formed and the resulting self-assessment process begun. This has resulted in detailed consideration of the issues; including surveys of staff, collecting and analysing key data-sets and initiating change. Formal Terms of Reference are in place and termly meetings occur with a formal agenda and actions and where issues are discussed and progress is reported.

Several actions have been initiated and include:

Each Science School was provided with a report (prepared by HR staff at Kent) in May 2012 describing the national and local gender distribution of staff and students within the HE sector and STEMM subjects.

External consultants, Oxford Research and Policy (ORP), were commissioned and used an on-line survey testing against 30 benchmarks (broken into ten headings) to solicit staff perceptions of issues in relation to career progression and support for women. This survey resulted in aggregated University, Faculty and individual School Position Reports (shared with Schools). The findings are referenced throughout this application and have been used in producing University and School level Action Plans.

The Vice-Chancellor created an Academic Women Working Group in 2012, with senior representation across all three Faculties and the group conducted women’s focus groups which have informed this submission and action plan (Actions 1.2, 3.1).

The University has an active Women’s Network of 127 members, 55 of whom are academic/research staff. Of this sub-group, 19 members are from the Faculty of Sciences. The group has fed their experiences and priorities into the Athena SWAN initiative and the Chair of the Network (who was a Biosciences Senior Lecturer earlier in her career and is now the Director of the Unit for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching), has joined the ASWG to ensure direct connections to this group and our Action Plan (Actions 1.2, 3.2).

Additionally, an Academic School Governance Group was formed in 2012 which then commissioned in-depth focus groups with Heads of School and key administrators and an all-staff survey for academic staff, focusing on developing a good governance model. While the survey itself was not gender-specific, the findings confirmed the challenges women face and the Governance project has started to implement changes outlined in our application and Action Plan (Actions 3.8, 3.9, 4.2, 4.3).

Preliminary data analysis showed there are more women than men in Researcher posts in the Sciences Faculty. Accordingly a Researcher Development Working Group (reporting to the Board of Research and Enterprise) was set up to look at this. University-wide in-depth internal survey and focus group sessions were then undertaken in 2013 to determine the perceptions and priorities of contract researchers. The results and Action Plan to support the career development of research staff resulted in the University’s successful application for the European Commission’s HR Excellence in Research Award in 2013. The Co-Chair of the Researcher Development Working Group is a member of the ASWG. This group’s work will continue and is aligned with SWAN priorities (Actions 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, 3.12).

6

c) Plans for the future of the self-assessment team, such as how often the team will continue to meet, any reporting mechanisms, and how the team will engage with SET departments to encourage them to apply for awards.

Future and on-going plans (see Section 6 of the Action Plan):

The ASWG University level and School level groups will continue to meet at least termly to ensure that momentum is maintained and advise each School on preparation of further applications (including Silver applications for all Schools by end 2015) (Actions 6.1, 6.2).

Council and VC are ultimately responsible for progress. The ASWG makes written reports each term directly to Senate (Chaired by the VC), Sciences Faculty Board, and the EDI Strategy Group and annually reports progress in annual School Plans which are aggregated up to the Sciences Faculty Plan and in the EDI Report to Council (Action 6.3).

A University SWAN website and SharePoint site have been created and are used (Action 6.4).

Athena SWAN will continue to be promoted through regular newsletters, the annual Athena SWAN events, social media, EDI updates and the Woman’s Network (Actions 6.5, 6.6).

Representatives from the Faculties of Social Sciences and Humanities will be invited to join the ASWG (Action 6.7).

A HR post (Athena SWAN Adviser) was appointed in October 2013 to help support and co-ordinate award submissions and Athena SWAN activities of all Schools (Action 6.8).

We will focus on outreach to girls in secondary schools, assisting their education, career choices, and University admissions (Action 6.9).

7

3. Description of the university: 998/1000 words

a) Provide a summary of the university, including information on its teaching, and its research focus, the number of students and staff (academic and support staff separately), association with university mission groups (e.g. 1994 group, Russell Group, Million+), the size of the SET departments (academic and support staff separately), and any other relevant contextual information.

Definitions for Tables and Charts

Academic: Staff are sub-categorised as Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Reader/Professor

Research: Staff focused on research; usually post-doctoral staff

All Other Staff: All technical, clerical and professional staff

Effective Date: 1 October 2013 unless otherwise noted

Table 3.1: University Staff Data Summary (October 2013) broken down by gender and broad divisions of “Academic”, “Researcher” and “All Other Staff”.

Male Female

Number % Number %

Academic 516 62% 312 38%

Research 69 42% 96 58%

All Other Staff 637 39% 980 61%

TOTAL 1222 47% 1388 53%

Table 3.2: Faculty of Sciences Staff Data Summary (October 2013) broken down by gender and broad divisions of “Academic”, “Researcher” and “All Other Staff”.

Male Female

Number % Number %

Academic 176 75% 60 25%

Research 30 46% 35 54%

All Other Staff 48 42% 65 58%

TOTAL 254 61% 160 39%

8

Kent (founded in 1965) is a “pre-92” multi-faculty research intensive university not aligned with any mission group. It has:

2610 substantive staff members (Table 3.1).

Annual turnover £200m.

20,000 students on two main campuses (17,000 Canterbury; 3,000 Medway).

27% of students study science subjects.

38% female Academic staff (41% including Research staff). We have three Faculties: Social Sciences (nine Schools/495 staff), Sciences (seven Schools/414 staff (Table 3.2) and Humanities (six Schools/264 staff). All Faculties have Schools at Canterbury and Medway. There are fewer female Sciences Academics compared to the whole University - confirming our need for action.

i) List of SET departments (academic Schools)

1. Biosciences 2. Computing 3. Engineering (includes Digital Arts) 4. Mathematics (includes Statistics and Actuarial Science) 5. Pharmacy 6. Physical Sciences 7. Sport and Exercise Sciences

ii) Total number of university departments (academic Schools)

22

iii) Percentage of SET departments as a proportion of all university departments (academic Schools) 32%

9

b) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on trends and significant issues, in particular anything relating to gender equality.

(i) Female:male ratio of academic staff and research staff – researcher, lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor (or equivalent) – across the whole university and in SET departments. Comment on the main areas of concern on gender balance and plans to address them. For example, is there evidence that women and men are appropriately represented at all levels of the workforce? Are there differences in SET departments?

Table 3.3 University Academic Staff Gender Ratios for last 3 years: data are grouped by academic level.

2011 2012 2013

M F Total F% M F Total F% M F Total F%

Researcher 49 81 130 62% 51 88 139 63% 69 96 165 58%

Lecturer 180 147 327 45% 191 162 353 46% 190 160 350 46%

Senior Lecturer 107 58 165 35% 116 68 184 37% 126 75 201 37%

Reader 36 19 55 35% 36 22 58 38% 50 34 84 40%

Professor 132 26 158 16% 147 31 178 17% 150 42 192 22%

Total 504 331 835 40% 541 371 912 41% 585 407 992 41%

Table 3.4: Faculty of Sciences Academic Staff Gender Ratios for last 3 years: data are grouped by academic level.

2011 2012 2013

M F Total F% M F Total F% M F Total F%

Researcher 25 29 54 54% 21 29 50 58% 30 35 65 54%

Lecturer 63 38 101 38% 68 44 112 39% 71 41 112 37%

Senior Lecturer 38 10 48 21% 41 10 51 20% 43 13 56 23%

Reader 13 <5 … … 13 <5 … … 18 <5 … …

Professor 38 <5 … … 41 <5 … … 44 <5 … …

Total 177 80 257 31% 184 87 271 32% 206 95 301 32%

Please note that Table 3.5 (Academic Staff Gender Ratios for last 3 years inside each School in the Faculty of Sciences, data are grouped by academic level.) has been removed, to avoid individuals being identified.

10

Table 3.3 provides University level staff data. The percentage of women progressing above Lecturer has increased over the past three years (improved recruitment and promotions processes). However, whilst 58% of Researchers are women, this falls significantly at higher grades, e.g. Professor.

Table 3.4 provides similar data for Sciences. The percentage of women is lower than the University (problems with recruitment), falling fastest at higher levels (problems with promotions/development/recruitment). Percentages are static over time although in 2013 two women were appointed Reader (one promotion, one external hire). One large discrepancy is that 54% of Researchers are women compared to just 25% of Academics (Lecturer to Professor combined) indicating an issue with recruitment into the Lecturer grade.

Table 3.5 shows data split by Sciences School. There are specific differences:

Over 80% of Biosciences Researchers are female, compared to 20% in Engineering.

Over 50% Pharmacy and Sports Lecturers are female compared to 30% in Biosciences/Physical Sciences/Maths. Engineering and Computing have even lower figures.

At higher grades, women are in small numbers or absent.

Our analysis included benchmarking subjects with national figures (ECU Equality in HE Statistical Report 2012). For example: Engineering, whilst low for percentage female staff, is in line with national levels. Regarding Biosciences, further analysis is underway to benchmark each individual job grade against nationwide comparators.

Reflecting on this indicates that Recruitment, Development and Progression/Promotion are key issues. These themes reoccur throughout our work and a set of actions have been generated: Action Plan Sections 2, 3, 4.

11

(ii) Female:male academic staff turnover rates by grade – across the whole university and in SET departments and any differences between them. What are the issues for the university and how is it planned to address them? For example, are women and men equally likely to leave the university (distinguish between those leaving at the end of a fixed term contract and any other leavers)? Are the reasons for leaving picked up in exit interviews?

Table 3.6. University Turnover Data including retirement (2011, 2012, 2013). The total number of Male (M) or Female (F) staff and leavers are given along with the percentages of leavers.

2011 2012 2013

M M

Leavers %M

Leavers F

F Leavers

%F Leavers

M M

Leavers %M

Leavers F

F Leavers

%F Leavers

M M

Leavers %M

Leavers F

F Leavers

%F Leavers

Researcher 49 35 71 81 33 41 51 25 49 88 29 33 69 20 29 96 25 26

Lecturer 180 19 11 147 15 10 191 15 8 162 12 7 190 8 4 160 16 10

Senior Lecturer 107 <5 … 58 5 9 116 5 4 68 <5 … 126 5 4 75 <5 …

Reader 36 <5 … 19 <5 … 36 6 17 22 <5 … 50 <5 … 34 <5 …

Professor 132 11 8 26 <5 … 147 12 8 31 <5 … 150 8 5 42 <5 …

Total 504 69 14 331 … 16 541 63 12 371 46 12 585 … 8 407 44 11

Table 3.7. Science Faculty Turnover Data including retirement (2011, 2012, 2013). The total number of Male (M) or Female (F) staff and leavers are given along with the percentages of leavers.

2011 2012 2013

M M

Leavers %M

Leavers F

F Leavers

%F Leavers

M M

Leavers %M

Leavers F

F Leavers

%F Leavers

M M

Leavers %M

Leavers F

F Leavers

%F Leavers

Researcher 25 22 88 29 8 28 21 17 81 29 10 29 30 8 27 35 10 35

Lecturer 63 7 11 38 <5 … 68 <5 … 44 <5 2 71 <5 … 41 8 20

Senior Lecturer 38 0 0 10 0 0 41 0 0 10 0 0 43 <5 … 13 0 0

Reader 15 0 0 0 0 0 13 <5 … 0 0 0 18 <5 … <5 0 0

Professor 38 0 0 <5 0 0 41 <5 … <5 0 0 44 <5 … <5 0 0

Total 179 29 16 … … 13 184 24 13 … … 13 206 14 7 95 18 19

12

Tables 3.6 and 3.7 show “turnover” data for the University and Sciences. Analysing this data shows that:

For Researchers, the main reason for leaving was the end of a fixed term contract, with a high departure rate of male Researchers in Sciences in 2011 and 2012 when several grants ended.

Academic staff departure rates are low and for Professors are often retirements.

Rates are similar for men and women across the institution and Sciences.

The exception is female Sciences Lecturers, with a jump in 2013. Analysing this in depth: Some women were on short fixed term contracts (maternity cover or teaching replacement for funded fellowships: note women are not over-represented on fixed term academic contracts – Table 3.9), some left to be closer to family/partners and some had individual reasons with no pattern.

Reflecting on this, we have started exit interviews, and are developing specific supporting strategies, e.g. one department has provided bridging funding for a Researcher after her contract ended and whilst she awaits the start of a Fellowship (Actions 1.4, 2.9).

13

(iii) Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts vs. open-ended (permanent) contracts – across the whole university and in SET departments. Comment on the implications of the gender balance for the university and for women’s career development. For example, is there evidence that women are overrepresented on fixed-term contracts? Are there differences in SET departments?

Table 3.8 All University Staff: Open Ended Contracts and Fixed Term Contracts Comparison between Male (M) and Female (F) staff (census date October 2013). We give total numbers of Men and Women in each category and the % of female (F%).

Open Ended Contracts Fixed Term Contracts

M F Total F% M F Total F%

Researcher 9 29 38 76% 60 67 127 53%

Academic 460 272 732 37% 56 39 95 41%

Total 469 301 770 39% 116 106 222 48%

Table 3.9 Faculty of Sciences Staff: Open Ended Contracts and Fixed Term Contracts Comparison between Male (M) and Female (F) staff (census date October 2013). We give total numbers of Men and Women in each category and the % of female (F%). (We do not break down by individual School as the numbers become too small).

Open Ended Contracts Fixed Term Contracts

M F Total F% M F Total F%

Researcher <5 12 … 75% 26 23 49 47%

Academic 166 57 223 26% 10 <5 … 23%

Total … 69 … 29% 36 … 62 42%

Table 3.8 and Table 3.9 show data for fixed term and permanent staff.

For both University and the Sciences, women are approximately 50% of Fixed-Term Researchers.

At Academic level the majority of women are on Open-Ended contracts.

In both the University and Sciences, 75% of permanent Researcher posts are women. In Sciences almost all are in one particular discipline and are not developing/progressing.

Reflecting on this, career development is a focus of the Researcher Development Working Group (Actions 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.12). Especial attention is being focussed on one discipline, where a Researcher group was formed to help mentor and guide this group, and two female scientists have just won independent fellowships (Action 2.5).

An in-depth study is planned to help further understand career development for Fixed-Term staff (Action 2.4).

14

(iv) Evidence from equal pay audits/reviews. Comment on the findings from the most recent equal pay audit and plans to address any disparities.

Table 3.10: Pay gap in the Sciences in 2008 (full University pay audit) and 2013 (spot audit in Sciences). A –ve value means women earn less, a +ve value means women earn more.

Pay difference 2008

Pay Difference 2013

Professors -4% +4%

Non-Professorial Academics -7% -0.6%

Post-doctoral Researchers -6% +5%

A 2013 spot audit shows that the 2008 pay inequality has been substantially reduced in the Sciences. Another full University audit will take place in 2014 (Action 4.1).

In 2008, analysis showed that pay gaps arose because:

Male Professors were on higher pay scale points due to more frequent increment applications.

Non-Professorial Academic pay-gap was due to: i) Lack of female Readers. ii) Male Senior Lecturers were more likely to request discretionary awards.

Male Lecturers and Researchers were more likely to negotiate higher starting pay.

Reflecting on this, changes included:

Professors: Annual pay increment applications are now obligatory for the first 5 years after promotion/appointment.

Increased effort on recruitment and progression/development for women: Sciences now has two female Readers.

Staff are reminded annually to apply for discretionary pay points and an equality check on awards occurs.

New Lecturers’ and new Researcher starting pay is now set by the Dean and HR and bench-marked with existing staff.

15

(v) Female:male ratio of staff in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008 – across the whole university and in SET departments. Comment on any implications of this. For example, does the gender balance of staff included in the RAE 2008 broadly reflect the gender balance across the institution? Are there any differences in SET departments?

Table 3.11: RAE2008 and REF2014 Submission Rates for Eligible Men and Women

RAE2008 Probable REF2014

% of men submitted

% of women

Submitted

Number of women

submitted

% of men submitted

% of women

Submitted

Number of women

submitted

Whole University

69% 61% 139 81% 76% 178

Sciences 66% 21% 10 80% 71% 32

Table 3.11 shows data for RAE2008/REF2014. After RAE2008, Science Schools worked on the development of female staff, submission rates improved and the gap between men and women substantially reduced. The number of women entered by Sciences in REF2014 has more than tripled compared to RAE2008, but is still low overall, reflecting the need to increase the total number of women in the Sciences.

Post-REF2014, an equality analysis will occur and actions developed to assist staff requiring continuing support (Action 3.10). Preliminary analysis shows four Schools will submit 100% of eligible female academics, one School was on the average but in two Schools only 40% of women are being submitted versus 73% of men. Both these Schools are less than a decade old, are heavily vocational, and hired as academics several female practitioners without a research background. These staff are being fully supported to engage in research development, including financial and workload allocation support to undertake PhDs (Action 3.7).

16

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: 4494/4500 words

A. 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 trends and significant issues, in particular anything relating to gender equality.

(i) Female:male ratio of academic staff job application and appointment success rates – across the whole university and in SET departments. Comment on any implications of this and plans to address any disparities. For example, are women and men equally successful at all stages of the job application process? Are there differences in SET departments?

Table 4.1: Job Applicant Gender Ratios (University level) M is male, F is female, U is undisclosed. F% gives the % of M+F categories that are female. Data are recorded against the year the post was advertised.

2011 2012 2013

M F U F% M F U F% M F U F%

Researcher 45 81 7 64% 116 396 58 77% 427 448 59 51%

Lecturer 1237 660 99 34% 2439 1298 268 35% 727 549 100 43%

Senior Lecturer 275 112 15 29% 240 136 23 36% 330 172 32 34%

Reader 6 0 4 0% 131 72 14 35% 13 3 2 19%

Professorial 31 4 5 11% 156 91 30 37% 83 38 15 31%

Total 1594 857 130 35% 3082 1993 393 39% 1580 1210 208 43%

Table 4.2: New Starter Data (whole University). Note: the year of starting in a post is often the year after a post was advertised, especially at Reader or Professor grade where longer start periods are the norm.

2011 2012 2013

M F TOT F% M F TOT F% M F TOT F%

Researcher 21 42 63 67% 35 42 77 55% 48 41 89 46%

Lecturer 30 23 53 43% 46 35 81 43% 38 40 78 51%

Senior Lecturer 2 1 3 33% 6 3 9 33% 6 2 8 25%

Reader 1 0 1 0% 1 0 1 0% 4 3 7 43%

Professorial 15 1 16 6% 23 6 29 21% 17 11 28 39%

Total 69 67 136 49% 111 86 197 44% 113 97 210 46%

17

Table 4.3: Job Applicant Gender Ratios (Science only) M is male, F is female, U is undisclosed. F% gives the % of M+F categories that are female. Data are recorded against the year the post was advertised.

2011 2012 2013

M F U F% M F U F% M F U F%

Researcher 116 42 12 27% 146 54 14 27% 259 207 33 44%

Lecturer 421 128 13 23% 792 216 82 21% 64 24 8 27%

Senior Lecturer <5 0 <5 0% 5 0 0 0% 72 24 10 25%

Reader 6 0 <5 0% 23 6 <5 21% 13 <5 <5 13%

Professorial 26 <5 <5 10% 29 <5 5 3% 20 <5 <5 17%

Total … … 34 23% 995 … 103 22% 428 261 55 38%

Table 4.4: New Starter Data (Sciences Faculty). Note: the year of starting in a post is often the year after a post was advertised, especially at Reader or Professor grade.

2011 2012 2013

M F TOT F% M F TOT F% M F TOT F%

Researcher 10 13 23 57% 16 11 27 41% 21 28 49 57%

Lecturer 9 <5 … 25% 13 7 20 35% 12 6 18 33%

Senior Lecturer 0 0 0 0% <5 0 <5 0% <5 0 <5 0%

Reader 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0% <5 <5 <5 50%

Professorial 6 0 6 0% <5 <5 5 20% <5 0 <5 0%

Total 25 … … 39% 36 … … 35% 40 … … 47%

The data for gender division of job applications/appointments are in Tables 4.1/4.2 (University) and 4.3/4.4 (Sciences). At University level, a large percentage of applicants for Researcher are female, but generally this declines at higher grades. In Sciences a lower percentage of applicants for Researcher are female, again declining as the grade increases.

At Lecturer and Reader level the data in 2012 is distorted because extra posts were advertised in 2012 (hence the jump in applications in Tables 4.1/4.3) but the appointees did not all start until 2013 (and hence some appear in 2013 in the starter data in Tables 4.2/4.4).

At University level women who apply for Lectureships are more likely to be appointed than men (Table 4.2). Similarly, in the Sciences, female applicants for Researcher or Lecturer are proportionately more likely to be hired then men (Table 4.4) but at higher grades, the percentage of applicants who are women falls to near zero (Table 4.4).

18

Reflecting on this, we need to attract more female applicants. Based on our analysis, Recruitment actions include promotion of flexible work practices, increasing use of positive recruitment wording, social media, search firms, varied advertising sources (e.g. Women in Mathematics/London Mathematical Society), and increasing recruitment communications to Researchers (Actions 2.1, 2.2).

(ii) Female:male ratio of academic staff promotion rates – across the university and in SET departments. Comment on any implications of this for the university and plans to address any disparities. For example, are men and women equally likely to be put forward for promotion? Are male and female applicants for promotion equally successful at all levels? Are there differences in SET departments?

Table 4.5: Academic Promotions Data for whole University (F is female, M is male. Data is split by year. In each year we give the number of applicants at each grade, followed on the next line by the % of successful applicants. Please note that the table submitted to Athena SWAN also contained the Promotions data for the Science Faculty. Due to the confidential nature of this data, it has been removed from the publically available document.

2011 Academic Promotion Application Data

University F M

Chair applicants <5 8

% Chair Success 100% 50%

Reader applicants 12 12

% Success 83% 75%

Senior Lecturer applicants 20 17

% Success 75% 88%

Overall Success Rate 85% 76%

2012 Academic Promotion Application Data

University F M

Chair applicants <5 9

% Success 100% 67%

Reader applicants <5 13

% Success 100% 85%

Senior Lecturer applicants 16 19

% Success 75% 95%

Overall Success Rate 82% 85%

2013 Academic Promotion Application Data

University F M

Chair applicants 6 7

% Success 50% 86%

Reader applicants 15 22

% Success 93% 73%

Senior Lecturer applicants 30 37

% Success 87% 70%

Overall Success Rate 84% 73%

19

The data in Table 4.5 show the promotion success rate. In Sciences female applicants are more likely to be promoted then men (over the whole period women applicants had a 72% success rate compared to 61% for men). Sciences have however had a slightly lower success rate than the whole University.

Over the three year period, 22% of promotion applications in Sciences were from women, roughly in line with the 25% of the Academic staff who are female.

However, in 2012 no female scientists applied for promotion. As part of our analysis of this, all Sciences Heads of School reviewed with the Dean and HR the reasons why each academic who had not applied for promotion in recent years had not done so.

Reflecting on this analysis:

Since 2012/13, at least one annual promotions briefing session is specifically for women and the total number of briefings has increased (Action 2.7)

Staff are now actively encouraged to apply for promotion rather than left to decide on their own (Action 2.8)

A new appraisal system introduced in 2012-13 focusses on reflection and development (Action 3.11).

In 2013, eight female scientists applied for promotion and five were successful, the most for several years.

b) Describe the policies and activities at the university that support women’s career progression in SET departments in particular at key transition points – describe any additional support given to women at the key career transition points across the university, and in SET departments, such as support for new lecturers or routes for promotion through teaching and learning.

A key transition in academic careers is from undergraduate to postgraduate (since 2010 all Sciences PhD scholarship selection panels have included at least one female academic member). The next career steps are from PhD to post-doctoral researcher, post-doctoral researcher to Lecturer and for career development in the Lecturer role.

To help us analysis the difficulties faced, we used women’s focus groups and the Oxford Research and Policy (ORP) survey. The results showed that women often felt they lacked sufficient support at these steps. Reflecting on this feedback, we developed actions including:

The Researcher Development Working Group developed a four year action plan to support the career development and progression of early career staff (Actions 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 3.12).

Since 2010, all Sciences appointment panels include at least one female academic member. Job applicant and appointee gender monitoring now takes place and has led to new advertising actions (Actions 1.3, 2.1, 2.2).

Sciences Schools are to create their own internal networks encouraging career development for staff, postdoctoral researchers and postgraduate students, so far these include the Biosciences Researcher group and a Mathematics group (Actions 3.6).

20

Chairs and panel members are required to complete an Equality and Diversity e-learning module on Recruitment and Selection. In 2013/14, a new programme to increase unconscious bias awareness and value inclusivity and diversity will begin for all staff, including customised sessions for committee decision-makers (Actions 4.6, 4.7).

New Academic staff under-take probation to support career development. The Probation scheme (updated in 2010) includes an experienced staff member as probation supervisor and a separate mentor. A work plan for the first three years is agreed with the Dean and workload relief provided: 50% in year 1; 25% in year 2. A central University Academic Probationary Review Committee chaired by the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor annually reviews probation progress. Allowance is made for p/t staff and personal circumstances including maternity leave. Enhancements to the Scheme to support staff and supervisors are planned (Action 2.3).

All new Academic staff under-take a Post-Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE) with 100% uptake from male and female staff (Action 3.6).

The Women’s Network provides support and advice for female Academics at all career stages (Action 3.2).

After becoming a Lecturer, progression to higher grades is via promotion. The Faculty Promotions Committee chaired by the Dean has senior representatives from each School and adds a commentary on each application. In Sciences, 11% of this committee are female academics, slightly above the percentage of female senior Academics.

The University Promotions Committee UPC (female gender composition 38%, Table 4.8) is chaired by the Vice-Chancellor and consists of several academic members of the University senior management team and two Professors from each Faculty. The UPC reviews all data from previous promotions rounds including salary levels and time to promotion by gender. Part-time working, reduced hours at different stages of an individual’s career and personal circumstances are taken into account during promotions and this is flagged up in the submission procedures. UPC reviews all documentation and referee reports and makes final promotions decisions.

However, according to the ORP survey in 2012, 32% of women and 21% of men stated they had little or no knowledge of promotion criteria, and 28% of women and 18% of men reported little or no knowledge of the process. Since 51% of women and 61% of men reported they had been invited to apply for a higher level post this suggests that support for promotion is occurring, although men are still favoured. When asked if they were offered feedback after applying for promotion, 82% of men and 88% of women responded positively.

Reflecting on this feedback suggests that engagement with the promotions system is not as widespread as desirable and that there is a gender gap. Actions to address these concerns include:

Annual academic and research staff promotions details and communications about promotion success stories from the previous year are now sent to all staff each year (Action 2.7).

The Promotions round is preceded by several all-staff briefings led by the Vice-Chancellor and members of the University Promotions Committee; at least one briefing each year is for female staff (Action 2.7).

Promotion guidelines and criteria have been adjusted significantly over the past three years, and provide promotion opportunities across research, teaching and overall

21

leadership with citizenship also specifically addressed and opportunities for self or senior colleague nomination (Action 2.7).

Schools now support staff to apply for promotion via internal review panels which help identify those who have not come forward but may be ready, offer development guidance to those not yet ready, and help with preparing applications (Actions 2.6, 2.8).

Unconscious bias training will be provided to Committee decision-makers (Action 4.7).

22

B. Career development

a) Describe the policies and activities at the university that support women’s career development in SET departments.

(i) Researcher career support and training – describe any additional support provided for researchers at the early stages of their careers, such as networks and training.

The University Graduate School provides a comprehensive Researcher Development Programme (RDP) for research students and postdoctoral researchers designed around the VITAE Researcher Development Framework. It includes courses specifically for scientists (e.g. scientific writing). New PhD researchers must attend a Researcher Development Assessment (RDA) workshop to select the most appropriate RDP workshops and then review their development with their supervisors during their PhD. In 2012/13, women comprised 57% of the University’s 473 participants in the programme whilst in the Sciences women provided 46% of the 138 participants.

Our Early Career Researcher Network began in 2012/13, to support post-doctoral researchers and those who have recently been appointed to faculty positions. Topics range from skills development (“how to write a grant application”) to broader career sessions (“balancing the conflicting demands of academia”). Participation in the programme is exactly 50/50 male:female with a total of 464 participants in 2012/13 and eight of 15 sessions led by female staff. In 2013/14 sessions will include several external female speakers.

PhD students and post-doctoral researchers who teach are trained via an Associate Teacher Accreditation Programme, with relevant modules of the Post-Graduate Certificate in Higher Education. In 2012/13 women comprised 53% of the 113 staff in the programme. Modules include learning and teaching, the academic environment, and developing as a researcher.

Staff can apply three times a year to the Faculty of Sciences Research Fund (started 2011). Recent Fund goals include: awards to improve research to REF standards (2011/12) and helping early career researchers to develop careers through external recognition either via conference/travel funds or to bring a visitor here (2012/13). In 2012/13, 20% of the awards went to women, including two to female post-doctoral researchers. We will work to increase this percentage (Action 3.13)

Research staff will continue to be supported to develop through the Researcher Development Working Group (Action 3.12).

(ii) Mentoring and networking – describe any mentoring programmes, including any SET-specific mentoring programmes, and opportunities for networking. Comment on their uptake and effectiveness. Are women encouraged to participate in networking opportunities?

Having analysed data from focus groups and surveys we identified a lack of training for leadership and senior roles as an issue. Reflecting on this we have undertaken several actions.

The University launched a Mentoring Network in May 2013 that includes training and mentor matching and which will be linked to Aurora, with partnerships with other Universities (Action 3.3).

23

The University is participating in the new Aurora Women in Leadership programme, launched by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (LFHE) in November 2013. An academic woman champion was selected following a University-wide competition. An open call for participants produced such high levels of interest that the University agreed to fund ten, rather than six places as originally planned. All three female academic applicants from Sciences were selected to participate. The women involved will also participate in internal Kent initiatives to help embed their Aurora experience across the Faculty and University (Action 3.5).

The Women’s Network and the Early Career Researchers’ Network both provide opportunities for networking by female staff. A female Sciences staff member is Deputy Chair of the University’s LGBT Staff Network and was featured in the Network’s 2013 Role Models campaign to encourage active participation in networks by female scientists. The University-wide EDI Network was re-launched in Spring 2013 and is comprised of representatives across all Schools and Departments, meeting termly to share challenges and good practice: Sciences representatives include three female academic staff members. The Network reports directly to EDI Strategy Group led by Executive Group members and will help further develop the University’s strategic agenda to embed EDI (Action 3.6).

b) Describe any activities at the university that raise the profile of women in SET generally and also help female staff to raise their own profile such as:

(i) Conferences, seminars, lectures, exhibitions and other events.

Feedback from focus groups and surveys indicated that women desired more visible role models at Kent. Having considered this several actions have been planned/started.

We have held three annual Athena SWAN Awareness Days open to all staff and PhD students with speakers including: Professor Dame Julia Higgins, Imperial College (2011), Professor Alison Rodger, University of Warwick (2012), Professor Beatrice Pelloni, University of Reading, Professor Sarah Spurgeon, female Head of School of Engineering from University of Kent (2013) and a range of practical workshop sessions. The event has expanded each year with the largest attendance of 67 in 2013 and a male participant ratio that has grown from 12% in 2012 to 28% in 2013. Feedback has been universally positive and in 2014 the events will double and be offered in both Canterbury and Medway (Action 6.6).

Pre-eminent female speakers are regularly invited to the University including an Open Lecture and two separate informal discussion sessions by Professor Dame Athene Donald with the Athena SWAN Working Group and with the VC’s Academic Women’s Group in October 2013. In each of the last two years a female scientist or engineer has been awarded an Honorary Degree and has spoken at Congregations.

Earlier in 2013, the Dean of Science instructed each Head of School to review the percentage of women invited to give seminars/colloquia etc. Schools that did not have a 50:50 split are now working to improve this. The intention is to provide role models and additional external network contacts for our own staff, by increasing the visibility of women who are in leadership positions. In the past three years, a 50/50 gender balance was achieved for Sciences University Teaching Awards honourees and two women scientists were featured in Kent’s most recent Innovation, Creativity, and Enterprise (ICE) awards.

24

Sciences Schools have also organised events including: a 2011 Biosciences Research Symposium devoted to women; a 2013 Mathematics Research Symposium featuring three high profile female academics; a 2013 female-led Engineering show for primary school students on the topic of “what is an Engineer” and a project to promote career progress of women alumni.

(ii) Providing spokeswomen for internal and external media opportunities.

The University’s Corporate Communications function initiates contact and works directly with staff to provide media awareness training, prepare media releases and train as spokespeople. For instance, a female lecturer in Physical Sciences regularly appears in local media reporting on outreach activities. The Dean of Sciences also circulates details of national media training schemes to all staff and case studies on the School and University Athena SWAN websites will provide further opportunities to increase the public profile of women.

(iii) Nominations to public bodies, professional bodies and for external prizes.

All Schools are annually encouraged by the Dean of Sciences to make nominations where appropriate and to make sure they have included female staff in their nominations. For example, a staff member is part of the General Engineering Panel for REF2014 and has been supported by a fixed term post to cover her teaching during this period.

Annual data gathering and analysis in areas including speakers, spokespeople, awards, prizes and marks of esteem will enable any gender disparities to be noted and addressed (Action 1.1).

25

C. Organisation and culture

a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on trends and significant issues, in particular anything relating to gender equality.

(i) Female:male ratio of Heads of School/Faculty/Department – across the whole institution and in SET departments. Comment on the main concerns and achievements and how the action plan will address them. For example, are women and men appropriately represented at this level? Are there any differences in SET departments?

Table 4.6: Current Heads of School Roles by Faculty and Gender

Heads of School

Faculty Male Female

Humanities 6 0 0%

Sciences 5 <5 29%

Social Sciences 6 <5 33%

Total 17 … 23%

The number of female Heads of Academic Schools has been stable over the past three years but averages only 23% across the University with Sciences slightly higher at 29% (including one female acting Head of School whilst the male Head is on sabbatical). There is an open-application process to apply for the role of Head of School but the number of senior female academics who might apply is still limited.

Reflecting on this the University has undertaken actions to help address these issues:

In 2012/13, the University launched an annual internal leadership programme for staff with significant responsibilities below the level of Head of School. The programme helps staff develop the skills they need to not only succeed in their current roles but to develop further leadership capabilities. Of the six Science staff members in the current (2013/14) cohort, one is female. A third cohort will be recruited in 2014 (Action 3.4). This complements the new LFHE Aurora female-only leadership programme mentioned earlier which has three female Sciences participants (Action 3.5).

The Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor is leading a School Governance project which, based on the results of an all-academic staff survey that formed part of the initial project stages, has agreed that School governance must be open, transparent, involve the whole School and embed Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity. This particularly includes how staff are appointed to key roles in Schools. The resulting changes should open progression into senior roles for previously under-represented groups including women (Actions 3.8, 3.9, 4.2).

26

(ii) Gender balance on the senior management team at university level. Comment on the numbers of men and women on the SMT and plans to address any disparity.

Table 4.7: Senior Management Team by Gender

Executive Group Member Gender Executive Group Member Gender

Vice-Chancellor Female Senior Deputy-Vice-Chancellor Male

Deputy-Vice-Chancellor Male Deputy-Vice-Chancellor Female

Pro-Vice-Chancellor Female Pro-Vice-Chancellor Male

Director of Finance Female

Table 4.7 shows there are currently seven members of the University’s Executive Group (senior management team) and the gender balance is 57% female/43% male. The group was stable at 50/50 for a number of years but changed in 2013/14 with the addition of the Director of Finance.

(iii) Gender balance on influential committees at university level. Comment on the main areas of concern and plans to address them. For example, are women and men appropriately represented on senior decision-making committees? How do you avoid committee overload where numbers of women are small? How are vacancies filled and women encouraged onto committees, especially where turnover is low? Are the positions advertised?

Table 4.8: Influential University Committees by Number and Gender

Committee Total

Membership (n) Female

(n) % of Female Membership

University Council 24 7 29%

Senate 50 11 22%

Finance & Resources Committee 11 3 27%

University Promotions Committee for Academic & Research Staff 8 3 38%

Table 4.8 shows the gender composition of the most influential University Committees relating to academic matters and which have been generally stable for the past three years. Council and the Finance and Resources Committee are a mix of lay members and University staff. Senate is comprised of staff and students and the Promotions Committee is comprised of academic staff. All vacancies on Senate and Council are advertised and staff in the designated groups can apply to join. The Promotions Committee appoints two senior professors from each Faculty with the Vice-Chancellor, Deans and Director of HR making up the remainder of the membership; members serve for four years and the Committee seeks a balance of Faculty representation in terms of gender, ethnicity and academic discipline.

The data show a low representation of women on these key committees. Analysis of this shows that attracting female panel members is difficult and more effort is being put into this.

27

Reflecting on this:

When filling external vacancies for lay members, a proactive approach is taken to recruiting women (Action 4.8).

For internal appointments, women are over-represented on the Promotions committee compared to the percentage of female Professors in the institution. This is deliberate as this committee is key in deciding progression/promotion for Academic staff – service on it is reflected in School Workload models and care is taken not to over-burden women.

All members of the committees in Table 4.8 take an e-learning module on Equality and Diversity. In 2013/14 work is underway to develop programmes for staff, and for Council, on Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (Action 4.7).

b) Describe the policies and activities at the university that show a supportive organisation and culture in university SET departments.

(i) Transparent workload models – 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.

All Science Schools have Workload Allocation Models (WAM) that cover research, teaching and administrative duties. They capture a wide range of duties including committee membership, participation in recruitment activities, pastoral care, tutor duties, in addition to the more obvious categories of lecturing, marking, etc. Allowance is made for those on academic probation as well as for those on fractional contracts, sabbaticals, participating in Athena SWAN committees, etc. WAMs are used to identify overloaded staff and reduce burdens in these cases.

Those Sciences Schools that have women in senior roles are careful not to over-allocate School level administrative responsibilities to them as they are often also regularly called upon to serve on Faculty and University-level committees for which allowance is made in the WAM.

A Sciences review comparing the individual School WAMs took place over the past two years. To increase transparency and understanding the report showed the commonalities and variations between each School and significant variations were acted on. The WAM was also looked at closely through the Oxford Research and Policy survey, the University’s Governance project and considered by the VC’s Academic Women’s Group.

This widespread consultation raised concerns. Reflecting on these, a series of actions has been planned. Over the next two years, a University-wide project considering systems of allocation will be undertaken; WAMs will be made more transparent and will further converge between Schools and Schools will prepare clear policies on allocation of resources (Actions 4.4, 4.5).

The consultation also revealed concerns about the decisions made concerning allocation of duties within Schools. A May 2013 data analysis showed that in Sciences while there was some positive news: There is an equal distribution of male and female Directors of Learning and Teaching and there were eight male and five female Directors of Graduate Studies. But there was also bad news in that there were eight male and no female Directors of Research and Enterprise.

28

The School Governance project analysed the issues regarding the allocation of positions of responsibility and states:

All Heads of School will be expected to appoint at least one Deputy (Action 3.8).

School academic management roles will have job descriptions (Action 3.8).

The appointment processes for School academic management roles must be transparent and fair with mixed gender panels. Details will also be provided to each role holder of networks available to support each role (Action 3.9).

There will be term limits (usually 3 years and two consecutive terms) for administrative posts and consideration of role sharing or shadowing for roles with lower female representation such as Director of Research (Action 3.9).

(ii) Publicity materials, including the university’s website and images used.

Focus group and survey data raised issues concerning the visibility of women at Kent. After analysing this question, a deliberate effort has been made to ensure inclusivity in all publicity material used by the University.

Continual reflection on this issue meant that:

In 2012, the ASWG told the Publicity Unit that simply counting male and female faces was insufficient since it is important to ensure that roles portrayed are also equal.

In 2012, the ASWG asked the Graduate School to review and adjust images used in its materials.

In 2013, ASWG asked Science Schools to review their web sites and PR materials, making adjustments where needed.

ASWG analysis and reviews led to discussion with Corporate Communications and Enrolment Management Services resulting in deeper awareness to ensure gender balance in imagery. Good examples include the 2013 University Promotions brochure that featured photos and profiles of three newly promoted women and two men from the Faculty of Sciences and new Engineering and Mathematics Athena SWAN websites and social media use. Case studies and photographs of female Sciences staff feature as part of the new internal Athena SWAN website (Actions 2.7, 6.4).

29

D. Flexibility and managing career breaks

a) Describe the policies and activities at the university that support flexibility and managing career breaks in SET departments.

(i) Flexible working – describe how eligibility for flexible and part-time working is advertised to staff and the overall uptake across the university. What training is provided for managers? How is the policy monitored and how successful it has been?

The University has a comprehensive policy on flexible working and welcomes flexible working requests from all staff and makes best efforts to implement them.

Flexible working and family friendly policies, procedures and manager guidance are available to all staff via the Human Resources website and training is also provided by HR. Heads of Schools discuss all requests for flexible working with their HR team. Job-sharing/flexible working are promoted in recruitment within all job description further particulars and applicants who request flexible working are shortlisted and interviewed equally with full-time applications.

While there is still little take-up on flexible working, in 2012/13 one full time woman in a Science department successfully requested a reduction in hours and a woman was appointed to a 0.6 FTE lectureship in another department. There were already female academics on fraction permanent contracts in two departments. Further communications/briefings including workshops at all Athena SWAN days will help to disseminate practices and good examples.

Flexible working will be encouraged via revised promotion criteria (Action 2.7), active role models and mentors (Actions 3.3, 3.4, 3.5), the new appraisal scheme (Action 3.11), and the Governance project (Action 4.2). Further actions will be developed if needed as we consult via improved communications and workshops (Action 5.1).

In summer 2013, the Dean of Sciences asked all Heads of Schools to review their sabbatical arrangements and take-up rates to increase participation. An increase in sabbaticals for 2013/14 should occur. Currently women (who make up 25% of the Academic staff) take 27% of the approved study leave each year and as overall take-up increases this will be monitored and action taken if necessary (Action 5.2).

30

(ii) Parental leave (including maternity, paternity, and adoption leave) – how many women have returned full-time and part-time? How is teaching and research covered during parental leave? What support is given after returning from parental leave or a career break? What funding is provided to departments to support returning staff?

Table 4.9 Return Data after Maternity Leave for the whole University

Leave Start Year

All Staff - Organisation 2010 to

2011 2011 to

2012 2012 to

2013

Number on Maternity Leave 41 43 43

Number Currently on Maternity Leave 0 0 22

Remained Part Time Upon Return 8 11 5

Remained Full Time Upon Return 17 18 13

Number Changing to Part Time Upon Return 5 11 <5

Number Changing to Full Time Upon Return <5 0 0

Number of Leavers After Maternity Leave 10 <5 <5

Table 4.10 Return Data after Maternity Leave for the Faculty of Science

Leave Start Year

All Staff - Faculty of Science 2010 to

2011 2011 to

2012 2012 to

2013

Number on Maternity Leave <5 6 <5

Number Currently on Maternity Leave 0 0 <5

Remained Part Time Upon Return <5 0 0

Remained Full Time Upon Return <5 <5 <5

Number Changing to Part Time Upon Return

<5 <5 0

Number Changing to Full Time Upon Return

0 0 0

Number of Leavers After Maternity Leave <5 0 0

Table 4.9 shows that since 2010, typically 40 staff members in the University have taken maternity leave each year. In 2010/11 there was an issue with women not returning after leave, but with improved policies and support this has now fallen to a low level. Table 4.10 indicates that in

31

Sciences there are typically four women a year taking maternity leave and nearly all return to work afterwards. We do not break data down by School as the numbers are too small. The University facilitates return to part-time work if requested and this option is used by some. Approximately 26 men a year take paternity leave in the University, with typically six per year in the Sciences. Adoption leave is offered and has been taken up once across the whole University in the last three years.

A comprehensive set of family friendly policies and manager guidance covering maternity, paternity, adoption and all other types of leave and career breaks has been developed by HR. Maternity cover posts are provided for academics as a matter of course and Researchers are covered by Research Council guidelines (even if not RC funded). Staff members taking maternity/paternity leave and their managers are supported directly by HR to understand and manage various types of leave including paid keeping in touch days and re-orienting staff back into the work place on return from leave.

However, the Oxford Research and Policy survey and other qualitative feedback revealed that there continues to be a lack of understanding of the support available for career breaks and other types of leave. Reflecting on this, HR has arranged dedicated briefings and workshops on these issues, including two sessions held at the most recent Athena SWAN day in September 2013 on family friendly policies and career breaks and a forthcoming session planned in early 2014 (Actions 5.3, 5.4).

Some Schools such as Mathematics have established a fund for enhanced travel support (conference/academic visits) for those returning to work from maternity leave or long-term illness while others have arranged relief from teaching upon initial return after leave. In future, arrangements will be formalised (instead of being left to individual Schools) and the University will implement a central fund for supporting returning staff (Action 5.6).

The Faculty of Sciences supports the return of women who have left academia via the Daphne Jackson scheme and has supported two such posts over the past three years. A new post is currently being advertised for 2013-14 (Action 5.5).

(iii) Childcare – describe the university’s provision to support childcare and how it is communicated to staff. What is the take up? How will any shortfalls in provision be addressed?

Information on the University’s nursery provisions is shared with new staff and those about to go on parental leave. The Canterbury campus features a University-funded nursery run by the Student’s Union which will be replaced with a newer, larger nursery in 2014 (increasing capacity from 65 to 90 places per day). While staff who currently apply for full time year-round nursery places are generally successful, feedback from focus groups showed more flexibility in provision is desired. The expanded Canterbury Nursery will provide a more flexible service, offering year-round, term-time only, and holiday club services with a particular focus on children in the 0-2 age range as requested through staff consultation. Medway does not have a dedicated University nursery and childcare vouchers are offered. Work with non-University of Kent Medway nurseries on how to improve flexible provision for Medway staff is underway. A salary exchange scheme will provide staff with further assistance to pay for childcare (Actions 5.7, 5.8, 5.9).

32

(iv) Work-life balance – describe the measures taken by the university to ensure that meetings and other events are held during core hours and to discourage a long hours culture.

As a result of feedback from staff in relation to the Athena SWAN initiative and the VC’s Academic Women’s Group, the VC and the Dean of Sciences reminded Schools to plan all major committee meetings in advance at the start of each academic year and to hold committee meetings only during University core hours of 9 – 5. For teaching, timetabling is done centrally and individual staff members may request blocks on some slots to enable work-life balance. Criteria that have been established for passing probation and for promotion are intended to be reasonably achieved without a long-hours culture. The inability to regularly attend lengthy overseas conferences due to family needs is acknowledged and allowance is made for this, for example, at promotion (Action 2.7). In addition, a Health and Wellbeing staff website was launched in spring 2013 to provide a comprehensive guide to University and external resources to support work-life balance, including sporting activities and health initiatives and some Schools (eg. Engineering & Mathematics) host regular lunches for staff and students as well as family friendly sports and social activities (Action 5.10).

33

5. Any other comments: 450/500 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.

Over the past three years, we have conducted the three already mentioned staff surveys of Sciences staff (and more widely) in relation to their perceptions of equality and diversity. There was also an extensive external review of Kent’s general EDI practices in 2011/12 by Oxford Brookes’ Centre for Diversity Policy Research and Practice. That review resulted in a renewed commitment to EDI principles and this is an essential element of the 2012-15 Institutional Plan.

Reflecting this renewed commitment, the University adjusted its formal EDI structure to ensure specific Executive Group leadership for both staff and student EDI portfolios and created Executive Group Champions for each equality strand. The VC has personally taken the role of Gender Champion (along with LGBT) and, as a female scientist, is fully committed to realising gender equality in the Sciences. Kent has also invested in new resources to support this with the appointment of a new EDI Manager for staff and a Student Experience Officer for students in autumn 2012. An EDI Adviser and an Athena SWAN Adviser were both appointed in October 2013. All of these roles play a part in supporting the Faculty of Sciences to achieve gender balance.

As part of the renewed institutional commitment, the annual EDI Report now focuses less on presenting large amounts of data and more on the provision of simple and specific data relating to key issues including a primary objective of achieving gender balance – this encourages a more reflective approach to the issues raised by the data. A collaborative approach to writing the Report involves a large staff group across the University, encouraging widespread ownership of EDI. Additionally, the VC visits every School annually and in 2013/14 is focusing on the importance of the Athena SWAN initiative and embedding EDI principles.

At School level, each Sciences School now has a local Athena SWAN working group. As well as addressing female staff issues in each School, these initiate local actions and feed concerns to the University and the University-level Athena SWAN Working Group. School groups are specifically charged with preparing for future SWAN applications supported by the Athena SWAN adviser who collects and disseminates data, advises on good practice and obtains bench-marking data (Action Plan Sections 1 and 6).

Although not discussed extensively earlier, Sciences Schools also monitor the diversity of undergraduate admissions (including benchmarking against their disciplines nationwide) and are working to increase the representativeness of the student population. Efforts are made via extensive outreach programmes to reach as wide and diverse an audience of primary and secondary school children as possible, and includes providing them with female role models as part of a long term effort to increase female participation in science at all levels.

35

6. Action Plan Appendix 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 spread sheet 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. Also include in the Plan how the university will encourage SET departments to apply for awards. The Plan should cover current initiatives and the university’s aspirations for the next three years. Introduction The action plan supports and underpins the University’s commitment to promoting gender equality as part of its University-wide Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Work Plan for Staff and sets out the activities the University will undertake to address the issues identified in the bronze award self-assessment submission. The action plan was prepared by the Kent Athena SWAN Working Group (AWSG). Items arose from the analysis of our situation at the start of the preparation process. They then evolved based on: analysis of data gathered during the process, feedback from Oxford Research and Policy (ORP) external consultants, analysis of a Sciences all-staff survey carried out by the consultants, input from staff members on the Athena SWAN Working Group, input from other Kent groups such as the VC’s Academic Women’s Group and the Women’s Network and input following our annual all-staff Athena SWAN Awareness days. The draft plan was circulated across the University and Faculty of Sciences, permitting comments to be made and incorporated and thus has had input and support across many levels. The implementation of the action plan will be supervised by the Athena SWAN Working Group. A report on progress against the action plan will be made quarterly to Senate and to the Equality Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Strategy Group, published on the University’s Athena SWAN website and included in the University’s annual Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity Report (also see Section 6). Action Themes Actions have been summarised under the following themes:

1. Baseline Data and Supporting Evidence (page 36) 2. Key Career Transition Points (Recruitment, Progression, Promotion) (page 38) 3. Career Development (page 41) 4. Organisation and Culture (page 45) 5. Career Flexibility (page 47) 6. Progressing Athena SWAN (page 50)

36

University of Kent Bronze Submission Action Plan

1. Baseline Data and Development of Supporting Evidence

(Note: Items in Section 1 are directly linked to specific actions beyond data and supporting evidence collection)

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

1.1 All pages

Continue to enhance reporting templates to provide annual comparative Quantitative Gender Data at University, Faculty and School level, including benchmarking data where possible (see Sections 2-5)

Staff profiles across all levels

Recruitment through to appointment (also see below for particular focus)

Development take-up and feedback (including mentoring, networks, and formal programmes)

RPD appraisal take-up

Career progression and promotion

Salary and reward including pay and increments

REF participation

Senior roles

Committee membership

Nominations/recommendations for speakers/awards/marks of esteem/fellowships

Family-friendly policy and practice take-up including maternity, paternity, adoption, flexible working, nursery use

Turnover (also see below for particular focus)

Athena SWAN Working Group (ASWG) Chair (Dean); HR Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Staff Team

2012 Continuing and expanding to all Faculties by 2016

University, Faculty and Schools have clear and comparable annual quantitative data to inform AS Action Plan and annual academic planning rounds Data informs University, Faculty, School strategic and operational decision making across all key areas of activity related to recruitment, development, progression and retention of female staff

37

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

1.2 5 5,14, 20

Data will be sought annually from a variety of sources including focus groups and networks. These will inlcude The VC’s Academic Women’s Group and the Women’s Network will also provide a continuous feed of qualitative data to enable prioritisation of actions based on issues The Researcher Development Working Group (RDWG) action plan will look at the Career Pipeline from UG students to PhD to post-doctoral researchers. This will be studied and reflected on through benchmarking and acting on results of sector surveys including: Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS), Principal Investigators and Research Leaders Survey (PIRLS), and Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES). Necessary actions will be implemented by the main ASWG

ASWG Chair (Dean); HR EDI Staff Team Vice-Chancellor (VC); Chair of Women’s Network Pro Vice-Chancellor (PVC) Research & Enterprise; Researcher Development Working Group (RDWG) Chairs

2012 Continuing and expanding to all Faculties by 2016

University, Faculty and Schools have annual qualitative data to inform actions in this plan which address gender equality issues, informing AS Action Plan, RDWG action plan, and annual academic planning rounds

1.3 20 Manual collection and dissemination of gender balance of applicant pools for Recruitment process through to appointment will be undertaken where necessary to supplement currently available automated data collection and will take actions based on issues (also see Section 2)

ASWG Chair (Dean); HR Sciences Manager

Apr 2013 Continuing and expanding to all Faculties by 2016

Faculty/School has data to measure recruitment in comparison to other Schools and develops SMART actions to address areas of concern in annual plans

1.4 13 Improve understanding of staff Turnover including trends for leaving by providing staff qualitative and quantitative data for annual planning round (also see Section 2)

ASWG Chair (Dean); HR Sciences Manager

Jan 2014 Continuing and expanding to all Faculties by 2016

Faculty/School has data to measure turnover in comparison to other Schools and develops SMART actions to address areas of concern in annual plans

38

2. Key Career Transition Points (Recruitment, Progression/Promotion)

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

2.1 19, 20

Schools will address issues in relation to Methods of Attraction and Advertisement of Jobs; promoting Athena SWAN and University commitment to flexible working, targeting more diverse sources of advertising including professional associations, positive recruitment wording, and use of appropriate social media channels and search firms where appropriate

ASWG Chair (Dean); HR Sciences Manager

Apr 2013 2016 While some Schools have begun work in this area; all will advertise strategically and result will be increased numbers of women applicants

2.2 5, 14, 19, 20

The Researcher Development Working Group (RDWG) action plan includes a focus on clear communications about Access to Academic Jobs and other career paths for Research Staff to be provided through development of research staff and communication of opportunities.

PVC Research & Enterprise; RDWG Co-Chairs

Jun 2014 2014 - 2016 Increased % of research staff are supported to be able to transition to permanent careers at Kent, or elsewhere, as appropriate

2.3 20, 21 14

The Academic Probation Scheme will be enhanced through the development of improved guidance and development for new probation supervisors, beginning in spring 2014 and reviewed in Autumn 2016 Additionally, a new Researcher Development Monitoring Scheme will be launched

Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC); HR Director

May 2014 Sep 2015

Sep 2016 Dec 2016

Probation and Development Schemes will enable Academic staff and Researchers to be better supported in developing their careers

39

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

2.4 14 A separate project focusing on Time Sheet and Hourly Paid Contracts, including consideration of the differences between fixed term and open ended (funding limited) contracts, will consult University stakeholders with a view to gaining improved understanding, implement improved processes and controls and create comprehensive guidance and support for managers and staff

Director of HR; Sciences HR Manager

Dec 2013 Sep 2014 Total number of time sheet and hourly paid contracts reduced and staff are fully supported regardless of contract type

2.5 5, 14, 20 14

Improve development and Career Pathways support for Research Staff as part of Researcher Development Working Group Action Plan Shools to focus on the particular needs of their Researchers, including operating a formal group inside the School for these staff members

PVC Research & Enterprise; RDWG Chairs HoS

On-going 2016 Research staff have clearer routes for development and career pathways More balanced (male:female) Research staff with progression to careers

2.6 22 Introduce School Promotion Panels chaired by Head of School and including a minimum of two senior staff (male and female) to support and encourage promotion applicants and produce an annual report for Faculty and University Promotions Committee on actions to support promotion for staff beyond what is currently taking place; good practices to be shared

VC; Director of HR Nov 2013 2016 Wider dissemination of good practices across Schools and increased % of women promoted

40

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

2.7 20, 21, 29, 30, 33

Promotions Guidelines adjusted to state promotions committees must include male and female staff; promotions committee gender reported in annual EDI report; improved guidance to enable consideration of personal/mitigating circumstances (eg career breaks, caring responsibilities, part-time working, etc.). This is circulated to all staff annually Promotions Criteria adjusted to require explicit comment on ‘good citizenship’ practices Promotions Briefings follow communication to all staff and expanded to include one specifically for female staff Promotion Success Stories (distributed through annual booklet) and sharing of experiences will also be done annually beginning in 2013/14

VC ; Director of HR VC ; Director of HR VC ; Director of HR Chair of Women’s Network; HR EDI Team

Summer 2013 2014 2014 Done - Nov 2013 Started and to be a continual Annual event

Building further on recent positive adjustments to promotions guidelines and criteria expands opportunities for staff to make a holistic case for promotion that takes into account and acknowledges a wider range of individual contributions and circumstances resulting in increased % of females promoted Communications and central briefings and discussion sessions will deepen understanding of new positive changes to guidelines and criteria

2.8 20, 22

Individual Sciences Schools will all actively encourage female staff to apply for promotion where appropriate and to provide support and feedback during preparation of Promotions applications

ASWG Chair (Dean); Heads of School

Autumn 2013 Annual event All Schools actively demonstrate a commitment to providing appropriately tailored mentoring and support to applicants for promotion resulting in increased % of females promoted which will be monitored by ASWG

41

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

2.9 13 Formal Exit interviews introduced for all staff in Sciences; manually track quantitative and qualitative information using a structured format about destinations and reasons for departure. Actions for areas of concern incorporated into School action plans

ASWG Chair (Dean); Heads of School; HR Sciences Manager

Oct 2013 Continuing and expanding to all Faculties by 2016; automated reporting to be enhanced by new HR on-line system (Staff Connect)

All Schools/Faculties fully understand reasons for departure and address issues on a case-by-case and trend basis

3. Career Development

3.1 5 Vice-Chancellor’s Academic Women’s Group continues to meet annually in Autumn term within each Faculty to informally share experiences of career development, report and track progress and make recommendations for next steps

VC; Policy Adviser to VC

Already begun for 2013/14

Continual Informal channel of communications connects with other initiatives to improve awareness to progress gender equality

3.2 5, 21

Women’s Network meets termly to share experiences, report and track progress and make recommendations for next steps, connecting directly to VC’s Academic Women’s Group and to Athena SWAN initiatives including bi-annual Athena SWAN Awareness event (see 6.7) through direct participation by Network Chair on Kent ASWG

Chair of Women’s Network; EDI Manager

Already begun for 2013/14

Continual Women’s Network initiatives connect explicitly with other initiatives to improve gender equality, participation levels continue to increase

42

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

3.3 23, 30

Mentoring Network including training launched in Spring 2013 for all staff; directly connected to LFHE Aurora programme 10 female participants/expanded; special attention placed on female Sciences staff where there are fewer female mentors and role models at Kent. Partnership with other Universities explored

Head of OD; L&D Manager

May 2013 Continual Mentoring culture embedded throughout University with male and female mentors and appropriate training and support provided

3.4 26, 30

Continue the internal Leadership for Areas of Significant Responsibility (LASR) Development Programme aimed at staff in senior leadership positions just below level of Head of School including female scientists

Head of OD; L&D Manager

2012

Annual cohorts

A pool of well-rounded future leaders that will include female scientists

3.5 24, 26, 30

Participate in Leadership Foundation for Higher Education’s Aurora Leadership Development Programme for women, ensuring female scientists are transparently invited to apply and included as participants; supplemented by female role models and male and female mentors to build momentum for female leadership that will grow year on year. Will continue for up to five years. This includes developing on-going links with other Universities

Head of OD; L&D Manager

Aug 2013 2017 First cohort to include Sciences (done: includes three female scientists, 1/3rd of total cohort); further outcome will be more confident leadership-ready future female scientists with increase in women in leadership roles at Kent

3.6 20, 21, 24

Networks and Development Programmes to continue and expand including PGCHE, Research Grants Factory, Early Career Researcher Network, Part-time Teacher Network, Graduate Teaching Assistants Network, Graduate Skills Programme, EDI Network, LGBT Staff Network, Disability Staff Network, Sciences School-based Post-Doctoral Staff and Post-Graduate Researcher Networks

Programme/Network Chairs; HR EDI Staff Team

Already begun for 2013/14

2016 Expanding network initiatives connect staff in like roles, provide role models and informal development opportunities with increased membership

43

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

3.7 16 School and Centrally provided direct financial support and time are provided for staff to complete graduate and PhD degrees

Heads of School; L&D Manager

Already in place

2016 Staff are supported to develop their career advancement. Increases in women in REF2020

3.8 5, 26, 29

Role descriptions for Positions of Responsibility (including Deputy Heads in all Schools) reviewed and approved by EG owner and overseeing committee including review of Terms of Reference for Positions’ Networks, approval by Senate and formalisation of appointments / recording by HR. This will flow from the School Governance Group report

Senior DVC; HR Director

Jan 2014 2014/15 Wider diversity of representation in management roles, transparency of appointment process, clarity of responsibilities; issues of gender imbalance addressed

3.9 5, 26, 29

Improvements made in Recruitment to Positions of Responsibility, including mixed gender panels and adjustments to term length, role shadowing and/or role sharing based on the data for patterns of recruitment. This will flow form the School Governance Group report

Senior DVC; HR Director

Aug 2014 2016 Responsible positions are made more accessible to female staff and percentage of female staff in responsible roles increases

3.10 16 Improve submission rates for women in Faculty of Sciences in REF 2014 compared to RAE 2008. Schools were asked to focus attention on developing female researchers from 2010 onwards as part of REF preparations and EDI briefings provided development to over 125 staff directly involved in REF. Data from REF Pilot Equality Analysis was analysed by REF Steering Group at May 2013 meeting with each Sciences School provided individual feedback in May/June 2013 and actions planned for improvment Post-REF Equality Analysis will include actions to assist all staff identified as requiring continued support

ASWG Chair (Dean); Heads of School EDI Mgr/REF coordinator EDI Mgr/REF coordinator /Each Head of School EDI Mgr/REF coordinator / Dean of Sciences

Already begun for Nov 2013 submission

2020 Planned REF submission rates for female staff are significantly higher than those seen in RAE 2008 Post REF Equality Analysis provides evidence that support has been provided and account taken for individual circumstances Staff are individually supported post-REF in relation to need

44

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

3.11 20, 30

Complete review of all staff (including research staff) of first cycle of New Appraisal Scheme (Reflect – Plan – Develop ) implemented in all Schools and Depts in Summer 2013. Adjust Scheme in light of feedback for 2014 (Note: Emphasis of Appraisal Scheme is on meaningful and practical discussions for all staff to reflect on past year achievements and challenges, plan objectives for following year, and consider career development, including plans for promotion.)

Director of HR; HR Project Manager

June 2013 2014 Increased levels of participation in yearly appraisal (RPD) discussions; improved quality and relevance of appraisal discussion reflected in increased support for development and increased % of women promoted

3.12 5, 14, 20, 23

To extend the Researcher Development Working Group focusing on contract research staff with Terms of Reference and Action Plan developed across 10 themes related to deepening and expanding support for: appraisal, researcher demographic understanding; internal skills training; networking; PI management development; externally hosted researcher development; personal development planning; career pathway creation; Athena SWAN and Stonewall EDI linkages; and communications/consultation Renew the HR Excellence in Research Award based on the work with Researchers

PVC Research & Enterprise; RDWG Co-Chairs RDWG Co-Chairs

May 2013 2015 internal review; 2016 external review 2016

Career support and development improves for research staff with more developing their career further HR Excellence in Research Award maintained well beyond 2016

3.13 23 Increase the number of women applying for Faculty Support Funds such as Faculty Research Fund and improve quality of applcations

School ASWG; School Directors of Research

Nov 2013 2014 and on-going

Increased number and percentage of awards to women

45

4. Organisation and Culture

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

4.1 15 Undertake University wide Equal Pay Audit and create action plan on the basis of findings to address any gender-related pay issues; action plan will be shared and agreed with the University’s senior decision-making bodies including all Recruitment, Promotion, Salary, Regrading and Remuneration Committees to ensure full implementation of any actions resulting

Head of OD; EDI Manager

Mar 2014 Audit completion by August 2014; any resulting issues to be resolved by 2016; to be repeated every 3 years.

Any gender equality issues from audit addressed, resulting in reduced in-equality of pay

4.2 5, 26, 30

Implement all recommendations from University-wide review of School Governance begun in 2012/13 focusing on ensuring that Accountability, Reporting and Communications arrangements are clear, effective, open, and well regarded by all staff

Senior DVC; Chair ofASWG (Dean)

Oct 2013 Jul 2014 Full implementation of School Governance principles ensure broadly consistent yet autonomous School approaches to governance that fit individual School contexts

4.3 5 Senate, Senate sub-Committees and Faculty Board Chairs to reflect onthe School Governance project and make adjustments where needed to reflect the same Underlying Principles to be open, involve all, effectively manage resources, and embed EDI

Senior DVC; Director of HR

Oct 2013 Jul 2014 Committees demonstrate clear coherence and accountability

4.4 28 Schools develop and communicate Systems for Allocation of funding, offices, space, equipment and technical support, etc.

Chair of ASWG (Dean); Heads of School

Jan 2014 Aug 2014 Staff understand systems of allocation through fair and transparent decision making processes

46

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

4.5 28 Introduce mechanism to support Transparency of WAM Operations and how Roles and Weightings are Assigned in Schools to counter possible unconscious bias. Discussions of WAM included as part of annual planning processes and more broad sharing of good School practices

Chair of ASWG (Dean); Heads of School

Nov 2013 Aug 2015 Feedback loop and transparent dialogue with staff about WAM to increase staff engagement

4.6 21 An all staff Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) Development Programme rolled out by School, focusing on:

creativity and encouraging ideas for positive change

unconscious bias with emphasis on a positive approach

skills for effective conversations

fairness

dignity and respect through consideration of alternative perspectives

Head of OD; L&D/EDI Manager

Procurement Oct 2013; programme to begin Jan 2014

Aug 2015 Staff attend development, provide feedback demonstrating value has been added, priorities set for embedding further, development of EDI

4.7 21, 22, 28

Tailored EDI development for Decision-Makers / Key Committees with focus on value of diversity and unconscious bias awareness to be developed in conjunction with 4.6, including customised EDI development session for Council

Head of OD; L&D/EDI Manager

Mar 2014 Aug 2015 Council members and all key staff decision-makers fully champion EDI; understanding and awareness of how all have unconscious bias helps to counteract it

4.8 27 Increase diversity of membership of University bodies, particularly lay membership through positive recruitment initiatives

Committee Chairs; Secretary to Committees; Head of OD

2013 2016 Lay membership of key committee to be more diverse

47

5. Career Flexibility

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

5.1 30 Communicate and provide briefings on Flexible Working to aid Heads of School understand range of options available to help manage flexible working. Encourage staff to take up one on one discussions with HR team members to assist with guidance on individual situations

HR Director; HR Policy Adviser

Sep 2013 Jul 2014 Staff members supported within their Schools and by HR to understand and avail themselves of policy provisions for flexible working

5.2 30 Review applicability of current University Study Leave Policy to staff in Sciences where there is currently poor take-up of Study Leave. Snr DVC and Dean of Sciences discussed in June 2013 and Dean then asked all Heads of Schools to ensure Schools granted study leave in 2013/14, agreed by Snr DVC

Senior DVC; HR Director

Jun 2013 Academic year 2015/16

All Sciences Schools have increased take-up of study leave in 2013/14; repeat annually; actively managed until study leave levels consistent. Outcomes: better developed, intellectually stimulated staff

5.3 32 Career Break Policy to be revised and communicated to include explicit reference to University expectations re:

Meetings by Head of School before, during, after a career break to check individuals getting support, advice, information required; discuss time scales to maintain and advance careers after absence

Schools make, support arrangements for administration/teaching/research responsibilities before, during and after career breaks

Regular HR briefings also underway

HR Director; HR Policy Adviser HR Sciences Manager

Sep 2013 Dec 2013 Demonstrated evidence for improved and more systematic support for return after career breaks

48

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

5.4 32 Communicate and provide briefings on updated policies and associated guidance for Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, and Parental Leave to be developed and approved through Committees in June 2013. Includes updates on recent legislation and quick-reference flow charts to aid Heads of School understand range of options available to help manage return to work and to encourage take up of one on one support by HR team members to assist with guidance on individual situations. Regular HR briefings also underway

HR Director; HR Policy Adviser HR Sciences Manager

Jun 2013 Jul 2014 Staff members supported within their Schools and by HR to understand and avail themselves of policy provisions for maternity, paternity, adoption and parental leave and experience smooth transition from time of absence through to return to work

5.5 32 Faculty of Sciences will provide a Daphne Jackson fellowship to support re-entry to the profession after a career break. A post has been agreed with Daphne Jackson (to be held in any School in the Faculty of Sciences) and advertised in Autumn 2013 with a start date in 2014

Chair of ASWG; Heads of School

Jun 2013 Appointment in 2014

Staff are provided with tangible financial support to return to work after career breaks

5.6 32 Implement central return to work fund VC; Chair of ASWG (Dean)

Sep 2015 2016 Staff members supported to re-enter the workforce after absence

5.7 32 Communicate all details for new enlarged and more flexible provision for Canterbury on-campus nursery, ensuring prioritisation for University of Kent staff and PhD students

Director of HR & Director of Finance; Kent Union

Jul 2013 Sep 2014 Staff and PhD students experience practical benefits resulting from the size and flexibility of nursery provision

49

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

5.8 32 Work with Medway commercial nursery facility to improve flexibility of provision

Director of HR & Director of Finance; EDI Staff Team

Sep 2014 Sep 2015 Staff experience practical benefits resulting from the size and flexibility of nursery provision

5.9 32 Introduce Salary Exchange Scheme for Childcare in Canterbury and continue use of childcare voucher scheme in Medway

Dir of HR & Director of Finance

Sep 2013 Sep 2014 Salary exchange scheme and childcare vouchers enable staff to offset costs of childcare through tax savings with increased take-up

5.10 33 Building on existing University level work in this area, Schools develop well-being and Work-Life Balance Activities; supported in gathering / disseminating good practices ideas by Athena SWAN Adviser (eg. informal social gatherings, family friendly activities, etc.)

Heads of School; School ASWG Chair

Nov 2013 2016 Some in place; all Schools enable staff to maintain an effective balance between work and personal life with impoved staff morale

50

6. Progressing Athena SWAN

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

6.1 6 University Athena SWAN Working Group meets termly to progress AS action plan

University ASWG Chair (Dean); HR EDI Staff Team

Sep 2010 2016 Consistent progress demonstrated across evolving action plan

6.2 6 School Athena SWAN Working Groups meet termly to prepare for AS award applications and progress AS action plans; also reporting progress quarterly to University ASWG

School ASWG Chairs; HR EDI Staff Team

Jan 2013 All Schools by 2015

School ASWGs all in place; submissions by SMSAS planned for April 2014; all Sciences Schools to apply for AS awards by 2015

6.3 6 Athena SWAN Progress Report on AS action plan produced termly for Senate, Faculty Sciences Board and EDI Strategy Group, and annually in Annual School Plans aggregated to Faculty Plan and EDI Report to Council, including publishing on website

Council & VC; ASWG Chair (Dean)

Mar 2013 2016 Reports provide formal updates to staff about AS initiatives and progress

6.4 6, 29

University and School Athena SWAN web pages to include information such as group membership, case studies, study and career opportunities, funding opportunities, meetings and events, good practices, and useful links

School ASWG Chairs (School sites) / EDI Manager & AS Adviser (Univ. site)

May 2013 2014 University web page construction underway; SMSAS and EDA pages live; all Schools to create and keep current

6.5 6 Regular Athena SWAN updates provided in KENT staff magazine , termly dedicated Athena SWAN newsletter and social media developed and disseminated

ASWG Chair (Dean); HR EDI Staff Team

Jan 2012 2016 AS principles adopted and gender equality awareness and activity increased across University

51

No. Page no.

Action Responsibility Start Date Timescale (To be done by)

Success Measure

6.6 6, 24

Bi-annual Athena SWAN Awareness Events continue and expand with external and internal speakers, plenary and workshop sessions for all staff

ASWG Chair (Dean); EDI Manager & AS Adviser

Sep 2011 2016 3 annual events held to date; will increase to 2 per year in 2013/14; increased annual engagement and participation

6.7 6 Representatives from Faculties of Social Sciences and Humanities invited to join University Athena SWAN Working Group

University ASWG Chair

Jan 2014 2016 All other Faculties learn from Sciences. We begin preparations for new ECU Gender Equality Mark (GEM) applications. AS principles to be fully embedded across whole University

6.8 6 Provide funding for recruitment and appointment of Athena SWAN Adviser to support, monitor and progress University and School activity in collaboration with Faculties and Schools

Head of OD; EDI Manager

Jun 2013 Oct 2013 recruitment complete

Full-time continuing (not fixed-term) AS Adviser appointed October 2013; provides valued administrative support to progress applications, improves communications, and shares good practices. Schools achieve AS awards

6.9 6 Academic Schools to make sure their Outreach to Secondary Schools includes focused attention on encouraging girls to consider Sciences education, providing role models, inspiration, develop relevant course materials, assisting with career discussions and helping with Univesity admissions

Individual School AWSGs

Sep 2013 2016 and on-going

Increased progression of girls to HE in STEMM in general , and increased female UG population in STEMM at Kent