1

Athena SWAN Gold department award application

Name of university: University of York

Department: Department of Biology

Date of application: November 2013

Date of Silver Athena SWAN award: 2006 and 2010 (unsuccessful Gold application in 2011)

Date of university Bronze 2006 and 2010

Contact for application: Professor Jane Hill

Email: jane.hill@york.ac.uk

Telephone: 01904 328642

Departmental website address: http://www.york.ac.uk/biology/

Biology Department researchers and academic staff 2013

2

Abbreviations and References

ASWG Athena Swan Working Group

BSMT Biology Senior Management Team

BSC Biology Staff Committee

DRC Departmental Research Committee

DSG Departmental Strategy Group

DTP Doctoral training programme

FTE Full Time Equivalent

HYMS Hull York Medical School

PDRA Post-doctoral Research Associate

RGU Russell Group of Universities

SEC Socio-economic classification

TF Teaching fellow

YESI York Environmental Sustainability Institute

3

THE DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY Wentworth Way, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Professor Deborah F Smith OBE PhD FSB FHEA Head of Department

Direct Telephone: (01904) 328555 Direct Facsimile: (01904) 328505

E-Mail: biohod@york.ac.uk

01 May 2014 Dear Sir/Madam, As Head of the Department of Biology, and a member of the Department’s Athena SWAN self assessment team, I endorse enthusiastically this application for an Athena SWAN Gold Award. The Biology Department is proud to foster a supportive culture that helps all staff and students reach their full potential and we embrace the values of the Athena SWAN Charter. Our philosophy is that poor working practices discriminate disproportionately against women whereas good practices support all. This inclusive approach has resulted in Biology staff and students being fully committed to our Athena SWAN activities: our surveys report >90% of academic staff and >97% of students regard the Biology Department as a great place to work for both women and men. Since our first Silver Award in 2006, Athena SWAN activities have become embedded in all facets of Departmental life. This is reflected in our academic staff statistics: women comprise about 30% of our professoriate – a proportion that is rarely exceeded in science departments in UK Universities. In addition, this percentage is higher than the UK average, and shows little drop off from lecturer to professor – a feature that we believe is unique within STEMM departments. Since our Silver renewal in 2010, there have been increases in the percentages of female lecturers (up 7%) and female researchers (up 12%), providing evidence of the success of our actions. I am immensely proud to be the first female Head in the Department’s 50 year history and am conscious of the importance of championing gender equality in STEMM. The reputation of the Department for promoting women in science has been boosted by the recent recruitment of 8 female academic staff (1 teaching fellow, 3 lecturers, 4 professors), an increase in the number of female academics promoted (3 in 2013) and the welcoming of Dr Amanda Noble, our second Daphne Jackson fellow, into the Department (see Case Study 3). We have also recently launched the York Environmental Sustainability Institute, with the appointment of a female Director (Prof Sue Hartley). All Departmental decisions related to REF2014 have been transparent, and staff have been kept fully informed at all stages of the process through regular dialogue. I am aware that there remains much more to do, however, and our Action Plan outlines the new challenges we wish to address during the next 3 years. Using findings from our recent staff and student surveys, we have developed actions that are specific and measurable, with clear indicators

4

of delivery that we will monitor. We are particularly concerned about the attrition of female scientists from researcher to lecturer and our Action Plan focuses new initiatives on this key career transition stage. I look forward to the next three years and fully support the new actions that will help reduce the attrition of females at critical stages of their Biology careers. Yours faithfully,

Deborah F. Smith OBE Head of Department

5

2. The self-assessment process (999 words)

a) The Self-Assessment Team: Our Athena SWAN Working Group (ASWG) includes members of senior management (BSMT), staff and students, and has expanded following our Silver actions to ensure greater Departmental reach. Minutes of ASWG meetings are reviewed by Biology Staff Committee (BSC), which considers issues relating to the recruitment, management, development and well-being of our staff. In turn, BSC reports to our senior management group (Department Strategy Group, DSG). Progress on ASWG actions for students is also considered by Board of Studies and by Graduate School Board, ensuring that AS activities and progress are discussed widely. Regular up-dates from ASWG are provided as standing items at termly Academic Staff meetings and annual staff Awaydays, providing further opportunities for staff to have inputs into developments of our AS activities. In these ways, Athena SWAN activities permeate all Departmental activities. Boris Bongalov (under-graduate student): Boris is in the second year of his BSc Biology degree – specialising in Ecology. Boris is also one of the Department’s student reps. He is from Bulgaria and is enjoying living and studying in York. Prof Neil Bruce (Chair of Biology Research Committee): Neil’s research focuses on enzyme discovery with a particular emphasis on the use of enzyme systems for environmental remediation. He is married with two teenage children. Neil's partner is also a scientist who works full time. Helen Coombs (Chemistry Departmental Administrator): HR Training Officer and Manager, champions equal opportunities within the Chemistry Department. Helen currently works full-time, but has worked both part-time and flexibly to cover family commitments. Single parent with two sons. Dr Adrian Harrison (Senior Admissions Tutor; Outreach Coordinator): Adrian joined the Department in 1989 and was a Researcher before becoming a Teaching Fellow in 2003, and promoted to Senior TF in 2012. He is married with two young daughters and his partner is a neuroscientist currently on a career break. Prof Jane Hill (Associate Head of Department, Chair of ASWG): Jane researches the ecological impacts of climate change. She sits on the University Athena Committee and champions gender equality within the biological sciences. Married, with a partner who is also an academic (see Case Study 5). Andrea Johnson (Biology HR assistant). Andrea has worked in the Department since 1990. A member of the Biology HR team she provides administrative support to the ASWG. Andrea has developed robust methods for the regular annual collection of data for ASWG, arranges meetings, distributes minutes and updates web pages. Dr Hilary Jones (Biology Training and Careers Officer): Hilary has been the careers and training co-ordinator in the Department since 2005. She launched ‘Coffee and Careers’ sessions for researchers and PhDs, and is a trainer for ‘Springboard’. She works part-time. Janina Pirozek (Biology HR Manager, Chair of Biology Staff Committee, Departmental Training Officer): Acts as equal opportunities adviser and champion. Sits on University Concordat

6

Committee and Athena Swan Committee. Married with no children, works part-time to enable her to look after an elderly parent. Dr Jon Pitchford (Senior Lecturer in Mathematical Ecology): Jon’s research explores the importance of randomness in living systems. He is a joint appointment between two departments. Married with three young children; he uses flexible working to help balance childcare and spouse's career (see Case Study 4). Dr Betsy Pownall (Director of Graduate Studies): Betsy joined the Department as a lecturer in 1999 and was recently promoted to Reader. She researches the expression of myogenic regulatory genes during vertebrate embryonic development. Her husband is also an academic in the Department, and they have two school-age children. Dr Melanie Smee (Post-doctoral Researcher): Researches the functional importance of aphid bacterial symbionts. She works full time in research with a small amount of teaching. Single with no children, but a busy life outside of work and finds academic life to be very flexible. Prof Deborah Smith (Head of Department): Became the first female Biology HoD in 2010, and recently awarded an OBE for services to biomedical sciences. She is co-Chair, Wellcome Trust Investigator Award interview panel, and ex-Chair MRC Infections and Immunity Board. She is married with a daughter. Dr Richard Waites (Chair of Board of Studies): Richard joined the Department in 2001 and was recently promoted to Senior Teaching Fellow. He researches the genetic factors that affect leaf shape variation in plants. He is married with three young children. Katie Wilson (Graduate Student representative): She is also PhD rep on the Biology Graduate School Board and Board of Studies. Katie did her undergraduate degree at York, and started her PhD in 2011. Her partner works in the Sociology Department. b) An account of the self assessment process. Our self-assessment occurs predominantly through our termly meetings, with additional ad-hoc sub-group meetings arranged for specific purposes, and to progress actions. ASWG monitors progress on our action plan, collects data, identifies areas where improvement is needed, invites discussion, initiates action, and analyses results. ASWG also reviews results from University and Departmental staff surveys. Every opportunity is taken to communicate and consult regarding Athena SWAN activities, providing feedback regarding the best ways to disseminate information (e.g. via the web site and/or at staff or student meetings). External consultation has taken place with Chemistry Athena SWAN group, University Athena SWAN Committee and personally with Professor Paul Walton (Chemistry) who acts as a critical friend.

c) Plans for the future of the self assessment team ASWG will continue to meet termly. Most academic administrative jobs rotate on a 3-yearly basis, and so membership of ASWG changes over time, but with stability assured by retaining key members such as ASWG Chair and HR manager. The inclusion of new members brings in fresh ideas. Members of ASWG are expected to act as Athena SWAN ‘ambassadors’ and to represent the Department at appropriate fora. We believe that exchanging representatives with other Departments is valuable in sharing best practice and friendly criticism. We currently have

7

representatives involved with York Athena SWAN committees in Health Sciences, Hull York Medical School (HYMS) and Centre for Health Economics, and acting as a critical friend for the John Innes Centre’s Athena SWAN submission.

8

3. A picture of the department (1998 words)

a) Biology at York is an integrated, inclusive, broad-spectrum Department. Our collaborative approach has brought us considerable success and an excellent reputation in both high-quality research and teaching. We have research strengths across the full range of Biosciences, addressing three Global Challenges (see diagram below). We are socially diverse, with 85% of our UK undergraduate students recruited from state schools and one in six from working-class (SEC 4-7) backgrounds. We provide students and staff with an intellectually demanding yet supportive and inspirational research and learning environment.

Schematic showing organisation of academic research activity.

The University is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2013. We have expanded over this time, and our community currently comprises: 57 academic staff (15 females), 71 researchers (40 females), 6 Teaching Fellows (3 females) and 162 support staff (technical, administrative and professional; 110 females). A new female professor is joining us in January 2014.

9

York Alumna Prof Caroline Dean FRS, speaking at the 50th Anniversary celebrations in June 2013.

Biology Graduation July 2013. HoD (far L), Assoc. HoD (2nd R) and recipients of VC Teaching Awards

Biology academic staff in 1968, in our 5th year. The staff of 17 included two women. By 2000, the % of

females had risen to 18%, and is currently 26%.

Data analyses

We have provided data for the past five years (2008-12; census date = 1st December). In addition, we provide staff data for August 2013, and student data for October 2013 to ensure up-to-date information. The University is a member of the Russell Group of Universities (RGU), which provides an appropriate data baseline for comparison (using HESA RGU data for ‘Biological Sciences’; subsequently termed ‘UK average’ in our analyses). We present data based on FTE and/or headcount. Most students in Biology count as 1.0 FTE except our u/g Biochemistry students (0.67 FTE), and some PGT students (0.5 FTE). Where appropriate, we report output from statistical tests assessing whether there are significant differences in our data over time (Spearman rank correlations), or in respect to RGU data (one-sample t-tests). We focus on plotting percentages of women in our graphs of gender data to help ASWG members understand our gender patterns. Unless otherwise stated, percentages of males are 100 minus the plotted female values. For all analyses we provide % values as well as actual numbers.

10

b) Student data

(i) Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses. We do not offer access or foundation courses.

(ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers.

The number of u/g students has increased over the past 6 years by about 20%, with a current intake of ~200 students (~180 FTEs) per year. All our students study full time. Over the past 6 years the % of female undergraduate students has declined slightly1, and we are monitoring this (Action 1.3). The range of Biology and Biochemistry degree courses we offer has not changed over the past 6 years, and the % of females is higher than the UK average2. In 2014, we are starting a new BSc degree programme in Biomedical Sciences (non-clinical degree, joint with HYMS).

Figure 1. Green bars show % of female u/g Biology and Biochemistry students over the past 6 years, compared to UK average (grey bar). Black line & squares show total numbers of 1st yr u/g students. 1correlation, rs=-0.83, p = 0.04 2t-test, t5 = 3.29, p = 0.022

Summary: % of female undergraduates is above 50%, and above the UK average.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14RussellGroup

% female 65 62 60 59 61 57 57.37

Total students (FTE) 148.5 158.07 161.85 167.89 173.19 178.84

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

1st

yr

stu

de

nts

(FT

E)

% f

em

ale

1st

yr

stu

de

nts

(FT

E)

11

Over the past two years we have raised our UCAS tariff from ABB to AAB+ (or equivalent), and changed the A level requirements for our Biology programmes. These changes may be associated with the slight decline in the % of females on our courses - we will keep this under review during the next 3 yrs (Actions 1.2, 1.3). Our UCAS admissions team is led by equal numbers of male and female academic staff (2 females, 2 males), assisted by other academics (36% of whom are women), reflecting the gender ratio of academics in the Department. Thus we ensure that right from their first experiences of our Department, u/g students are aware of the important role of female scientists.

Images from our web main page showing positive female images.

12

(iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught courses. We present data for students registered on courses.

We currently offer four MSc/MRes courses and all our PGT students study full time. The number of PGT students has declined recently, with only 42 (31 FTE) students registered in 2013. The gender ratio has fluctuated over time, but with no clear trend, and an average of 49% females over the 6-yr period. We are concerned that the % of females on these programmes is ~10% less than on our u/g programmes and lower than the UK average3. We will review our admissions procedures to increase the % of female applicants to Masters courses over the next 3 years (Actions 1.4, 2.8). We will continue to ensure that promotional literature, our web site and Open Days take opportunities to highlight female involvement in science.

Figure 2. Green bars show % of females registered on our 1-yr taught Masters courses over the past 6 yrs, in comparison with the UK average (grey bar). Black line and squares show total numbers of our Masters students. 3t-test, t5 = -3.45, p = 0.018

Summary: % of female PGT students lower than UK average, and shows no trend over time.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14RussellGroup

% female 59 37 54 51 41 53 61.18

Total students (FTE) 37.39 28.5 34.5 39.5 38 31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

stu

de

nts

(FT

E)

% f

em

ale

Mas

ters

stu

de

nts

(FT

E)

13

(iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees

Currently ~130 PGR students are registered, and ~35 new students enrol each year. There has been some variation in the % of female PGR students, but no clear trend. Over the past 6 yrs, an average of 50% of our PGR students are female, in line with the UK average4, but the % of PGR females is ~10% less than on our u/g programmes. We will continue to review our PGR recruitment procedures to ensure there are positive images of women scientists and gender-neutral text, and we are committed to reducing this drop-off (Action 1.2, 1.4, 2.8).

Figure 3. Green bars show % of female PhD students over the past 6 years, in comparison with the UK average (grey bar). Black line and squares show total number of new PhD students enrolling in the Department each year. 4 t5 = -0.93, p >0.4

Summary: % of female PGR students similar to UK average and no trend over time.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13October

2013RussellGroup

% female 50 41 49 58 50 45 50.55

Total number of students 38 34 35 40 40 33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

stu

de

nts

sta

rtin

g e

ach

ye

ar

% f

em

ale

Ph

D s

tud

en

ts

14

(v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for (ii), (iii) and (iv) above –

We offer places to all UCAS applicants who are predicted to achieve AAB+ grades in appropriate science subjects. We are flexible in this requirement for atypical (e.g. mature) students in support of our widening participation agenda. More females apply and accept offers than if there was gender parity. We conclude that the higher % of women at u/g level is a consequence of the higher % of women applicants (~58% female over past 6 yrs). A higher % of females than males accept offers (~62% female over past 6 yrs), but this has declined slightly recently5 and the pattern of offers and accepts by females was apparently different in 2013/14, and we are monitoring this (Action 1.4).

Figure 4. Bars show % of applications (pale green), offers (mid green) and accepts (dark green) by female u/g students. Black line and squares show total number of new students enrolling each year. 5correlation, rs = -0.82, P=0.046

Summary: A higher % of applications, offers and accepts are from women.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

% Female of total applications 60.15 59.5 57.86 56.3 55.48 57.54

(Total no. of applications) 885.4 959.2 1310.2 1442.2 1320.4 1419.8

% Female of total offers 61.31 60.46 59.28 58.31 56.5 60.15

(Total no. of offers) 784.4 810.5 1149.5 1191.8 1173.8 1223.6

% Female of total accepts 68.38 62.95 63.44 60.8 62.3 57.62

Total no. of students in year (FTE) 148.5 158.07 161.85 167.89 173.19 178.84

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

stu

de

nts

en

rolli

ng

in y

ear

(FT

E)

% f

em

ale

(FT

E)

Undergraduate applications, offers and acceptances

15

Over the past 6 years, the % of females accepting our offers has not deviated from 50:50 at either Masters level (average 50%) or PhD level (average 49%). There is fluctuation in these data but no clear trends over time. We will maintain gender parity by monitoring and improving our good recruitment practices. (Action 1.4)

Figure 5. Bars show the % of applications (pale green), offers (mid green) and accepts (dark green) by female MSc/MRes students. Black line and squares show total number of Masters students registered each year.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

% Female of total applications 58.86 43.82 51.16 57.39 50.13 55.56

(Total no. of applications) 148.5 238.5 237.5 230 190.5 157.5

% Female of total offers 58.04 43.15 53.59 56.4 49.03 54.26

(Total no. of offers) 56 73 76.5 86 77.5 64.5

% Female of total accepts 59.15 38.33 52.86 50.52 43.02 54.93

Total students (FTE) 37.39 28.5 34.5 39.5 38 31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

stu

de

nts

in y

ear

(FT

E)

% f

em

ale

(FT

E)

MSc/MRes applications, offers and acceptances

16

Figure 6. Bars show the % of applications (pale green), offers (mid green) and accepts (dark green) by female PhD students. Black line and squares show total number of new PhD students enrolling each year.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14

% Female of total applications 46.61 45.75 45.41 51.94 52.57 48.40

(Total no. of applications) 236 212 218 310 369 250

% Female of total offers 52.17 38.64 47.83 57.89 44.62 35.29

(Total no. of offers) 46 44 46 57 65 51

% Female of total accepts 55.26 42.86 47.22 59.57 46.55 41.46

Total no. of students in year 38 34 35 40 40 33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

stu

de

nts

sta

rtin

g e

ach

ye

ar

% f

em

ale

PhD applications, offers and acceptances

17

(vi) Degree classification by gender

In line with our high UCAS tariff that attracts excellent students, the majority of our students achieve a 2i degree, or higher. We have examined factors affecting the high % of women achieving ‘good’ (2i and 1st) degrees (ASWG minutes 28th June 2012 #12/003), which showed this was in line with high female UCAS tariffs on entry, a pattern we continue to monitor. The trend for more 2ii degrees to be awarded to males over time6 is also consistent with gender differences in UCAS entry tariffs, and we will continue to monitor this over the next 3 years (Action 1.3, 1.5).

Figure 7. Green bars show % of female u/g students awarded degrees, by classification. Black line and

squares show the total number of good degrees awarded. 6correlation, rs = 0.90, P = 0.037

Summary: Higher % of females achieve ‘good’ u/g degrees, and gender parity for distinctions at PGT.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

% of 2ii degrees awarded toFemales

56.0 58.3 51.9 46.4 31.6

(Total 2ii degrees awarded) 50 24 27 28 19

% of 2i degrees awarded toFemales

63.0 69.8 67.1 59.5 68.9

(Total 2i degrees awarded) 54 53 73 74 74

% of First Class degrees awardedto Females

74.3 81.5 75.0 80.0 62.5

(Total First Class degrees awarded) 35 27 32 40 40

Total no. of First and 2i degreesawarded

89 80 105 114 114

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l 'go

od

' de

gre

es

awar

de

d

% f

em

ale

Under-graduate degrees awarded, by classification

18

Since 2008/9, a similar % of female and male Masters students have been awarded distinctions, and a slightly higher % of passes have been awarded to females. There are fluctuations but no clear trends over time.

Figure 8. Bars show % of distinctions (dark green), merits (mid green) and passes (pale green) awarded to females on MSc/MRes degrees. The ‘merit’ class was introduced in 2011/12. Black line and squares show the total number of Masters degrees awarded.

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

% Passes awarded to Females 57.9 56.4 29.3 60.0 35

(Total Passes awarded) 19 19.5 20.5 20 10

% Merits awarded to Females 0 0 0 33.3 36.4

(Total Merits awarded) 0 0 0 1.5 16.5

% Distinctions awarded to Females 48 60 56.25 50 47.83

(Total Distinctions awarded) 12.5 15 8 12 11.5

Total number of degrees awarded 31.5 34.5 28.5 33.5 38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

de

gre

es

awar

de

d

% f

em

ale

MSc/MRes degrees awarded, by classification

19

C_ Staff data (i) Female:male ratio of academic staff

Since 2008, the total number of academics has increased from 47 to 56 and female academics from 12 to 15.The overall % of females (27%) is higher than the UK average (22%). The % of female lecturers has increased from 25% to 32%, and the % of female professors has stayed fairly constant at ~30%. We conclude that the increase in female academics is evidence for the success of recruitment policies introduced during our Silver award, but there is still room for further improvement (Action 2.1, 2.3). The lack of any marked drop off in the % of females between lecturer and professor is evidence that once female are recruited, the opportunities for promotion are similar with respect to gender. We are concerned by the low % of Senior lecturers/Readers and will focus on these grades in future analyses (Action 2.2). We will also scrutinize more closely the distribution of staff within the professorial grade, which is split into 3 pay-bands (Action 2.2).

Figure 9. Green bars show the % of females at each academic grade compared to the UK average (grey bar; average of all grades). Black line and squares show the total numbers of staff.

Summary: Increase in % of female lecturers, little drop off in % of females from lecturer to professor, and higher % of female academics than UK average.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013RussellGroup

2011/12

% female Lecturers 25 31 38 38 30 32

(Total no. of Lecturers) 16 16 16 16 20 22

% female SeniorLecturers/Readers

25 18 17 15 17 17 22

(Total no.of SeniorLecturers/Readers)

12 11 12 13 12 12

% female Professors 26 24 32 29 32 27

(Total no. of Professors) 19 21 19 17 19 22

Total number of staff 47 48 47 46 51 56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

staf

f

% f

em

ale

Academic Staff by Grade

20

Female to male ratio of research staff

The % of female research staff has shown ~10% increase over the last 6 years (e.g. from 45% (grade 7) in 2008 to 57% in 2013), and is currently higher than the UK average7 - evidence that our recruitment policies are being successful, and we will continue to monitor this (Action 2.1). Over this time, the total number of researchers has declined by nearly a half, reflecting a drop in research income. Numbers of grade 8 researchers are too small to be included.

Figure 10. Bars show % of female researchers at grades 6 (light green) and 7 (dark green), which are currently ~5% higher than the UK average (grey bar; both grades combined). Black line and squares show the total numbers of research staff. 7Grades 6 and 7, rs=0.771, p = 0.007

Summary: 10% increase in female researchers since 2010, and little difference in the % of female PGR and PDRA.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013RussellGroup

2011/12

% female Grade 6 Researchers 45 47 56 61 58 57

(Total no. of Grade 6) 92 91 72 57 45 51 49.5

% female Grade 7 Researchers 41 29 38 52 57 53

(Total no. of Grade 7) 27 24 26 21 14 15

Total no. of research staff 119 115 98 78 59 66

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

staf

f

% f

em

ale

Research Staff by Grade

21

(ii) Turnover by grade and gender

Average turnover of female and male academic staff was similar, and low (~ 8%) over the Silver award period (7F and 18M). Of the female leavers, three retired and four moved for career advancement. A total of 194 researchers have left since 2008. The average turnover of female and male research staff is similar (35% and 31%, respectively). There is fluctuation over time, but no discernible pattern. During our Silver award, we sought to collect next-destination data by means of an exit questionnaire. However, we were disappointed by the low return rates and so have now established a LinkedIn site, which we will use to track leavers careers over time. (Action 2.7)

22

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers (4997 words)

Key career transition points a)(i) Job application and success rates by gender and grade

There is gender parity in academic appointments since 2008 (5/10 appointments were women). In addition, we have very recently appointed four new academic staff, two women (one at professorial level) and two men, providing further evidence that our Silver actions have been successful. However, with the exception of 2011, women remain under-represented in applications for academic positions (~30% overall). There is considerable fluctuation in the numbers of applications over time, but feedback from applicants indicates that our Silver award is noticed in our recruitment literature and web site, and that our Department is viewed externally as very ‘female friendly’. We shall continue to get feedback from female applicants to assess factors that led them to apply to York, and we have new actions (Action 2.3) to increase the % of female applicants in future.

Figure 11. Bars show % of applicants (mid green) and interviewees (dark green) to academic posts that were female. Black line and squares show the total number of appointments. Data for appointments are not plotted due to small sample sizes.

Summary: Gender parity in appointments, but only ~30% of applicants are female.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% Female of all applications 31 24 34 48 26 28

(Total no. of applications) 48 272 62 123 180 173

% Female of all interviews 29 8 60 25 36 36

(Total no. of interviews) 7 26 5 8 14 11

(% Female of all appointments) 50 100 100 0 50 33

(Total no. of appointments) 2 1 1 1 2 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% f

em

ale

Academic recruitment

23

Since 2008, there has been overall gender parity in Researcher appointments (49% female), providing further evidence for the success of our revised recruitment practices. Applications (44%) and interviews (50%) are also near/at gender parity. The number of appointments was low from 2010-2012, but numbers rose this year reflecting increased grant success rates. We will get feedback from female applicants to assess factors that led them to apply to York, and we have new actions (Action 2.1) to increase the % of female applicants in future. We recognize that some Researchers are recruited by being named on grant applications and we have started to monitor this (Action 1.8).

Figure 12: Bars show the % of applicants (light green), interviewees (mid green), appointments (dark green) to research posts that were female. Black line and squares show the total numbers of appointments.

Summary: Gender parity in Researcher appointments and interviewees, near parity in applicants.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% Female of all applications 42 39 49 45 41 47

(Total no. of applications) 382 603 315 626 360 346

% Female of all interviews 47 33 53 55 53 56

(Total no. of interviews) 66 78 17 47 40 52

% Female of all appointments 44 57 57 71 25 42

Total no. of appointments 16 23 7 7 4 36

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

app

oin

tme

nts

% f

em

ale

Researcher recruitment

24

(ii) Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade

During our Silver award we introduced a pro-active approach to academic promotions. Discussion of promotion readiness forms an integral part of the annual staff Performance Review and the ‘checklist for Reviewers’ includes a reminder about this. In addition, an annual email from the HoD invites staff to talk to her about their CV and career stage. She and the Chair of DRC identify those who are at an appropriate stage for promotion, and encourage them to apply. This is intended to overcome the greater reluctance of women to consider themselves ready. Over a 5-year period, women submitted 36% of applications, slightly higher than their % in the Department. Success rates for female applicants are similar to men (89% and 87%, respectively; i.e. 2M and 1F were unsuccessful). Our pro-active approach has resulted in more academics being promoted recently - 8 (5M, 3F) in 2012/13 compared with 3 (1M, 2F) in 2008/09. Table 1. Number of academic staff being promoted each year.

Year 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Females 2 2 1 0 3

Males 1 4 3 1 5

Research performance plays a significant role in promotion prospects, and during our Silver award we started to monitor key indicators of research activity, such as number of grant applications submitted and amount of funding requested. Data over the past 5 years show that women are as successful as men in obtaining grants (37.5% of females and 34% males were successful), but successful grant applications by women were for less funding (£180K awarded on average to females; £300K awarded to males) and we have new actions to address the sector wide recognition that females tend to request less funding (Action 3.3). We also monitor access to 3 funding schemes awarded through the DRC (bridging funds for researchers (1F, 3M awarded), summer student scheme for researchers (5F, 4M; success rates, 31%F, 44%M), pump-priming awards for staff (18F, 29M; success rates, 95%F, 78%M)), for which there is broadly gender parity. There have been 5 male researchers promoted since 2008, and 2 female researchers have applied for promotion this year. We will take the same pro-active approach in future as for academic staff, with HoD and Chair of DRC encouraging research staff to discuss with their line manager their career stage and promotion readiness. We will also provide annual promotion workshops for researchers and their line managers (Action 2.2), and include discussion of promotion in annual Performance Reviews and the ‘checklist for Reviewers’ (Action 3.4). b) (i) Recruitment of staff Our data show that women are less likely to apply for academic positions than men, but are more likely to be appointed when they do so. This pattern is commonly observed in the sector and is due to females delaying applications until they are very well qualified, whereas males are often less cautious. We will therefore target our activities towards increasing the number of female

25

applicants and encouraging females to apply, while maintaining our good practices in shortlisting and interviewing, ensuring the interview process remains impartial. We will continue to ensure that all our recruitment adverts carry the Athena SWAN logo, and that candidate briefs for Academic and Research posts include text explaining the significance of our Award for Departmental working and culture. Informal feedback from female interviewees indicates that this is important to applicants when they apply. Our website is monitored to ensure we include positive images of women. Our adverts already specify that job share and part-time applications are welcome, but we intend to increase the visibility of this statement (Action 2.3). We have developed generic candidate briefs to ensure a consistent message, and we have considered the impact of gender-neutral language in doing so, stressing the importance we place on collegiality and collaborative working. We will ensure that there is always an option to contact a female member of staff for informal enquiries. (Action 2.3) University policy requires that all chairs of selection panels undertake diversity training and specific recruitment training. We have taken this requirement further, and we now require all members of selection panels to have undertaken recruitment training. In addition, panel chairs must complete unconscious bias training provided by the University. (Action 2.1) Short-listing and interviewing are undertaken against pre-specified, objective criteria and take into account the impact of career breaks. Selection panels for academic positions always comprise members of both sexes. We are committed to extending this to PGR and PDRA positions. Researchers will be sought who are willing to volunteer to undertake diversity and recruitment training and make themselves available to sit on PGR and PDRA panels when required. This will ensure that female academic staff are not overburdened, and also provide research staff with valuable career development experience. (Action 3.6). The Biology HR Manager monitors starting salaries of non-professorial academic staff and recommends to the HoD an appropriate salary level, based on relevant experience in post, before an offer is made. In this way we ensure that newly-appointed staff are not disadvantaged by differences in negotiating styles.

26

(ii) Support for staff at key career transition points

The key career transition point for women is from researcher (Grade 7) to lecturer (Fig. 13). We are committed to reducing the drop-off by 10% over the course of the action plan, and have developed actions to help researchers successfully make this transition. (Action 2.6)

Figure 13 . Green bars show % of females at each career stage in the Department. Mean values over the 6 yr period are shown (2008-2013). The ‘pipe line’ drop off for females is evident, particularly from Grade 7 researcher to lecturer, but there is less drop-off from u/g to researcher or from lecturer to professor. 1. During our Silver award, we identified a trend of appointing Independent Research Fellows (IRFs) to lectureships, and we developed activities to help our researchers become IRFs. We also provided web-based information encouraging external IRFs to join the Department and offering them support in doing so, including providing them with an academic mentor to help with their fellowships applications. We guarantee to interview Departmental IRFs if they apply for a lectureship position (3 of our IRFs (1F, 2M) obtained pro-leptic lectureships in the Department over the past 5 years in this way; Case Study #2). In future, we will provide an annual briefing for our researchers who are considering IRF applications and we will also offer them mentorship to support their applications. (Action 2.6) 2. During our Silver award, we recognised that the Post-doc society is an important forum for

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Mea

n %

fem

ale

ove

r 6

yea

rs (

20

08

-20

13

)

Representation of females at different career stages

27

supporting our researchers, and the Department provides financial support for their activities. In future, the Department (via ASWG) will provide additional resource to help support existing mentoring networks for researchers, and instigate new mentoring networks for PhDs (with researcher mentors). ASWG members will help with: training mentors in setting SMART objectives, in agreeing protocols for mentorship, and discussing expectations of mentees. (Action 2.5) 3. During our Silver award we instigated the provision of bridging funds to support post-doc salary costs between grants (for a maximum of 4 months) to address job insecurity, and we will continue to provide these funds. Since 2008, there have been 5 applications (1 female, 4 male), of whom 4 were successful (1F 3M). We will continue to monitor these data. (Action 3.7) 4. We will continue to promote take-up of University Leadership Development courses, and during our Silver award, 5 female researchers completed these courses. In addition, 3 female and 7 male academics completed Research Leadership courses (numbers in line with gender ratio of academics). 5. During our Silver award we instigated activities to help researchers gain career and developmental experience, and we will continue to offer: (1) a grant scheme whereby researchers get experience applying for funds for an u/g intern (‘Summer Student’ Scheme; this has run successfully for 4 years with 5 awarded to females and 4 to males); and (2) opportunities to sit on Departmental committees, and on University committees such as the Concordat implementation group. In future, we will additionally provide opportunities for researchers to train for and sit on recruitment panels. (Action 3.6)

28

Career development (i) Promotion and career development Our annual appraisal process, ‘Performance Review’ (PR), is designed to provide feedback to staff on their achievements, set objectives, identify development needs and discuss promotion plans. It is a key vehicle for career and development planning and is mandatory for all staff. Research staff data show excellent take-up over the past 5 years (an average of 95% female and 87% male) and University surveys report it is highly valued by them. However, our Departmental surveys of academics show that only 70% of staff found their review useful. One concern was lack of clarity about the objective-setting process. In future, we will therefore develop generic objectives for Academics and provide guidance for reviewers and reviewees in how to adapt them to their career stage and ambitions. (Action 3.4) Promotion criteria are standard across the University, and the Department contributed to changes during the Silver award ensuring that career breaks and relevant personal circumstances (e.g. maternity leave), are taken into account. Promotions criteria are clearly stated in University documentation and include teaching, research, and administration responsibilities, of which pastoral supervision of students is included as well as outreach and wider scholarship activities, with an emphasis on teaching and research quality. There is evidence that our Silver initiatives to increase awareness of promotion procedures with academic staff have been effective, and our surveys show >75% of staff understand the University’s promotion criteria and process. In future, we will carry out new analyses to examine residency times at different grades in relation to gender. (Action 2.2) (ii) Induction and training

We recognise the importance of induction in communicating our inclusive approach and providing core information about opportunities and sources of support in the Department. Our Silver renewal submission in 2010 described the web-based induction packs tailored for specific staff groups and these continue to be refined and improved as a result of positive feedback. These packs include information about flexible working and equal opportunities policies. Academic staff report that they value the timetabled induction meetings we provide on their arrival, ensuring they quickly meet key members of the Department. New research staff are mentored through the post-doc society. New academic staff are provided with a mentor who is encouraged to make contact before staff arrive; mentors are given written guidance on their role. We have introduced 3 and 6-month follow ups to identify the effectiveness of mentoring, and if additional support is needed, and we will continue to improve the mentoring experience. (Action 4.7) Training profiles have been developed specifically for researchers and academics. These identify training the Department considers mandatory and include equality and diversity and recruitment training. The profiles are used as part of performance review; additional development needs are added to form a training plan which also shows dates of completed training so the Department can monitor compliance.

29

(iii) Support for female students

Our under-graduate and post-graduate degree courses are either predominantly female, or have equal gender ratios. We take pride in supporting all of our students, to ensure that they all achieve their full potential during their time at York. The inclusion of the Chair of Board of Studies as well as an u/g student rep. on the ASWG helps us identify new initiatives to help female students, and help disseminate information from ASWG to our u/g student community. (Action 2.9) Our students have an academic member of staff assigned to them who is their Pastoral Supervisor during their degree programme. This person is the student’s first port of call if they have any academic or personal problems during their time at York, and meets up with them regularly. Our Careers & Training Co-ordinator, who is a member of ASWG, provides drop-in sessions and advice for personal development, skills training and career advice to Biology students, and take-up is similar for women and men. The students clearly value their time at York, and rank us very highly in National Student Surveys (95% Biology and 100% Biochemistry students were ‘satisfied’ in 2013). The representation of female and male students on many Departmental committees, including Boards of Studies and teaching committees, ensures that feedback from students can be responded to rapidly, and that we can get student opinions on any planned changes to Departmental life.

Organisation and culture a) (i) Male and female representation on committees It is Departmental policy that committees comprise representatives from different career stages and genders, to ensure that all members of staff are involved in decision making. All 30 committees (covering teaching, research and administration) have stated Terms of Reference (which include equality requirements), and 16 of these committees are currently chaired by women (including professional staff). Thus women are fully involved in decision-making and in the running of the Department. All administrative jobs are reviewed each year by the HoD, Assoc. HoD, and Chair of Board of Studies, in which aptitude, current and past workload and personal factors are taken into account, as well as career path and potential to enhance promotion. We will continue to monitor data to ensure that men and women are represented appropriately (Action 2.4). Table 2 List of Departmental committee: chairs and membership by gender

Committee Chair Females Males

Strategy Group F 5 5

Research Committee M 4 7

Staff Committee F 6 2

Infrastructure & Facilities F 4 6

Biology Board of Studies M All academics

30

Teaching Committee M 3 5

Prog. Committee Biology M All Biologists

Prog. Committee Biochemistry M All Biochemists

Prog. Committee Biomed. Sci. F All BMS staff

Masters Board M 3 11

Graduate School Board F 6 4

Safety Committee F 6 13

Teaching Quality Group M 3 2

Athena SWAN WG F 8 5

Outreach Committee M 6 5

Exams Committee F 5 9

REF2014 sub-group M 3 3

Social Committee M 5 3

Research Away-day group F 1 1

Biology-Chemistry Planning group F 5 4

Mitigating Circumstances F 2 4

BSF Users Committee F 3 6

Information (IT) Committee M 3 2

Env. Performance group F 10 5

Ethics Committee M 4 4

Enterprise group M 3 2

Technology Facility Board F 6 4

Biol. Agents Safety Committee M 3 7

Resources Board F 4 4

Estates Committee F 5 7

31

(ii) Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and open-ended (permanent) contracts.

It is Departmental policy and practice that all academic staff are on open contracts, and so we only consider data for researchers. There has been some fluctuation, but the % of female researchers on open and fixed-term contracts is currently very close to gender parity (females comprise 52% of fixed-term and 53% of open contracts over the 6-yr period). We are committed to completing the full implementation of the Concordat to support the Career Development of Researchers, and recognise the insecurity for all staff inherent in short-term contracts; this can impact particularly severely on women. We will monitor these data closely in future and continue to seek opportunities to reduce this insecurity, such as the pro-active approach the HR Manager takes to redeployment of individuals between projects and groups.

Figure 14. Bars show % of open (dark green) and fixed-term (light green) contracts held by females. Black line and squares shows total number of researchers.

Summary: Gender parity in the % of open and fixed-term contracts held by women.

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% Female on fixed contract 43 41 48 59 62 57

(Total no. on fixed contract) 82 78 56 41 34 44

% Female on open contract 46 49 55 59 52 55

(Total no. on open contract) 37 37 42 37 25 22

Total no. of research staff (FTE) 115.45 110.79 91.95 72.54 56.7 63

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

Re

sear

ch S

taff

(FT

E)

% f

em

ale

Research staff on fixed and open contracts

32

b)

(i) Representation on decision-making committees

All our decision-making committees have good gender balance, and a mix of staff at different career stages, and this is monitored by ASGW. Information on membership of committees is made available to all staff to ensure transparency. The relatively large number of female academics within the Department means that females are not over-burdened in this respect. 3 members of the ASWG are involved in the group tasked annually with nominating staff for membership of committees, ensuring that the good gender balance of committees is maintained. We have appointed full-time professionally qualified staff for Departmental administration relating to Health & Safety (male), HR (female), Finance (female), and Facilities (female). They chair several of the decision-making committees, lightening the load for academics. For the first time in the Department’s history, the Head of Department and Associate Head of Department are women, and they also chair committees associated with these management positions. Thus many of the Department’s decision-making committees are chaired by women. The HoD nominates staff to sit on University committees, taking gender and career progression into account; a total of 5 members of academic staff were voted onto University Senate in 2013 (3 women, 2 men). (ii) Workload model Reflecting the spirit of the Department’s supportive and collegiate culture, a teaching workload model was developed >20 years ago. During our Silver award, we recognized that a re-vamp was timely, and the introduction by the University of web-based central timetabling enabled us to automatically extract information on staff teaching activities. The model assesses all teaching activities: lectures, practicals, field courses etc, as well as project supervision, tutorials, pastoral supervision, internal PhD examinations, and outreach activities. Activity ‘hours’ are weighted, following discussions and agreement from staff about how onerous tasks are. The model is fully transparent and all staff have full access to information for all their colleagues to help them judge how their efforts compare with others. We recognize that PhD students benefit staff research activities and so transparency of information in the distribution of PhDs among staff is included. A separate list of marking and assessment is also provided (allowing consequences of teaching large groups of students to be recognized), and a list of all Administration jobs carried out by staff is also available. Our agreed philosophy is not to quantify precisely every activity staff perform or the exact length of time taken, but to capture the main tasks in a clear and transparent way. Survey feedback indicates that >85% of staff consider that work is allocated fairly and irrespective of gender, which is a 15% improvement in staff scores since our Silver award, showing the success of the workload model re-vamp. There is no significant difference in the workloads of men and women (T-test, comparing ‘hours’ of activity by gender, t73 = 0.74, P>0.4). The workload model is used regularly by the Assoc HoD to identify staff with high and low teaching loads and to re-distribute teaching accordingly. Most administration jobs are on a 3-yr cycle, and staff completing onerous job apply for a term’s sabbatical. We will continue to monitor these data (Action 3.2, 4.1) (iii) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings The Department’s core hours for meetings are between 10am-1pm and 2pm – 4pm, unless there

33

are strong reasons why it is not possible, and survey data show that >85% of staff agree that meetings are held in core hours. All Departmental seminar programmes and the prestigious Biology Open lecture series are timetabled at lunch times, and staff bring their sandwiches. Teaching is timetabled between 9.00 and 18.00 and it is straightforward for staff to request constraints to their teaching (e.g. to allow for caring responsibilities); an annual email solicits this information from staff. In this way, our culture ensures that academic and research staff with family commitments are not excluded in any way. All members of the Department are encouraged to meet up at the termly ‘Head of Department Seminars’, where staff present their research findings to colleagues. These seminars are held on Wednesday afternoons, and are followed by refreshments to facilitate interactions among staff. We have a Social Committee that arranges a variety of events, including out-of-hours family events. Some other social events (e.g. end of academic year summer party, Xmas mulled wine/orange juice & mince pies) are held during working hours so that all staff members and students have a chance to interact and celebrate Departmental activities. (iv) Culture The Department takes pride in offering a friendly and supportive environment to all staff, and collegiality is highly valued. The effectiveness of this is supported by our Departmental survey feedback indicating that >85% of staff consider that the Department makes clear that unsupportive language and behaviour is not acceptable. Decision-making takes place within committees, and feedback on these decisions is invited at regular Academic Staff Meetings, promoting democratic processes. Athena SWAN initiatives and principles are emphasized within the Department through the use of the Silver logo on the Departmental website and literature, and through the ASWG. More than 85% of staff understand the Department’s reasons for considering gender equality in Departmental life, and we hope to increase that % in future. (Action 1.6) To support this inclusive culture, we ensure all aspects of our activities have good gender balance, particularly those that have high visibility, and >95% of staff consider that the Department uses both women and men as visible role models. Organisers of lunch clubs and seminar series are sent frequent reminders to provide a gender balance in speakers. Our prestigious series of public ‘Open Lectures’ has included 17 female and 20 male speakers over the last 5 years, including recently Professor Cheryll Tickle, FRS, University of Bath; Professor Jean Beggs, FRS, CBE Edinburgh, Prof Frances Ashcroft, FRS, Oxford; Prof Ottoline Leyser, FRS, CBE, Cambridge. We are committed to ensuring highly visible female role models in the Department, and we celebrate the successes of our female staff. As part of the University’s 50th anniversary, we have renamed a Biology lecture theatre after an Emerita professor, Dianna Bowles, who was highly influential in building the Department’s physical and research capacity. We have been fortunate to have Professor Deborah F Smith as our first female HoD and are proud that she will be taking up the high-profile post of University Pro-VC for Research. We hope these examples of achievement will inspire the next generation of women scientists. (Action 5.4) (v) Outreach activities We organise and promote our outreach activities through an Outreach Committee (co-ordinator is ASWG member). Outreach activities include provision of open lectures and ‘Café Scientifique’

34

discussions to promote public interest and debate. We also engage with alumni and industry partners. A key focus is with schools, and includes workshops, visits and summer schools. We aim to encourage young people of both genders to see science as an exciting and rewarding future career. Outreach information is included in our workload model and is specifically mentioned as appropriate to include in promotion applications. Over the last 5 years, an average of 34% of staff involved in outreach were women, reflecting the proportion of female academics in the Department, and showing that females are neither over-burdened nor under-represented in this respect.

Figure 15. Green bars show female academic staff involvement in outreach activities. The black line and squares show the total number of staff involved in outreach activities

2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

% Female 35 32 28 36 40

Total Involved 40 25 32 28 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

staf

f In

volv

ed

% f

em

ale

Staff involvement in Outreach activities

35

Flexibility and managing career breaks a.

(i) Maternity return rate Maternity leave is a rare occurrence among our academic staff and has occurred only once in the last five years, in 2011. The member of staff returned full-time. Researchers have taken 18 periods of maternity leave within the last 5 years, with a 100% return rate. We take this exceptional record as testament to the supportive culture we offer. In addition, there have been no instances of Researcher contracts ending during their maternity leave. In some research groups additional funding has enabled PIs to extend contracts through these periods; we are supporting the case for such funding to be provided at University level. (ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake In the last 5 years, 4 academics and 10 researchers are on record as taking paternity leave. An email request for information confirmed that in fact Academic staff took 10 periods of paternity leave, and we encourage all academics to request paternity leave and not simply use their ability to work flexibly. (Action 4.9) We have had no applications for parental leave or adoption leave, although the start date of a new professorial appointee was delayed at his request to accommodate an adoption in his home country. (iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and grade

We have received no formal requests for flexible working through the University procedure; paradoxically we believe this is a positive sign as we know that staff normally successfully negotiate flexible arrangements informally with line managers. However, we recognise that this has made monitoring difficult and we are now recording all instances of changes to part-time hours that are requested by individuals and we will monitor these figures over time. (Action 4.3)

36

b)

(i) Flexible working There are only two Academic staff on part-time contracts (1F, 1M) and so we do not include these data. Part-time researchers are pre-dominantly female, although there has been a decline recently. By contrast, the % of full time research staff that are female has increased and is now close to gender parity.

Figure 16. Bars show % of part-time (light green) and full-time (dark green) researchers that are female. The black line and squares show the total number of researchers, which has halved during the Silver period.

Our survey reports that ~65% of staff consider that staff who work part-time or full-time are offered similar career development opportunities. Thus we conclude that most staff are positive about the options for working flexibly, but nonetheless this % is too low. We will hold focus groups to generate new initiatives and examine the experiences of part-time staff in the Department (Action 4.10). We expect to see a higher % in our next survey (Action 1.2, 4.3). The nature of academic research and teaching is inherently flexible and it is evident that many staff are able to take advantage of this in maintaining their work/life balance (Case studies 1.3 & 4).

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

% Female part time 100 93 77 77 79 85

(Total no. part time) 9.45 6.79 10.95 8.54 4.7 6

% Female full time 37 38 46 56 54 51

(Total no. full time) 106 104 81 64 52 57

Total no. of research staff (FTE) 115.45 110.79 91.95 72.54 56.7 63

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Tota

l nu

mb

er

of

rese

arch

sta

ff (

FTE)

% f

em

ale

(FT

E)

Research staff on part-time and full-time contracts (FTE)

37

All recruitment candidate briefs include a positive statement about flexible working and there is a page on our website with the same message. Our timetabling officer contacts academic staff annually asking them to inform her of any constraints on their teaching time. Requests for flexibility for caring responsibilities are always prioritised. We have not previously provided training for managers in handling flexible working requests but we will consult with staff to see if that would be welcomed. (Action 4.3) (ii) Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return We aim to ensure that everyone connected with the maternity and adoption leave of a member of staff is well informed about rights and options. In addition to University policy information we have a Departmental web page that includes a ‘Best Practice for Managers’ guide and a ‘What to

do when ... an employee advises you they are pregnant’ flowchart. There is also a user-friendly ‘Guidance on Maternity Leave’ for employees in the form of FAQs. The Departmental atrium and concourse are family-friendly locations for meetings, including Cookies Cafe, and there is a private room with fridge and washing facilities for nursing mothers. Pregnant students meet first with their pastoral supervisor to discuss their plans. Support is available centrally for u/g students via the Student Support Hub and their College. We will seek views, through the ASWG u/g representative, as to whether there is additional support we could offer within the Department (Action 4.11). There is support, information and advice available for graduate students via Biology Graduate School staff (Case study #1). Pregnant staff are invited with their manager to meet with a member of the in-house HR team to discuss maternity leave issues. The discussion includes:

Arrangements for cover, including information for new PIs regarding funders’ policies on replacement for the employee, or contract/degree extension on her return.

Risk assessments supported by an in-house Safety Adviser.

Flexible working rights and options, including a clear message that part-time working requests are welcomed.

‘Keep in Touch’ communication during absence.

Expectation that Academic staff will take a sabbatical on return

Both Principal Investigators and staff members indicate that they value opportunities to discuss and resolve issues. We will in future act on the assumption that a sabbatical will be taken by an Academic on return to work unless she specifically requests a postponement. (Action 4.4)

38

5. Any other comments (483 words) (i) Beacon status. We encourage staff and students to raise the profile of women in science, and their activities are publicised on the Biology web site.

Standing up for Science

Posted on 20 May 2013

Erica Kintz, postdoctoral fellow in the Van der Woude lab in the CII, wrote an informative summary of the workshop "Standing up for Science" that she attended in November 2012, for the members journal of the Society of General Microbiology (Microbiology Today; February 2013).

This workshop is organized by Sense about Science, "a charity dedicated to helping the public better understand science". The workshop was targeted to young scientists, with the aim to give them the tools and confidence to interact with the public and the press. In Erica's words "hopefully, the 50 participants have been inspired ....and act as champions of good science for the benefit of the general public."

http://www.york.ac.uk/biology/news-events/news/standingupforscience/

39

(ii) Gender data. We have embedded robust methods for the regular collection and analysis of gender data, and we continue to identify new areas where information can be collected, beyond that required by Athena SWAN. (e.g. Action 2.2, 4.2) (ii) Our Careers & Training co-ordinator (Dr Hilary Jones, ASWG member) has extended her role over the past 5 years. Her ‘Coffee & Careers’ sessions bring in external speakers to describe their career paths. Hilary is also an accredited ‘Springboard’ trainer, helping women make positive changes in their professional and/or personal lives e.g. by developing increased assertiveness. (iii) We carried out online surveys of academic staff and Year 2 students in 2013 (adapting UKRC-WISE online culture surveys) to identify new initiatives and assess progress made against our Silver award Action Plans. We had >90% academic staff responding and ~50% of Year 2 students responding. The findings confirmed that >97% of students and >90% of staff think that the

York professor to champion the role of women in science – from a soapbox

Posted on 5 July 2013

A Professor of Ecology from the University of York will step on to a soapbox in London this week to highlight the role of women in science.

Professor Jane Hill is one of a dozen top female academics taking part in Soapbox Science on London’s Southbank on Friday 5 July. She was selected from over 60 applicants to take part in the event which aims to raise the profile of women in science and tackle gender inequality in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).

Professor Hill will highlight her research at York with a soapbox talk titled “It’s great up North! – species move to track climate warming”.

http://www.york.ac.uk/biology/news-events/news/soapbox-science/

40

Department is a great place for both men and women. For students, the survey highlighted some concerns: (1) nearly half of students considered that males were more likely to have a successful career in STEMM, and females were more likely to think this than males. (Action 5.4); (2) there was little access to information about gender equality issues (Action 1.2). Our Gold Action Plan includes new initiatives to extend the reach of Athena SWAN activities further into our u/g community. For staff, the survey also highlighted some concerns: Performance Review was not considered helpful by ~30% of staff (Action 3.4), and ~15% of staff considered that work was not allocated fairly (Action 4.1). These survey results will provide benchmark data for the future, to allow us to continue to assess the effectiveness of our activities over the next 3 years (Action 1.2, 2.8). We intend to extend these surveys to also include PGT and PGR students (Action 1.2).

(v) Four ASWG members were members of the Departmental REF2014 sub-group, ensuring that our processes were fair and transparent in respect to gender. The gender balance of the small proportion of non-returned staff was similar to the gender balance of the Department as a whole. (Action 3.1) (vi) We are establishing a network for Athena SWAN representatives from Biological Science Departments across the N8 group of Universities. Our aim is to share good practice relevant to biologists, and share benchmarking data that are unavailable nationally. We hope to address challenges common to all BioSciences Departments. (Action 5.6) (vii) During our Silver award, we set up a sabbaticals application process, recognising that such a scheme did not exist in the Department. We are monitoring applications by gender. Staff are aware of the Departmental expectation of 1 sabbatical per 9 terms. (Action 3.2)

6. Action plan

See Appendix 1.

41

7. Case study: impacting on individuals (1426 words)

We have presented 5 case studies, chosen to illustrate different aspects of progress that we have made and our Departmental culture. Elva, Anna and Mandy are relatively new arrivals to the Department, whereas Jane and Jon have been members of the Department for >10 years, and so can provide different perspectives on Departmental life. These case studies illustrate our progress during our Silver award in developing good practices in relation to promotion (Jane), sabbaticals (Jon), flexible working (Anna, Elva), career breaks (Mandy) and maternity leave (Anna, Elva). (1) Anna Riach, PhD student. Anna is a BBSRC PhD student who started in October 2009 and is due to submit her thesis in March 2014. Her project straddles biological disciplines and uses metabolomics to investigate chemical interactions between insects and their host plants. She has two supervisors, one male and one female. At 3 years and 3 months into her studies she took 6 months maternity leave, and has subsequently returned for the remaining 9 months of her studies. ‘As well as academics, there have been a number of other PhD students taking maternity leave in the Biology Department which made my decision to start a family during my PhD much easier. I found a universal positive attitude towards my pregnancy and maternity leave among other students and academic staff and did not meet with any disbelief that I wanted to have a baby while studying (contrary to the horror stories from PhD mothers on internet forums). Similarly, administration issues such as extending study time and having a flexible date for the start of my maternity leave were no problem. I am trusted to manage my own time and can therefore be flexible about when I work which means leaving university if my baby is ill is possible, something my partner’s job does not allow him to do. There are plenty of women in senior positions in my department which encourages me to believe I can get that far in my career too. Having had these examples of how women conduct themselves in managerial roles will definitely be useful in my future career. I am glad I have had the opportunity to take maternity leave now as I was worried that starting a career after my PhD in a new organisation/company could be hampered by a maternity leave break if attitudes there were not as progressive as in the Biology Department at York.’

Anna and her son Edward.

42

(2) Dr Elva Robinson, Lecturer. http://www.york.ac.uk/biology/research/ecology-evolution/elva-robinson/ Elva is a behavioural ecologist studying the organisation of animal social groups. She uses social insects as a model system, combining empirical and modelling work to identify the simple rules followed by individual members of a colony, and to determine how they interact to produce adaptive group-level behaviours. Elva joined the Biology Department on an independent Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Fellowship in January 2010, and in June 2010 obtained a pro-leptic lectureship. She has taken maternity leave (8 months) and has returned to work at 80% FTE. ‘I arrived in the Department on a fellowship, but with the goal of securing a permanent position. As part of the Biology Department’s support to independent fellows, I was guaranteed to be short-listed for any suitable position. Knowing this helped encourage me to apply for a lectureship, as I knew I would at least get some beneficial interview practice. Having secured a pro-leptic lectureship makes it easier for me to apply for grants extending beyond my fellowship and allows me to make long-term research plans.

Elva and her son David.

43

(3) Dr Amanda Noble, Daphne Jackson Research Fellow. Mandy is a biological chemist researching prostate cancer. Her last job was as a development chemist in a bulk pharmaceutical company. She stopped work after her second child was born to be at home full time. After her career break, Mandy volunteered with Dr Martin Rumsby in the Biology Department while applying for a Daphne Jackson fellowship. The rigorous application process took around 10 months. Prostate Cancer UK has provided the sponsorship to Daphne Jackson for this fellowship which is part time for 2 years and includes a retraining programme. ‘I have found everyone in the Biology Department to be very helpful and supportive in my quest to return to work. Members of the research group as well as Martin Rumsby and Prof Norman Maitland helped me in planning my project proposal and along with the Assoc. Head of Department and others supported me by offering mock interviews and advice along the way. The Department also supported me financially in contributing to travel to last year’s Daphne Jackson conference. One of the main advantages of returning to work at the Biology Department is the freedom to work in a flexible way that fits around family life.’

Mandy at work in the lab.

44

(4) Dr Jon Pitchford, Senior lecturer. http://www.york.ac.uk/biology/research/ecology-evolution/jon-w-pitchford/ Jon trained as a mathematician before discovering how exciting biology can be. His research explores the importance of randomness in living systems, from sub-cellular to macro-ecological scales. He joined York in 2001 as a Lecturer, appointed jointly between the departments of Biology and Mathematics, and was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2009. He is married with three young children. ‘Straddling two disciplines, and two departments, I find my job to be enormously challenging. The supportive and collegiate atmosphere in the Biology Department makes it a place where working hard is both enjoyable and appreciated. Good mathematics needs peace and quiet, which is hard to find in a dynamic environment such as this. I have twice benefitted from sabbaticals to New Zealand, with strong encouragement and absolutely no HoD expectations beyond “go away and do something good”. I obeyed, and my best publications are a direct result. Biology has understood the extra pressures generated by joint appointments, and has instigated helpful policies which have now been adopted university-wide. I also appreciate the flexible working arrangements which have enabled my wife to continue her career.’

Jon and family on sabbatical in New Zealand.

45

(5) Professor Jane Hill, Chair of Biology Athena SWAN committee; Assoc. Head of Department. http://www.york.ac.uk/biology/research/ecology-evolution/kane-k-hill/ Jane is an ecologist whose research focuses on how species are responding and adapting to global climate warming. She explores how the loss of habitat interacts with climate warming to affect biodiversity and the ecosystem functions it provides. Jane joined the Department in 2001 as a lecturer, and was promoted to Senior lecturer (2005), Reader (2008), and Professor in 2010 (promotion to Band 2 in 2013). During her time at York, Jane has taken one period of maternity leave (7 months), after which she returned to work full time. ‘I find academic life to be very flexible which helps to get a good work/life balance, and this is helped by the fact that my husband is also an academic at another University. I have been promoted during my time at York, and found that the process was fair and transparent. I am pleased that there is now more support available within the Biology Department to help staff assess whether or not they are ready to apply for promotion, and I greatly benefitted from strong encouragement from the Head of Department to apply, at a time when I was uncertain if it was appropriate. I appreciate the supportive culture and working environment in Biology, and I am fully aware from talking with colleagues that this is unfortunately not typical of some other Universities. I have really enjoyed opportunities to mentor early-career women in STEMM, and I wish something similar had been available for me earlier in my career.’

Jane and her husband Keith.

46

Gold application action plan – Department of Biology, University of York, 2013 We have held a Silver award since 2006, and many of the initiatives instigated over the past 7 years have become embedded within Departmental culture. For our Gold application, we have reviewed our Silver Action Plan, reflected on our progress and successes, and discussed why certain approaches were more effective than others. We have developed new initiatives and targets to address our new challenges for the next 3 yrs that are based on our data analyses. The actions we have outlined below are specific and measurable, with clear timescales and indicators of delivery and success. Successful targets achieved from 2006/2010/2011 Action Plans:

Embed Athena SWAN principles within Departmental culture.

Embed analysis and reflection of gender data within Departmental processes.

Maintain and enhance female representation within the Department.

Increase the visibility of women scientists and their achievements.

Expand our ASWG Self Assessment Team to include a wider representation of staff and students.

Effective use of surveys to inform our activities.

Raise staff awareness of how Athena SWAN principles have benefitted Departmental life.

Increase staff awareness of the University promotions process.

Instigate sabbaticals processes.

Revamp workload model.

Revise maternity processes.

No gender bias of REF2014 returned/non-returned staff.

Become a beacon, sharing good practice with other Institutes.

Been influential in improving data collection and dissemination at University level.

47

Theme 1: Departmental staff and students recognise benefits from our STEMM/AS activities. Objective Action Responsibility Timescale Success measures

Raise profile of Athena SWAN within and outside the department (beacon status), and further embed gender equality throughout our Departmental activities.

1. Visibility and recognition of benefits

1.1 To increase profile of AS within the department by improving web presence and enhancing the web site to include news, case studies of good practice, and reporting progress against goals.

All ASWG members

Dec2014

Web pages published and well used. Target: All ASWG committee meetings minutes also include progress on targets, which are distributed to staff.

1.2 To further extend the reach of AS to u/g, p/g, PDRAs and new staff by including/improving AS and other equality-related issues information in Induction/student welcome packs.

HR, u/g & grad student reps

Aug 2016

New staff and student (PGR, PGT) surveys show increased recognition of AS activities. Target: Increase in favourable answers in departmental staff and student online surveys to >75% positive responses.

1.3 Further in depth analysis of student gender statistics Chair BoS Oct 2014 June 2014

Raise awareness of gender issues in our u/g students. Target: Analyse apparent decline in % female u/g over time. Target: Student gender stats are presented to BoS annually, include classification analyses by gender.

1.4 Review application processes for u/g, PGT and PGR to ensure gender neutral text in adverts/course information, career

Admissions

Increase % of applications from females.

48

information and additional positive images of women. June 2014 Oct 2016

Target: Analyse changes in pattern of offers & accept to females u/g. Target: Increase % of female PGT applications by 10%.

1.5 Comparative gender analyses carried out annually in relation to other Russell Group Universities and presented to the Department for discussion.

ASWG Oct 2015

Staff and students are aware of any discrepancies between York Biology and Russell Group Universities, and any actions to be implemented. Target: Data and analyses comparing York Biology with other Russell Group BioScience Depts. E.g. in relation to degree classifications. Presented and discussed with staff

1.6 Minutes of ASWG committee reported to Staff Committee and hence to DSG.

Chairs of ASWG,/BSG/DSG

Enhanced dissemination and discussion of gender issues within the department.

1.7 Annual review of ASWG progress on Action Plan reported to Staff committee.

ASWG Chair Mar 2014 Target: Template for reporting set up and first review provided at spring term Staff Committee meeting.

1.8 Analyse impact of named researchers on grant applications Chair DRC Oct 2015 Target: Gender parity in named researchers on grants.

Theme 2: Address loss of women at key career stages. Objective Action Responsibility Timescale Success measures

Maintain and enhance equal numbers of females at all levels and career stages.

2. Staff appointments and promotions

2.1 Memberships of short-listing and interview panels have gender balance and members are aware of unconscious bias in

HR

Unconscious bias training available to all staff.

49

appointment process.

Oct 2016 Oct 2015 March 2015

Target: Chairs of all academic staff interview panels have under-taken training course in unconscious bias. Target: All panel members have taken diversity and recruitment training. Target: All interviews for PhDs and PDRAs have mixed gender panels, reflecting our existing good practice for Academic staff interviews.

2.2 To embed our improved promotion processes within departmental culture. E.g. staff take advantage of opportunities to discuss their CV, staff with strong CVs are specifically encouraged to apply. Information is available to both academic and research staff. Ensure advice on advancement within professorial grades is available

All members of BSMT, HR

Oct 2014 Mar 2015 Oct 2014 Mar 2015 Sep 2014

Surveys of staff show they are fully informed of promotion processes and criteria. Target: Obtain and maintain data on academic staff residency times at different grades. Target: Analysis of data on residency times at different grades shows no differences in relation to gender. Target: Obtain and maintain data on gender distribution within professorial pay-bands Target: Analysis of data on professorial pay-bands shows no differences in relation to gender Target: Annual lunchtime information sessions increase the number of academic and research

50

staff applying for promotion.

2.3 To ensure academic job adverts attract strong female applicants.

HoD/HR/chairs of search committees

Nov 2013 Oct 2016

Adverts state that academic posts are potentially available as p/t or f/t positions. Contact details for informal inquiries always include a female member of staff. Target: 20% increase in female applicants for academic positions, resulting in an increase in number of females shortlisted during the Gold period.

2.4 To recognise any consequences from loss of female HoD and female Assoc HoD in senior management discussions and activities, and female representation on committees.

HoD

Aug 2014 Oct 2016

Gender balance of memberships of BSMT decision & strategy groups maintain good gender balance. Target: One of the new Assoc. HoDs is female. Target: All senior academic staff attend leadership Personal Development courses.

2.5 To reduce loss of women from student to senior staff, by providing improved mentoring for PDRAs and PhDs.

Careers & Training co-ordinator/ PDRA rep/Post-doc Society

Oct 2014 Dec 2015

Provide resources for Biology Post-doc Soc to set up mentoring network, both for PDRAs and PhDs. Target: All PDRAs are aware of the Post-doc Soc, have attended at least 1 event, and are aware of mentorship possibilities. Target: >20 PhDs express an interest in being mentored, and PDRA/PhD mentoring network set up within the department.

51

2.6 Increase communication and flow of information between ASWG and PDRAs in order to address loss of female PDRAs from academia.

Careers & Training co-ordinator/AS PDRA rep

Feb 2014 Oct 2016 Oct 2016

ASWG and AS PDRA rep. report back regularly to Post-doc Soc on AS activities and AS committee receives feedback. Target: Carry out online survey of PDRAs to identify specific issues and develop new solutions. Target: Re-survey of PDRAs shows increase in % of PDRAs recognising benefits of AS activities in the department. Target: reduce ‘pipeline’ drop off in %female PDRAs to Lecturer by 10% by providing mentoring opportunities for PDRAs and briefing/guidance/mentoring for IRF applications.

2.7 Collect data on next destination of PDRAs to determine differences in the career choices of male and female PDRAs.

Careers & Training co-ordinator/AS Post-doc rep/ASWG Chair

Jun 2015 LinkedIn site of PDRA leavers is maintained and information gained is reported regularly to ASWG.

2.8 Biology alumni complete career survey/questionnaire and provide information on career pathways.

Careers & Training co-ordinator/Uni Alumni organisation

Oct 2016

Information on the wide range of career paths available to Biologists provided to undergraduates, resulting in increased knowledge. Target: Online re-surveys of undergraduates show increased perceptions of female career success in STEMM, and greater interest in pursuing graduate study.

52

2.9 More support is provided for female students u/g student rep, Chair BoS

Oct 2015 New initiatives identified to help support female students.

Theme 3: Supporting and enhancing the career development of female staff. Objective Action Responsibility Timescale Success measures

Maintain and enhance the career development of females by providing mentoring and peer support for research.

3. Supporting research activities.

3.1 To recognise and address reasons for staff not being returned in REF.

HoD, Chair DRC

Dec 2014 A sub-group of the Research Committee reviews reasons why some staff were not returned in REF and provides opportunities for mentorship of these staff.

3.2 All academic staff encouraged to take advantage of new sabbatical system.

ASWG Chair/HR

Oct 2016 Jul 2014

Target: Double the number of academic staff requests for sabbaticals. Target: Staff returning from extended leave expected to take a sabbatical. This expectation is explicitly included in maternity return-to-work letter, and in checklist of items to discuss at meeting prior to taking maternity leave.

3.3 Departmental Peer Review Colleges encourage, mentor and support staff in grant application processes.

Chair DRC Oct 2014 Oct 2015

Target: Maintain no difference in gender balance of staff applying and successfully obtaining grants. Target: Analyses to examine difference in amount of grant income awarded to male and female staff.

53

3.4 Annual Performance reviews improved to help staff to develop their research objectives and aid discussion of promotion readiness.

HR Oct 2016

Performance review documents include information to help set realistic and achievable research objectives, and help to provide career advice. Target: Increase in the % of staff that report finding PR useful. At least 80% of staff record positive responses in online surveys.

3.5 Summer student scheme allows PDRAs experience of running independent research projects.

Chair DRC/HoD Aug 2016 Data show no difference in gender balance of PIs or students employed on projects. Feedback from PDRAs is positive.

3.6 A core of PDRAs trained in interviewing procedures and have opportunities to gain news skills and experiences by sitting on interview panels.

HR Oct 2016 Target: PDRAs trained and 3 volunteers available to sit on interview panels if required.

3.7 Investigate requests for PDRA researcher salary bridging funds.

HR/ASWG Oct 2014 Target: Survey to assess if there are gender differences in bridging funding requests.

Theme 4: Departmental organisation and culture. Objective Action Responsibility Timescale Success measures

Staff and students work in a Department where equality and diversity is strongly emphasised, and there are positive images and role models for women.

4.1 Staff teaching, admin and marking workloads are transparent and information is easily accessible to all academic staff.

ASWG Chair/HR Jun 2014 Oct 2016

Staff report that new workload model is improved and useful. Target: Data analysis reveals continued lack of gender differences in workload allocation. Target: Survey of staff reveals that >90% of staff understand how the workload models are used to allocate activities fairly among staff.

54

4.2. Student feedback on teaching shows no difference in satisfaction in relation to gender of teaching staff.

TQ group

Oct 2014

Target: Data analysis of online student feedback shows no gender split in student assessment of staff teaching quality.

4.3 Process for requesting flexible teaching is clear and transparent.

Chair BoS

Oct 2014 Oct 2014

Forms are sent out to staff to request timetabling constraints. Forms highlight the positive attitude the department has to accommodating flexible working. Requests are assessed and agreed by HoD. Target: All reasonable requests are agreed if associated with caring responsibilities. Staff agree that requests are dealt with in a fair and transparent way. Target: Monitor flexible working requests and offer training sessions for line managers

4.4 Female staff taking maternity leave are provided with mentors before going on leave to highlight research needs while on leave, and on return.

HR Oct 2016

Expectation that all returners take sabbatical unless a delay is preferred. Target: All returners are satisfied with the support provided.

4.5 Disseminate knowledge of flexible working practices more widely throughout the Department

HR Oct 2016 Target: Future surveys of staff show that >80% of staff are aware of flexible working practices.

4.6 Full list of departmental jobs and incumbents made available to staff.

ASWG Chair

Staff aware of opportunities to contribute to departmental administration activities. Increased transparency in jobs allocation process.

55

Oct 2016

Target: Surveys show all staff are aware of opportunities and how to register their interest through the Annual staff census.

4.7 Buddy/mentor system for new staff is valued. HR Oct 2016

Confidential 6 month follow up of new staff highlights new initiatives. Target: All new staff satisfied.

4.8 Improvement in departmental understanding of implications of flexible working policies being taken up more widely.

HR Sep 2014 Target: Lunchtime briefing sessions set up and to be held annually to inform line managers of flexible working practices and to develop their understanding of their role in supporting them.

4.9 Robust method for recording paternity leave is rolled out. HR Oct 2014 Target: Increased awareness of need to formally request paternity leave, and men do not rely on flexible working at this time.

4.10 Better understanding of part-time staff needs. HR Oct 2015 Target: 2 focus groups held which highlight opportunities for improving current practices.

4.11 Better understanding of support needs of undergraduate students

u/g rep June 2014 Target: Feedback from female u/gs informs further action planning.

Theme 5: Beacon of good practice. Objective Action Responsibility Timescale Success measures

Biology at York widely recognised as a female friendly and family friendly place to work, and our continuing good practices widely disseminated.

5.1 Set up working group network with WR and N8/northern Universities to discuss AS and STEMM issues that are particularly relevant to Biological Sciences staff and students.

ASWG Chair/HR Oct 2014 Oct 2016

Target: Network established with >20 members and agreement to meet twice a year. Target: All N8 Biology departments

56

achieve at least Bronze status.

5.2 Invite QUB Biology staff to network to share good practice of a Gold department.

ASWG Chair/HR Sept 2014 Target: Resources committed to travel and networking. 3 new initiatives developed in relation to discussion of good working practices at QUB.

5.3 Seminar organisers of prestigious events aware that gender balance is important and implement this practice beyond the University.

ASWG Chair/HoD

Oct 2016 Oct 2015

Target: Good gender balance in external speakers for prestigious events is maintained, and annual email to invite suggestions of speakers reminds staff of this commitment. Target: Surveys of staff report they are raising awareness of gender issues at external organisations/ learned societies and during other STEM activities they are involved with.

5.4 Raise awareness of female role models within the Department by compiling a history of female scientists here.

ASWG members Oct 2015 Target: 5 case studies uploaded onto the Biology AS web site. Press release to raise awareness more widely.

5.5 ASWG committee members are encouraged to be beacons of good practice through: reciprocal arrangements for attending Chemistry AS committee meetings, advising other departments/Research Institutes/Universities joining the AS process.

All ASWG members

Oct 2014 Oct 2016

Target: Finances to support beacon activities agreed by Department. Target: All Institutions that are helped by us successfully achieve Bronze or Silver AS awards during our Gold period.

5.6 N8 network improves understanding of best practice for female biologists

All ASWG members

Oct 2015

Target: N8 group established and meeting twice a year. Members report it is helpful.

57

Oct 2016 Target: Good practice is disseminated nationally e.g. though learned societies.

Acronyms:

HoD Head of Department SAT Self-Assessment Team ASWG Athena SWAN working group DRC Departmental Research Committee BoS Board of Studies HR Human Resources IRF Independent Research Fellow TQ Group Teaching Quality group AS PDRA rep Athena Swan post-doc representative WR White Rose DSG Departmental Strategy Group