Athena SWAN Bronze university application€¦ · External critical appraisal has been invited from...

Athena SWAN Bronze university award application

Name of university: Glasgow Caledonian University

Date of application: APRIL 2016

Contact for application: Professor Valerie Webster (Vice Principal and Pro Vice Chancellor Learning and Student Experience)

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 0141 331 3000

Glasgow Caledonian University – Athena SWAN Bronze University Application 2

Contents

1. Letter of endorsement from Vice‐Chancellor .............................................................................. 3

2. The self‐assessment process ........................................................................................................ 4

3. Description of the university ...................................................................................................... 10

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers ............................................................................. 40

4.1 Key career transition points ................................................................................................ 40

Recruitment and selection ......................................................................................................... 51

Induction .................................................................................................................................... 52

Promotion .................................................................................................................................. 52

4.2 Career development ............................................................................................................ 53

4.3 Organisation and Culture .................................................................................................... 60

4.4 Flexibility and managing career breaks ............................................................................... 65

5. Any other comments ................................................................................................................. 70

5.1 Additional gender pay gap analysis ..................................................................................... 70

5.2 Women in Scotland’s Economy (WiSE) ............................................................................... 70

Glossary .............................................................................................................................................. 71

Response to previous feedback ......................................................................................................... 72

6. Action Plan ................................................................................................................................. 79


1. Letter of endorsement from Vice‐Chancellor During my tenure as Vice‐Chancellor of Glasgow Caledonian University, gender equality has been a personal priority and I have worked with my senior teams to realise the vision of an organisation that recognises and rewards excellence from every individual. I am proud of the way in which our mission – the University for the Common Good – underpins all the work that we do. We are a modern, globally‐networked University, with a profound commitment to equality and the celebration of diversity. Our commitment to gender equality is a key part of our 2020 Strategy, and working towards the Athena SWAN Charter plays a vital role in providing focus and structure to address the challenges we face in embedding equality and diversity throughout the University.

As a female academic with a background in research, I am aware of the iniquitous effect of some conventions such as fixed‐term contracts, lack of flexible, family‐friendly policies and insufficient support for maternity and childcare, on academic prospects and workplace health and wellbeing. I have worked to ensure that the University’s culture supports and enables female staff and students in their education and career aspirations. When I joined the University in 2006, I was one of only two women on a large Executive Board: women now constitute more than half of our Executive Board. In consultation with our Self‐Assessment Team we have put into place support and mentoring programmes, and an effective policy framework including a revised promotions policy, all of which combine to encourage female academics into STEMM subjects and into senior leadership positions.

We cannot, however, rest on our laurels. I have therefore committed GCU to the Action Plan submitted as part of this report, a commitment that was ratified by our Executive Board earlier this month. Our commitment to gender equality is longstanding, and has been a central tenet of my tenure here as Vice Chancellor and, through utilising the voices and ideas of the wider University community of staff and students, we have worked hard to incorporate the feedback from our previous submissions.

I have personally been involved in critiquing this report as it progressed, and was pleased to note the lack of gender pay gap overall when age is taken into account. I am aware that more fine‐grained analyses, particularly at School level, highlight that there still remains much to be done. I am particularly keen to tackle the under‐representation of women at Professorial level in the School of Health and Life Sciences, and the low numbers of women at all occupational levels in the School of Engineering and Built Environment. The preparation of this report has helped us understand, as an institution, how we can address these challenges.

The values and principles of Athena SWAN sit at the heart of our social mission as a University, and I am delighted to endorse this submission which reflects this commitment.

Pamela Gillies CBE FRSE Principal and Vice Chancellor Glasgow Caledonian University

(487 words)


2. The self‐assessment process Describe the self‐assessment process. This should include:

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

GCU signed the Athena SWAN Charter in 2011, and our commitment to gender equality has been driven by Professor Pamela Gillies, Principal and Vice‐Chancellor of Glasgow Caledonian University since 2006.

Our commitment to the Athena SWAN principles was enshrined in the 2015 People Strategy. Following the unsuccessful application for a Bronze award in April 2014, the University has reviewed its approach to gender equality; and expanded the SAT to reflect a University‐wide commitment to gender equality and women in STEMM.

GCU’s SAT was constituted in 2013 to recognise, support and share good practice, and to develop our commitment to advancing women's careers in STEMM. Chaired by Professor Valerie Webster, Pro Vice‐Chancellor for Learning and Student Experience, the SAT has led development of this submission, in consultation with the wider University community. Table 2.3 at the end of the report outlines how we have addressed feedback from the previous submission.

The SAT comprises 27 members drawn from across the University (Table 2.1), representing a wide range of academic experiences – from students to the Pro Vice Chancellor ‐ and incorporating both research and teaching focused academic careers. Membership of the SAT includes experienced senior managers with experience of recruitment; and early career academics. The SAT embodies the commitment to advancing gender equality at GCU, and can reflect upon the cultural and contextual issues facing GCU.

The SAT draws upon a wide range of work‐life balance experiences, including members with current and previous experience of being primary carers, adopting flexible working practices, and parental leave.


Table 2.1: GCU Self‐Assessment Team/ Advancing Gender Equality Group

Name Role Subject area/School Experience / perspective

Professor Valerie Webster (Chair)

Vice‐Principal & PVC, Learning & Student Experience

University Executive Chair

Mr Adrian Lui Equality & Diversity Advisor

Directorate of People Services

Equality and Diversity advisor

Professor Malcolm Allan

Academic Projects Officer

Dean's Office, SEBE

Academic School Champions / STEMM Ambassadors to drive culture change, raise awareness in academic community and develop School activity

Dr Keith Baker Early Career Researcher

Sustainable Environments & Communities, SEBE

Dr Tuleen Boutaleb Senior Lecturer Electrical & Electronic Engineering, SEBE

Professor Anita Simmers

Professor Vision Science, SHLS

Professor Iain Cameron Dean SEBE Academic leadership to lead culture change and embed behaviour change

Professor Toni Hilton Dean GSBS

Vincent McKay Dean SHLS

Ms Alison Campbell Deputy Director Directorate of People Services

Key professional service representation to advise and drive practice change

Professor John Marshall Director Academic Research, Development and REF

Professor Caroline Parker

Senior Project Lead, GCU Values

People Services

Elizabeth Reather Executive Advisor to the DVC

Executive Support

Professor Bonnie Steves Director Graduate School

/continued over


Dr Andrew Crossan Lecturer/Early Career Researcher

Software Engineering, SEBE

Varied School and Professional Service representation with diverse life and career experience including early career academics; family and caring responsibilities; mentoring and supporting colleagues; taking and managing career breaks; supervising and managing female STEMM PhD students and contract research staff; managing research, administration and income generation

Mr David Farrell Lecturer Digital Design Technologies, SEBE

Professor Liz Gilchrist Professor Psychology, SHLS

Professor Ann Graham Professor Biological and Biomedical, SHLS

Mr Bill Hay Lecturer Building & Energy Technology, SEBE

Ms Karin Helweg Researcher Civil Engineering & Environmental Tech, SEBE

Ms June McCrae Lecturer Computing, SEBE

Dr Gordon Morison Lecturer Electrical & Electronic Engineering, SEBE

Dr Azam Nekahi Lecturer Electrical & Electronic Engineering, SEBE

Prof Simon Teasdale Professor Public Policy, GSBS

Professor Frederike van Wijck

Professor Physiotherapy, SHLS

Kylie Fagan PhD Student GSBS Student representation (Research postgraduate)

Michael Stephenson President Students’ Association

Student representation (Undergraduate)


b) An account of the self assessment process: details of the self assessment team meetings, including any consultation with staff or individuals outside of the university, and how these have fed into the submission.

The self‐assessment process has been on‐going at GCU for several years and the SAT meets at least quarterly. Members also run staff and student consultations, and hold events promoting STEMM for women in schools and colleges. Following our last submission Professor Simon Teasdale (Glasgow School for Business and Society) and Elizabeth Reather (Executive Support) were seconded to the SAT to review existing data sources, gather a more complete picture of gender inequalities and perceptions thereof, and assist with this submission.

Data collected and analysed for this report include staff surveys conducted in 2011 and 2014; the equality and diversity report commissioned from the consultants undertaking the 2014 staff survey; HR data from 2011/2012 to 2014/15; focus groups conducted by external consultants with academic staff in 2014/15; and semi‐structured interviews conducted between members of the SAT and academic staff at all levels and across all departments of GCU in 2015/16.

Analysis of staff survey responses from 2011 and 2014 (Table 2.2) showed:

o a significant increase (from 69 to 76%) agreeing that GCU is committed to equality of opportunity for all staff.

o high levels of awareness of policies on Equality and Diversity (around 90%)

o 78% of respondents felt the University acts fairly, “regardless of ethnic background, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or age” with regard to promotion.

o no significant differences between women and men’s responses to any of the questions.

Quantitative data provided in Section 3b demonstrate that GCU compares well against the sector, particularly regarding gender pay gaps. While not unique to GCU, there are particular issues we aim to address concerning under‐representation of women, at all levels, in the School of Engineering and Built Environment (SEBE), and within higher occupational grades in the School of Health and Life Sciences (SHLS).

Our Action Plan sets out how we intend to target these broad issues. The following qualitative issues identified through consultations at different stages of the self‐assessment process are helping us support the cultural change needed to achieve gender equality through our policies and procedures.

o Lower levels of awareness of Athena SWAN and gender equality issues than we would like

o Local variation in awareness and implementation of some key policies

A consultation session was held in May 2015, attended by a cross section of staff from various schools and grades. Group discussions and anonymous voting and commenting were used to develop understanding of continuing issues. These included: fairness and transparency of the academic promotions process1, and career development. These are discussed in Section 4.1.

Additional issues identified by the SAT, and incorporated into our Action Plan, include:

1 It should be noted here that women are proportionately more likely to be successful at GCU when applying for jobs and promotion.


o More consistency required in interpreting and applying flexible/ part‐time working arrangements across the University

o A more proactive approach required in reaching out to under‐represented groups in recruitment campaigns

As well as leading the self‐assessment process, the SAT has taken responsibility for promoting a culture of gender equality across GCU, including initiating and leading events outlined in Section 4.

External critical appraisal has been invited from Equate Scotland, members of the Athena SWAN Scottish Network, and individual contacts in Universities that have achieved the Athena SWAN awards. Two members of the SAT have attended Athena SWAN panels as observers, to gain an insight into best practice and the assessment process. Three GCU members of staff have volunteered as Athena SWAN panellists.

Table 2.2: Responses to Staff Survey Equality and Diversity statements

Staff survey statement

Respondents who answered “agree or tend to agree” 2011[1]

Respondents who answered “agree or tend to agree” 2014[2]

I believe the University is committed to equality of opportunity for all of its staff 69% 76%*

I am aware of the University’s policies on Equality and Diversity 88% 92%*

I am satisfied with my level of awareness of diversity issues and how to engage appropriately with colleagues 91% 93%

I feel the University acts fairly, regardless of ethnic background, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or age with regard to:

∙ Recruitment 86% 88%

∙ Career progression/promotion 73% 78%*

The University respects people regardless of their:

∙ Age 89% 88%

∙ Disability status 95% 96%

∙ Ethnicity 95% 95%

∙ Gender identity n/a 96%

∙ Martial/civil partnership status n/a 97%

∙ Pregnancy or maternity n/a 95%

∙ Religion or belief 97% 97%

∙ Sex 92% 92%

∙ Sexual orientation 96% 97%

[1] 46% response rate in 2011; [2] 66% response rate in 2014 * Significant at p<0.05

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


The SAT now has a University‐wide remit. It continues to meet quarterly, reporting as a sub‐group of the Equality and Diversity Committee, which in turn reports directly to the University Court, and to Senate. Underlining the high‐level commitment to the goals expressed in our Action Plan (whether or not this submission is successful), the SAT also reports directly to the Executive Board.

The SAT is responsible for coordinating the actions laid out in the Action Plan, monitoring and evaluating progress, learning from successes and failures at other institutions, developing and piloting new approaches to addressing gender equality at GCU, publicising more widely the work of the University in this area, and assisting School submissions to Athena SWAN.

Over the next few months the SAT will work with the nine GCU Equality Champions to develop School SATs, responsible for driving these submissions. The School SATs will report to their School Senior Management Groups, and to the GCU SAT.

(986 words)

ACTION PLAN A1.1, 4.8: Support departmental Athena Swan applications and set targets for achievement of Silver awards; monitor implementation of the Athena Swan action plan, reporting to Equality & Diversity Committee and Executive Board.


3. Description of the university a) Provide a summary of the university, including information on its teaching, and its

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

(i) List of SET departments

(ii) Total number of university departments

(iii) Percentage of SET departments as a proportion of all university departments

Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU) was originally founded in 1875 and instituted as a University in 1993. The University is not aligned to any of the mission groups.

The University comprises three academic Schools2: the School of Engineering and Built Environment (SEBE); Glasgow School for Business and Society (GSBS); and the School of Health and Life Sciences (SHLS). Each school has three departments. Six of the nine (67%) departments are STEMM focused (Table 3.1).

In 2014/15 we welcomed 15,667 students to the University, 63% in STEMM subjects. Of these STEMM students, 56% were women (Table 3.2).

Research at GCU is strategically focussed on key areas of strength: inclusive societies, healthy lives and sustainable environments. This aligns with our success in REF 2014 where research, particularly in allied health professions, social work and social policy, and the built environment, was recognised as internationally excellent and world class.

2 GCU London was formally established as a (non‐STEMM) School in 2015/16. We do not include data for GCU London in this submission as it has not been in existence for a full academic year.


At GCU we usually ‘benchmark’ ourselves using different measures depending on the purpose. For ‘league table’ exercises we tend to benchmark against modern Universities in Scotland, or post‐92 institutions in the UK. While no two universities are the same, the particular subjects taught at GCU make benchmarking a challenge as regards STEMM. Whereas ‘Health’ Schools often tend to have low numbers of female academics, SHLS has a strong focus on Nursing and Life Sciences. This partly explains the high numbers of female academics (and students) at GCU in STEMM subjects.

As regards benchmarking, we considered attempting to construct a weighted index that reflected the subjects taught at GCU, but felt that that the subjective choices involved would require more explanation than this report has space for.

This report does provide ‘benchmark’ figures based on the averages for all universities, taken from the Equality Challenge Unit Equality in higher education: statistical report 2015 (and referred to here with reference to the table numbers in that report). While we are pleased that in almost all areas we perform better than the ‘benchmark’, we also have our own more challenging aspirations. We aspire to a situation where women’s representation at senior levels (Professors and on Senior Management Teams) accurately reflects the gender balance within the component parts of the institution, while also seeking to raise the numbers of women at all occupational levels in SEBE. As such the self‐critical tone of this report reflects these aspirations rather than our somewhat artificial position set against our peers.

Further points to note regarding benchmarking are that GCU does not employ staff on teaching only contracts. All academic contracts are teaching and research. This ‘artificially’ makes GCU look strong in some areas, but does impact negatively (on paper) as regards the proportion of academic staff eligible for, and submitted to REF 2014.

Table 3.1: GCU List of STEMM and Non‐STEMM Departments by School, February 2016

School Department Academic Staff

Support Staff Total

STEM

M departm

ents School of Health and Life Sciences (SHLS) 330 94 424

Nursing and Community Health 103 2 105

Psychology, Social Work and Allied Health Sciences 113 113

Life Sciences 70 1 71

School of Engineering and Built Environment (SEBE) 197 59 256

Construction and Surveying 68 68

Engineering 58 58

Computer, Communications and Interactive Systems 58 58

Non ‐STEM

M

departm

ents

Glasgow School for Business and Society (GSBS) 192 47 239

Law, Economics, Accountancy and Risk 58 58

Management 77 2 79

Social Sciences, Media and Journalism 46 1 47

Benchmarking: In 2013/14, 105,445 UK academic staff worked in STEMM subjects (Table 0.7). 88,800 worked in non‐STEMM subjects (Table 0.8). This equates to 54.3% working in STEMM subjects.


Table 3.2: GCU Student Numbers by School and Gender, 2014‐15 Academic Session

UG PGT PGR Total

All student numbers 13179 1899 489 15567

% Female 59 57 46 58

School of Health and Life Sciences Students (overall) 5548 951 125 6624

% Female 78 75 62 77

School of Engineering and Built Environment Students (overall) 3131 389 166 3686

% Female 21 20 22 21

STEMM students (overall) 8679 1340 291 10310

% Total number of students in STEMM (overall) 63 65 60 63

% Female students in STEMM 56 57 40 56

Glasgow School for Business and Society Students (overall) 4704 514 116 5334

% Female 65 53 54 64

Data based on 2014‐15 HESA Student Core data set and excluding module only students and College Connect. Student numbers are in headcount. All student numbers also include GCU LEAD and the Graduate School. STEMM: SHLS & SEBE combined.

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

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

In July 2015 56% of GCU academic staff were women (Table 3.3). In SEBE 23% of academics were women (Table 3.4) compared to 74% in SHLS (Table 3.5). Therefore we do not aggregate totals for STEMM subjects in this report, as this would conceal significant variations between the two STEMM schools.

Women and men tend to hold contrasting positions in the organisational hierarchy (Figure 3.3). Although women hold 56% of all academic positions, they tend to be more junior (Table 3.3). In July 2015, a third (25 of 75) of professorial staff (excluding those on Senior Management contracts3) were women. The increase since July 2012 was achieved through a combination of increased recruitment and promotion of women, but there remains scope for further progress. Over half of Professors on Senior Management Contracts were women in July 2015.

3 Professorial staff in senior management roles form a separate group in the GCU HR system due to contractual differences, and are therefore reported separately here.


ACTION PLAN A2.3 and A2.4: Continue to increase the representation of women at professorial level through improving the academic promotions process and encouraging women to apply for academic posts. Increase career development support to women through professional development, networking and mentoring provision.

Low numbers of women staff in SEBE (Table 3.4), and most notably the Department of Engineering (Table 3.6) where representation is below the benchmark of 19.4%, are concerning.

ACTION PLAN A2.2: Increase proportion of women in SEBE departments at all occupational levels through encouraging applications from women to academic positions; supporting women to apply for promotion; and ensure women are developed into SMG roles.

In July 2015 women in SEBE held three of 19 Professorial positions (Table 3.4). A much greater proportion of women in SEBE (3/42) were Professors compared to SHLS (14/232)4.

In July 2015, 39% of Professors in SHLS were women (Table 3.5). This represents an increase from 30% since July 2012, and GCU compares well against other Universities. However there is still considerable progress to be made before the proportion of women who are Professors reflects the gender balance of the School (74%).

Tables 3.7 to 3.12 show the distribution of academic staff within STEMM departments as of July

2015. Low numbers of female (or male) academic staff employed within some departments make

comparison of trends problematic. Women Professors appear overrepresented5 in the

Department of Computer, Communications and Interactive Systems but underrepresented in all

other STEMM departments. In three departments the proportion of female to male Professors is

less than half the proportion of female to male academic staff.

4 Percentages should be treated with caution due to relatively small numbers of staff (female or male), particularly in professorial positions 5 When compared with the gender breakdown of all academic staff

ACTION PLAN A2.3 and A4.3: Continue to increase the proportion of female Professors across STEMM areas, by setting and pursuing targets to increase the proportion of women applying for positions and promotions.

ACTION PLAN A2.2, A2.3 and A2.4: Increase the proportion of women academics in SEBE, and the proportions of women professors in the Departments of Engineering; Life Sciences; and Psychology, Social Work and Allied Life Sciences, by encouraging applications from women; supporting female academics to apply for promotion; and developing women into senior academic roles.


Table 3.3: GCU Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2012‐2015

Female Male All Benchmark

n % N % n % % Female

July 31 2012

All academic staff 393 55 320 45 713 100 Research Staff 42 75 14 25 56 100 Lecturers 222 60 145 40 367 100 Senior Lecturers 82 47 91 53 173 100 Readers 18 62 11 38 29 100 Professors 16 25 47 75 63 100

Professors ‐ Senior Management Contracts 13 52 12 48 25 100

July 31 2013



July 31 2014

All academic staff 406 56 324 44 730 100 44.6

Research Staff 48 81 11 19 59 100 50

Lecturers 216 59 152 41 368 100 47.6

Senior Lecturers 92 52 85 48 177 100 38.5

Readers 14 48 15 52 29 100 38.5

Professors 24 33 48 67 72 100 22.4

Professors ‐ Senior Management Contracts 12 48 13 52 25 100 ‐

July 31 2015



Benchmark: All academic staff in UK from Table 4.5. Academic grades mapped against UCEA / Xpert levels and benchmarked against data from Table 4.8.


Figure 3.3: GCU Distribution of Women Academic staff by Grade, 2012‐2015

75%

60%

47%

62%

25%

52%

78%

60%

47%

57%

33%

42%

81%

59%

52%

48%

33%

48%

75%

58%

57%

33%

34%

50%12

26

8

110

220

52

12

24

14

92

216

48

10

23

17

84

228

43

13

16

18

82

222

42

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors

Professors ‐ SM Contracts

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


2012

2013

2014

2015


Table 3.4: SEBE Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2012‐2015

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2012

All academic staff 40 22 141 78 181 100

Research Staff 6 40 9 60 15 100

Lecturers 25 26 73 74 98 100

Senior Lecturers 5 12 38 88 43 100

Readers 2 33 4 67 6 100

Professors 1 7 13 93 14 100


July 31 2013



Lecturers 24 22 83 78 107 100


Readers 2 33 4 67 6 100

Professors 2 13 13 87 15 100


July 31 2014



Lecturers 17 18 79 82 96 100


Readers 2 40 3 60 5 100

Professors 3 17 15 83 18 100


July 31 2015



Lecturers 19 22 69 78 88 100


Readers 2 33 4 67 6 100

Professors 3 16 16 84 19 100

Professors ‐ Senior Management Contracts ‐ ‐ 4 100 4 100

Benchmark: In STEMM subjects women constitute 18.5% of all Professors and 43.7% of all non‐Professorial Academic Staff (Table 4.17).


Figure 3.4: SEBE Distribution of Women Academic Staff by Grade, 2012‐2015

40%

26%

12%

33%

7%

20%

42%

22%

13%

33%

13%

20%

25%

18%

24%

40%

17%

25%

36%

22%

25%

33%

16%

0% 0

3

2

13

19

5

1

3

2

12

17

2

1

2

2

6

24

5

1

1

2

5

25

6

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


2012

2013

2014

2015

12


Table 3.5: SHLS Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2012‐2015

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2012



Lecturers 133 80 33 20 166 100


Readers 10 77 3 23 13 100

Professors 9 30 21 70 30 100


July 31 2013



Lecturers 137 80 35 20 172 100


Readers 10 71 4 29 14 100

Professors 11 37 19 63 30 100


July 31 2014



Lecturers 131 78 38 22 169 100


Readers 9 75 3 25 12 100

Professors 12 36 21 64 33 100


July 31 2015



Lecturers 130 75 43 25 173 100


Readers 3 50 3 50 6 100

Professors 13 39 20 61 33 100

Professors ‐ Senior Management Contracts 1 100 ‐ ‐ 1 100



Figure 3.5: SHLS Distribution of Women Academic Staff by Grade, 2012‐2015

88%

80%

68%

77%

30%

75%

88%

80%

69%

71%

37%

50%

95%

78%

74%

75%

36%

67%

97%

75%

78%

50%

39%

100%1

13

3

49

130

36

2

12

9

40

131

37

2

11

10

42

137

30

3

9

10

45

133

29

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


2012

2013

2014

2015


Table 3.6: STEMM Schools, Distribution of Academic Staff by Gender, 2012‐15

Female Male All Benchmark

n % n % n % female

July 31 2012

All academic staff 393 55 320 45 713 School of Health and Life Sciences 229 73 83 17 312 Department of Life Sciences 49 60 33 40 82

Department of Nursing and Community Health 70 78 20 22 90

Department of Psychology, Social Work and Allied Health Sciences 75 77 23 23 98 School of Engineering and Built Environment 40 22 141 78 181

Department of Computer, Communications and Interactive Systems 17 25 51 75 68 Department of Construction and Surveying 7 16 36 84 43

Department of Engineering 10 19 43 81 53 July 31 2013

All academic staff 405 55 337 45 742 School of Health and Life Sciences 232 74 83 26 315 Department of Life Sciences 49 62 30 38 79 Department of Nursing and Community Health 82 80 21 20 103



Department of Engineering 7 14 44 86 51 July 31 2014

All academic staff 406 56 324 44 730 40.8

School of Health and Life Sciences 231 75 79 25 310 Department of Life Sciences 51 65 27 35 78 43.9

Department of Nursing and Community Health 82 79 22 21 104 75.3

Department of Psychology, Social Work and Allied Health Sciences 77 82 17 18 94 59.6

School of Engineering and Built Environment 37 20 144 80 181

Department of Computer, Communications and Interactive Systems 15 23 51 77 66 22.2

Department of Construction and Surveying 10 29 40 80 50 20.6

Department of Engineering 6 13 41 87 47 19.4

July 31 2015

All academic staff 422 57 314 43 736 School of Health and Life Sciences 232 74 81 26 313 Department of Life Sciences 46 65 24 34 70 Department of Nursing and Community Health 87 86 14 14 101



Department of Engineering 6 12 45 88 51 Benchmark: In 2013/14 43,065 of 105,445 STEMM staff were women (Table 4.14). This equates to 40.8%. Table 3.6 shows GCU Departments mapped against SET Academic Subject areas from Table 4.15. Dept of Life Sciences = Biosciences; Department of Nursing and Community Health = Nursing and Allied Health; Department of Psychology, Social Work and Allied Health Sciences = Psychology and Behavioural sciences; Department of Computer, Communications and Interactive Systems = IT Systems Sciences; Department of Construction and Surveying = Civil Engineering; Department of Engineering = General Engineering.


Table 3.7: Department of Computer, Communications and Interactive Systems, Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2015

All academic staff 15 29 36 71 51 100 Research Staff ‐ ‐ 1 100 1 100 Lecturers 10 31 22 69 32 100 Senior Lecturers 3 25 9 75 12 100 Readers ‐ ‐ 1 100 1 100 Professors 2 40 3 60 5 100

Professors ‐ Senior Management Contracts ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Table 3.8: Department of Construction and Surveying, Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2015





Table 3.9: Department of Engineering, Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2015

All academic staff 6 12 45 88 51 100 Research Staff ‐ ‐ 2 100 2 100 Lecturers 3 11 24 89 27 100 Senior Lecturers 2 14 12 86 14 100 Readers 1 50 1 50 2 100 Professors ‐ ‐ 6 100 6 100



Table 3.10: Department of Life Sciences, Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2015

All academic staff 46 66 24 34 70 100 Research Staff 9 100 ‐ ‐ 9 100 Lecturers 25 74 9 26 34 100 Senior Lecturers 9 64 5 36 14 100 Readers 1 33 2 67 3 100 Professors 2 20 8 80 10 100




Table 3.11: Department of Nursing and Community Health, Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2015

All academic staff 87 86 14 14 101 100 Research Staff 17 100 ‐ ‐ 17 100 Lecturers 51 84 10 16 61 100 Senior Lecturers 14 88 2 13 16 100 Readers 2 100 ‐ ‐ 2 100 Professors 3 60 2 40 5 100



Table 3.12: Department of Psychology, Social Work and Allied Life Sciences, Distribution of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender

Female Male All

n % n % n %

July 31 2015

All academic staff 67 70 29 30 96 100 Research Staff 4 80 1 20 5 100 Lecturers 45 73 17 27 62 100 Senior Lecturers 15 75 5 25 20 100 Readers ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Professors 3 33 6 67 9 100




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

GCU has a relatively low turnover (11%) of academic staff (Table 3.13). Small numbers of leavers, and fluctuations between years, mean that the slight fall since 2011/12 should not be taken as indicative of a trend.

Turnover tends to be higher for women than men, and research staff have higher turnover rates. As the majority of research staff at GCU are women, in common with the HE sector more widely, this almost wholly accounts for the higher female turnover rate.

SEBE consistently had a female turnover rate around twice as high as that for males from 2011‐2014. The fall to 5% in 2014/15 is based on a very low number of leavers (Table 3.14).

ACTION PLAN A4.5: Given the difficulty reporting with confidence on trends within occupational levels, our Action Plan sets out measures to monitor and address reasons for high female staff turnover in SEBE.

In SHLS turnover rates were higher for women in each year other than 2013/14, particularly at Lecturer level (Table 3.15).

ACTION PLAN A4.5: Monitor and address reasons for higher female staff turnover, particularly among Lecturers, in SHLS.

Exit interviews are outsourced to an external company. Response rates are too low (only nine academic staff in STEMM Schools) to conduct analysis by gender.

ACTION PLAN A2.5 and A4.5: Undertake more detailed analysis by gender of exit interviews, and seek to improve response rates.

In 2014/15 the proportion of women leaving for ‘other reasons6’ was broadly consistent with gender balances within Schools (Table 3.16).

6 These include dismissal and redundancy, resignation and retirement.


Table 3.13: GCU Turnover of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2011/12‐2014/15

Average headcount Leavers Turnover (%)

Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total

2011/12

All academic staff 386 322 707 48 40 88 12 12 12

Research Staff 42 14 56 19 13 32 45 93 57

Lecturers 219 151 370 17 19 36 8 13 10

Senior Lecturers 78 87 166 8 3 11 10 3 7

Readers 19 11 31 1 1 2 5 9 7

Professors 15 47 61 3 4 7 20 9 1

Professors ‐ Senior Management Contracts

12 12 24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2012/13


Research Staff 42 13 55 16 4 20 38 31 36

Lecturers 224 148 372 19 6 25 8 4 7


Readers 17 12 30 1 ‐ 1 6 ‐ 3

Professors 21 48 70 2 3 5 9 6 7


11 13 24 2 1 3 19 8 13

2013/14


Research Staff 44 11 55 14 6 20 32 56 36

Lecturers 212 151 363 16 14 30 8 9 8


Readers 15 15 30 2 1 3 13 7 10

Professors 26 51 77 2 6 8 8 12 10


10 14 24 1 ‐ 1 10 ‐ 4

2014/15


Research Staff 51 13 64 18 4 22 35 32 35

Lecturers 213 144 357 24 14 38 11 10 11


Readers 10 16 26 2 ‐ 2 21 ‐ 8

Professors 25 50 75 2 3 5 8 6 7


11 11 22 1 1 2 9 9 9

Benchmark: In 2013/14 the proportion of UK academic staff 'leaving' was 16.8% (17.7% for women and 16% for men) (Table 4.25). Note: rows and columns may not sum accurately due to rounding errors in calculating average headcount.


Figure 3.13: GCU Turnover of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2011/12‐2014/15

45%

8%

10%

5%

20%

0%

38%

8%

1%

6%

9%

19%

32%

8%

6%

13%

8%

10%

35%

11%

1%

21%

8%

9%

93%

13%

3%

9%

9%

0%

31%

4%

5%

0%

6%

8%

56%

9%

13%

7%

12%

0%

32%

10%

8%

0%

6%

9%1

3

6

14

4

6

1

12

14

6

1

3

5

6

4

4

1

3

19

13

1

2

1

24

18

2

2

6

16

14

2

2

1

19

16

3

1

8

17

19

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15Female Male

1

26

14

14

1

11


Table 3.14: SEBE Turnover of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2011/12‐2014/15



2011/12


Research Staff 6 10 16 5 9 14 79 93 88

Lecturers 24 73 97 1 7 8 4 10 8


Readers 2 4 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Professors 1 13 14 ‐ 1 1 ‐ 8 7


1 4 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2012/13


Research Staff 6 9 15 4 2 6 63 23 40

Lecturers 24 77 101 2 1 3 8 1 3

Senior Lecturers 6 40 46 ‐ 4 4 ‐ 10 9

Readers 2 4 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Professors 2 13 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


1 4 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2013/14


Research Staff 3 6 9 2 4 6 67 71 69

Lecturers 18 80 98 5 6 11 28 8 11


Readers 2 3 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Professors 3 15 18 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


1 4 5 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2014/15


Research Staff 4 7 10 ‐ 2 2 ‐ 30 20

Lecturers 17 66 83 1 8 9 6 12 11


Readers 2 4 6 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Professors 3 15 19 1 ‐ 1 33 ‐ 5


‐ 4 4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Note: rows and columns may not sum accurately due to rounding errors in calculating average headcount.


Figure 3.14: SEBE Turnover of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2011/12‐2014/15

79%

4%

38%

0%

0%

0%

63%

8%

0%

0%

0%

0%

67%

28%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

6%

0%

0%

33%

0%

93%

10%

5%

0%

8%

0%

23%

1%

10%

0%

0%

0%

71%

8%

10%

0%

0%

0%

30%

12%

6%

0%

0%

0%

2

8

2

4

6

4

4

1

2

1

2

7

9

1

1

5

2

2

4

2

1

5

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

Female Male

26

14

14

1

2


Table 3.15: SHLS Turnover of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2011/12‐2014/15



2011/12


Research Staff 28 2 30 9 1 10 32 50 33

Lecturers 133 34 167 14 3 17 11 9 10

Senior Lecturers 43 21 64 4 ‐ 4 9 ‐ 6

Readers 11 3 14 1 ‐ 1 9 ‐ 7

Professors 8 22 30 ‐ 1 1 ‐ 5 3


3 ‐ 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2012/13


Research Staff 29 3 31 11 2 13 38 67 42

Lecturers 135 34 169 12 1 13 9 3 8


Readers 10 4 14 1 2 3 10 50 21

Professors 10 20 31 1 ‐ 1 10 ‐ 3


2 1 3 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2013/14


Research Staff 33 3 37 10 1 11 30 33 30

Lecturers 129 36 165 10 3 13 8 8 8


Readers 9 3 13 1 1 2 11 30 16

Professors 12 22 34 ‐ 3 3 ‐ 13 9


1 1 3 1 ‐ 1 100 ‐ 38

2014/15


Research Staff 39 1 41 14 1 15 36 100 37

Lecturers 131 40 170 15 3 18 11 8 11


Readers 5 3 8 2 ‐ 2 43 ‐ 26

Professors 14 21 34 1 3 4 7 15 12


2 1 2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Note: rows and columns may not sum accurately due to rounding errors in calculating average headcount.


Figure 3.15: SHLS Turnover of Academic Staff by Grade and Gender, 2011/12‐2014/15

32%

11%

9%

9%

0

0

38%

9%

2%

10%

10%

0

30%

8%

7%

11%

0

100%

36%

11%

2%

43%

7%

0

50%

9%

0

0

5%

0

67%

3%

5%

50%

0

0

33%

8%

13%

30%

13%

0

100%

8%

7%

15%

0

3

1

3

1

3

1

2

3

1

2

1

1

2

1

3

1

1

2

1

15

14

1

1

3

10

10

1

1

1

12

11

1

4

14

9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors

Professors ‐ SMContracts

Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors


Research Staff

Lecturers

Senior Lecturers

Readers

Professors

Professors ‐ SMContracts

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

Female Male

26

14

14

1

13


Table 3.16: GCU Fixed‐term Contracts v Other Reasons for Leaving, 2011/12‐2014/15

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015

Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

GCU

End of Contract 10 10 17 4 10 9 29 13

Other reasons 38 30 24 15 31 30 19 15

Total 48 40 41 19 41 39 48 28

SEBE

End of Contract 2 7 5 2 2 2 1 8

Other reasons 6 12 1 5 5 12 1 4

Total 8 19 6 7 7 14 2 12

SHLS

End of Contract 6 ‐ 9 1 5 ‐ 20 2

Other reasons 22 5 17 5 20 10 13 6

Total 28 5 26 6 25 10 33 8


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

13% of academic staff were employed on fixed term contracts in July 2015. Women held around two thirds of these posts (Table 3.17). Further analysis by grade point7 found that men were more likely than women to take up fixed term (and often fractional) Professorial appointments. Women were more likely than men to take up researcher positions.

ACTION PLAN A2.3: Monitor and address gender imbalances in high profile fractional professorial appointments.

The proportion of women in fixed‐term posts rose from 10% to 14% between 2012‐15 (Table 3.17). This increase occurred mainly among research staff outside of our STEMM Schools.

Women on research contracts (29%) were more likely than men (6%) to hold a permanent contract (Table 3.17). The proportion of other academic staff on fixed term contracts is similar for men (6%) and women (7%).

ACTION PLAN A2.1 and A4.4: Monitor the gender balance of fixed term staff, particularly research staff on academic contracts, and provide unconscious bias training to all academic staff winning research grants which lead to the appointment of new staff.

Proportions of women employed on fixed term contracts fell in SEBE (Table 3.18), and SHLS from 2012‐15 (Table 3.19), however small numbers make identification of trends difficult.

Further data collected in 2015 (Table 3.20) show that women were more likely than men to transfer from a fixed term contract to a permanent post.

ACTION PLAN A2.6: Implement new processes to ensure all staffing applications are considered by a resourcing group, with the rationale for fixed term contracts normally only supported where the post is time limited by the project and/or funding.

7 Not reported here due to space limitations.


Table 3.17: GCU Proportion of Men and Women in Fixed‐term Posts, 2012‐15

July 31 2012 July 31 2013 July 31 2014 July 31 2015


All Academic Staff

Fixed‐term 41 26 45 25 50 19 61 33

Permanent 352 294 360 312 356 305 367 302

Total 393 320 405 337 406 324 428 314

% on Fixed‐term contract 10 8 11 7 12 6 14 10

Research Staff

Fixed‐term 25 13 27 10 34 10 36 16

Permanent 17 1 16 2 14 1 16 1

Total 42 14 43 12 48 11 52 17


Other Academic Staff

Fixed‐term 16 13 18 15 16 9 25 17

Permanent 335 293 344 310 342 304 351 301

Total 351 306 362 325 358 313 376 318


Benchmark: In 2013/14, 27.9% of female academic staff in the UK were on fixed‐term contracts (Table 4.5).

Figure 3.17: GCU Proportion of Men and Women on Fixed‐term posts, 2012‐15

10% 11% 12% 14%

60%63%

71% 71%

5% 5% 4%7%8% 7% 6%

10%

93%

83%

91%94%

4% 5% 3%6%

41 45 50 61 25 27 34 36 16 18 16 2526 25 19 33 13 10 10 16 13 15 9 170%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015

All Academics Research Other Academic Staff

Female Male


Table 3.18: SEBE Proportion of Men and Women in Fixed‐term Posts, 2012‐15



All Academic Staff

Fixed‐term 6 11 3 11 3 7 5 8

Permanent 34 130 37 141 34 137 37 134

Total 40 141 40 152 37 144 42 142


Research Staff

Fixed‐term 4 8 2 5 2 5 5 8

Permanent 2 1 3 2 ‐ 1 ‐ 1

Total 6 9 5 7 2 6 5 9



Fixed‐term 2 3 1 6 1 2 ‐ ‐

Permanent 32 129 34 139 34 136 37 133

Total 34 132 35 145 35 138 37 133

% on Fixed‐term contract 6 2 3 4 3 1 ‐ ‐

Figure 3.18: SEBE Proportion of Men and Women on Fixed‐term posts, 2012‐15

15%

8% 8%12%

67%

40%

100% 100%

6%3% 3%

0%

8% 7%5% 6%

89%

71%

83%

88%

2% 4% 1%0%6 3 3 5 4 2 2 5 2 1 111 11 7 8 8 5 5 8 3 6 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015


Female Male


Table 3.19: SHLS Proportion of Men and Women in Fixed‐term Posts, 2012‐15



All Academic Staff

Fixed‐term 29 7 33 7 35 8 33 8

Permanent 200 76 199 76 196 71 199 73

Total 229 83 232 83 231 79 232 81


Research Staff

Fixed‐term 19 4 21 4 26 2 24 1

Permanent 10 ‐ 9 ‐ 11 ‐ 12 ‐

Total 29 4 30 4 37 2 36 1



Fixed‐term 10 3 12 3 8 6 9 7

Permanent 190 76 190 76 185 71 187 73

Total 200 79 202 79 193 77 196 80


Figure 3.19: SHLS Proportion of Men and Women on Fixed‐term posts, 2012‐15

15% 14% 15% 14%

66%70% 70%

67%

5% 6%4% 5%

8% 8%10% 10%

100% 100% 100% 100%

4% 4%8% 9%

29 33 35 33 19 21 26 24 10 12 8 97 7 8 8 4 4 2 1 3 3 6 70%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015

July 312012

July 312013

July 312014

July 312015


Female Male


Table 3.20: Analysis of Fixed‐term Staff Moving into Paid Positions, 2011/12‐2013/14

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014


Fixed‐term 40 28 68 45 28 73 50 22 72

Became permanent 3 2 6 9 3 12 9 4 13

% became permanent 7.5 7.1 7.4 20 10.7 16.4 18 18 18

Fixed‐term staff (primary appointments only)

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

Our most recent pay audit analysed basic pay only for twenty‐eight staff categories up to Executive level and found three with a pay gap greater than 5% (Table 3.21). Two of the pay gaps were in favour of women, and one was in favour of men. In each category there were very low numbers.

To provide current data for this report we undertook an internal review of gender pay gaps by grade in December 2015 (Table 3.22‐3.248). Findings are discussed in Section 5.1.

ACTION PLAN A4.1: Continue to monitor gender pay gaps and conduct regular equal pay reviews.

Table 3.21: Gender Pay Gaps Greater than 5% from 2014 Equal Pay Audit

Grade Female Male

Female average basic pay (£)

Male average basic pay (£)

Female as % of male pay

Pay gap

Academic, Research, Enterprise 5 9 2 28,341 26,923 105.27 ‐5.27

Campus Services 5 1 5 25,763 29,837 86.35 13.65

Technical Services 7 1 1 41,242 38,907 106 ‐6

8 To avoid revealing information which could identify individuals’ age and pay, data at School level is given only for ‘all academic staff’, although analysis by grade was carried out.


Table 3.22: GCU Gender Pay Gaps by Grade, 2012‐2015

Grades

Female Male Total

Gender Pay Gap

n Mean FTE Salary (£)

Mean Age n

Mean FTE Salary (£)

Mean Age n

Mean FTE Salary (£)

Mean Age (%)

July 31 2012

All Academic Staff 393 46,301 46 320 50,049 49 713 47,984 47 7.5

Grade 4 Researcher 1 19,500 28 6 20,083 31 7 20,000 31 2.9

Grade 5 Researcher 17 27,611 37 3 25,502 27 20 27,294 36 ‐8.3


Lecturers 222 43,130 46 145 42,897 47 367 43,038 47 ‐0.5

Senior Lecturers 82 50,732 47 91 52,428 52 173 51,624 50 3.2

Readers 18 53,030 48 11 52,174 50 29 52,705 49 ‐1.6

Professors 16 63,924 50 47 64,984 55 63 64,715 54 1.6

Professors – SMC 13 92,166 53 12 86,643 51 25 89,515 52 ‐6.4

July 31 2013





Lecturers 228 43,669 46 155 43,638 47 383 43,656 46 ‐0.1


Readers 17 54,024 50 13 52,999 50 30 53,580 50 ‐1.9

Professors 23 65,445 49 47 66,588 56 70 66,212 54 1.7

Professors – SMC 10 105,675 55 14 86,035 52 24 94,219 53 ‐22.8

July 31 2014




Grade 6 Researcher 36 33,839 38 4 35,234 39 40 33,978 38 4

Lecturers 216 44,059 47 152 43,982 47 368 44,027 47 ‐0.2

Senior Lecturers 92 51,789 49 85 52,856 52 177 52,301 51 2

Readers 14 54,583 52 15 53,303 47 29 53,921 49 ‐2.4

Professors 24 66,879 50 48 68,677 57 72 68,077 54 2.6

Professors – SMC 12 99,436 54 13 85,544 52 25 92,212 53 ‐16.2

July 31 2015


Grade 4 Researcher ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 24,917 34 3 24,917 34 ‐



Lecturers 220 44,700 47 157 44,598 47 377 44,657 47 ‐0.2


Readers 8 55,117 52 16 54,501 48 24 54,706 49 ‐1.1

Professors 26 68,980 49 51 70,620 56 77 70,066 54 2.3

Professors – SMC 12 105,356 55 12 90,976 54 24 98,166 54 ‐15.8

Benchmarking: In 2013/14 the Mean Gender Pay Gap for all academic staff in the UK was 12.6% (Table 4.22). The Mean Gender Pay Gap for professors was 6.1%. The Mean Gender Pay Gap for Non‐Professors was 6.6%. It should be noted that within‐grade comparisons will produce smaller gender pay gaps as this compares (for example) male Lecturers with Female Lecturers.


Table 3.23: SEBE Gender Pay Gaps, 2012‐2015

All academic staff Female Male

Female mean FTE Salary (£)

Male mean FTE Salary (£)


Pay Gap (%)

Mean age, Female

Mean age, Male

July 31 2012 40 141 42,726 47,137 90.6 9.4 43 49

July 31 2013 40 152 45,038 47,844 94.1 5.9 45 49

July 31 2014 37 144 47,738 48,591 98.2 1.8 47 49

July 31 2015 42 142 47,447 50,383 94.2 5.8 46 50

Table 3.24: SHLS Gender Pay Gaps 2012‐2015

All academic staff Female Male

Female mean FTE Salary (£)

Male mean FTE Salary (£)


Pay Gap (%)

Mean age, Female

Mean age, Male

July 31 2012 229 83 44,910 50,528 88.9 11.1 46 50

July 31 2013 232 83 45,700 52,047 87.8 12.2 46 50

July 31 2014 231 79 45,748 53,414 85.6 14.4 46 50

July 31 2015 232 81 46,550 53,616 86.8 13.2 46 49


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

254 academic staff were eligible for submission to REF 2014, 41% were women. 161 staff were returned, of whom 36% were women (Table 3.25). These proportions were mirrored in STEMM subjects as a whole, although there were differences between our STEMM Schools. The difference in proportions of women and men selected from the eligible pool was not statistically significant, but the proportion of staff returned was not representative of the overall gender balance of academic staff.

Table 3.25: GCU REF 2014 Return by Gender and School

Eligible for submission

Returned in submission

Number % Number %

Female – GCU 105 41 58 36

Male – GCU 149 59 103 64

Female – STEMM only 67 40 37 36

Male – STEMM only 102 60 65 64

Female – SHLS 52 57 28 55

Male ‐ SHLS 39 43 23 45

Female‐ SEBE 15 19 9 18

Male‐ SEBE 63 81 42 82 SHLS academics were all submitted to UOA3 (Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy). SEBE academics were submitted to UOAs 11(Computer Science and Informatics), 15 (General Engineering), and 16 (Architecture, Built Environment and Planning).

(980 words)

ACTION PLAN A3.6: Take measures to ensure more women are eligible for inclusion in the next REF, by supporting women’s’ research careers and the recruitment of women to senior positions.


4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers

4.1 Key career transition points

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

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

Data for academic staff job applications and appointment success rates are provided in Table 4.1‐4.3. Data are provided for each full calendar year (Jan 1 – Dec 31) and were captured from equality monitoring forms provided to each applicant. However not all applicants complete these forms, and the data held by the University relies upon the manual transfer from forms to electronic systems. As a consequence, non‐response rates appear high, particularly within GSBS, our non‐STEMM School.

ACTION A4.2 Monitor and regularly report on gender balance of job applicants and success rates. In August 2015 the University moved to a fully electronic system. This will facilitate more accurate data collection and monitoring.

Men and women applied for posts in relatively equal measures over the period 2011‐2014, although there were considerable annual fluctuations (Table 4.1). In each year a higher proportion of women, than men, who applied for posts were interviewed. In 2014 39% of women were invited for interview, compared to 24% of men. In each year a higher proportion of women, than men, invited to interview were successful. In 2014 32% of women invited to interview were recruited, compared to 21% of men (Table 4.1).

Within SEBE low numbers of female applicants make it difficult to identify trends (Table 4.2). The low female:male ratio of academic staff job applications within this school give rise for concern.

ACTION PLAN A2.2: Increase the proportion of job applications from women for posts in SEBE, by including tailored statements in recruitment materials to encourage women to apply, encouraging existing staff to promote opportunities to women in their professional networks, and offering external applicants experience of the School environment.

In SHLS the majority of job applicants were women. Women were two to three times as likely as men to be invited for interview. In 2014, 42% of women were invited for interview, compared to 17% of men. A higher proportion of women than men who are invited for interview are appointed (Table 4.3).


Table 4.1: GCU Appointments by Gender, 2011‐14

Applicants

Year Female Male Not Known Total

N. % of Total N. % of Total N. % of Total N.

2011 212 40 240 45 83 16 535

2012 271 30 475 53 154 17 900

2013 373 48 330 42 80 10 783

2014 216 39 161 29 176 32 553

Invited to Interview

N. % of

Applicants N.

% of Applicants

N. % of

ApplicantsN.

% of Applicants

2011 50 24 46 19 18 22 114 21

2012 82 30 87 18 20 13 189 21

2013 129 35 89 27 26 33 244 31

2014 85 39 39 24 59 34 183 33

Appointed

N. % of


N. % of


N. % of


N. % of


2011 17 34 10 22 ‐ ‐ 27 24

2012 26 32 24 28 ‐ ‐ 50 26

2013 28 22 13 15 ‐ ‐ 41 17

2014 27 32 8 21 ‐ ‐ 36 20

Totals are for full calendar years


Table 4.2: SEBE Appointments by Gender, 2011‐14

Applicants

Year Female Male Not Known Total


2011 40 28 99 70 2 1 141

2012 26 13 172 84 6 3 204

2013 12 14 76 86 ‐ ‐ 88

2014 7 23 12 39 12 39 31


N. % of

ApplicantsN.

% of Applicants

N.% of

ApplicantsN.

% of Applicants

2011 1 3 2 2 ‐ ‐ 3 2

2012 10 38 36 21 ‐ ‐ 46 23

2013 2 17 29 38 ‐ ‐ 31 35

2014 2 29 4 33 3 25 9 29

Appointed

N. % of


N. % of


N.% of


N. % of


2011 1 100 2 100 ‐ ‐ 3 100

2012 1 10 9 25 ‐ ‐ 10 22

2013 ‐ ‐ 3 10 ‐ ‐ 3 10

2014 1 50 2 50 ‐ ‐ 3 33



Table 4.3: SHLS Appointments by Gender, 2011‐14

Applicants

Year

Female Male Not Known Total


2011 77 72 29 27 1 1 107

2012 90 68 43 32 ‐ ‐ 133

2013 137 65 73 35 ‐ ‐ 210

2014 130 50 60 23 68 26 258


N. % of

ApplicantsN.

% of Applicants

N.% of

ApplicantsN.

% of Applicants

2011 23 30 3 10 ‐ ‐ 26 24

2012 35 39 9 21 ‐ ‐ 44 33

2013 59 43 17 23 ‐ ‐ 76 36

2014 55 42 10 17 29 43 94 36

Appointed

N. % of


N. % of


N.% of


N. % of


2011 8 35 2 67 ‐ ‐ 10 38

2012 9 26 1 11 ‐ ‐ 10 23

2013 13 22 2 12 ‐ ‐ 15 20

2014 18 33 2 20 ‐ ‐ 20 21



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

Women have consistently outperformed men in promotion applications since 2012/13 (Table 4.4), reflecting measures taken to promote gender equality at GCU, and to create a fair and transparent promotions process.

Within SEBE women have consistently outperformed men in all years apart from the most recent year (Table 4.5). However there are very low numbers of women applicants. Within SHLS the picture is mixed (Table 4.6) although here it should be noted that the very small number of male applicants make comparisons difficult.

In 2014/15 6% of female academic staff applied for promotion, compared to 8% of male academic staff. The reluctance of women to apply for promotion appears more acute at higher occupational levels. In 2014/15, 12 men applied for promotion to Reader or Professor compared to eight women (Table 4.4). The numbers of male applicants in SHLS (and women in SEBE) are too low to enable a similar analysis by School.

On‐going engagement with staff has identified that some women have not felt ready, supported or confident in both career development and applying for promotion9. Additionally our 2014 staff survey highlighted that respondents were less confident about the University acting “fairly, regardless of ethnic background, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or age” with regard to career progression / promotion (78% agreed) than with regard to recruitment (88% agreed)10.

ACTION PLAN A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4 and A4.3: Our Action Plan thus focuses on measures to ensure women in STEMM are encouraged to apply for promotion earlier, particularly at Senior Lecturer / Reader / Professor level in SHLS and all levels in SEBE; clear communication to all staff of our gender neutral approach to career development and promotion, in part through the publication of this report and highlighting the relative success of women compared to men; increasing the provision of career development support for women with potential for promotion, including professional development opportunities such as Aurora, and support to raise their profile and join external networks; and provision of unconscious bias training for all promotion panel members.

9 This is consistent with academic literature suggesting that, ceteris paribus, women are less likely than men to apply for promotion. See Bilimoria, F., and Lord, L. (2014). (Eds.) Women in STEM Careers: International Perspectives on Increasing Work Force Participation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; and Morley, L. (2014). Lost Leaders: Women in the Global Academy, Higher Education Research & Development, 33(1): 114‐128.

10 Note that it is not clear from the phrasing of the question whether respondents felt career progression was skewed in favour of, or against, women (or indeed whether sex was one of the protected characteristics that influenced the less positive response to this question).


Table 4.4: GCU Academic Promotions by Gender, 2010/11‐2014/15

Role Applied For

Female Male

Total Applications

Successful Applications

Total Applications


2010/11

All academic staff 47 23 34 16

Researcher 1a ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Senior Research Fellow 3 3 2 2

Lecturer 2 2 1 1

Senior Lecturer 28 10 21 7

Reader 3 1 6 4

Professor 11 7 4 2

2011/12



Senior Research Fellow 1 1 ‐ ‐

Lecturer 1 1 1 1


Reader 1 1 1 1

Professor 6 3 2 2

2012/13


Researcher 1a 3 3 ‐ ‐


Lecturer 1 1 3 1


Reader 1 1 8 6

Professor 7 6 6 4

2013/14




Lecturer 2 2 ‐ ‐


Reader 1 1 4 2

Professor 3 3 7 5

2014/15




Lecturer ‐ ‐ 1 1


Reader 3 2 4 2

Professor 5 3 8 4


Figure 4.4: GCU Successful Academic Promotions by Gender: 2010/11‐2014/15

100%

100%

36%

33%

64%

100%

100%

56%

100%

50%

100%

50%

100%

70%

100%

86%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

77%

67%

60%

100%

100%

33%

67%

50%

100%

50%

100%

100%

33%

46%

75%

67%

63%

50%

71%

100%

82%

50%

50%4

2

9

1

5

2

5

4

6

6

1

2

1

4

1

2

4

7

1

2

3

2

10

1

3

1

10

2

1

6

1

16

1

1

3

3

1

5

1

1

7

1

10

2

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Researcher 1a

Senior Research Fellow

Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

Female Male


Table 4.5: SEBE Academic Promotions by Gender, 2010/11‐2014/15

Role Applied For

Female Male

Total Applications


Total Applications


2010/11



Senior Research Fellow ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐



Reader ‐ ‐ 4 4

Professor 2 1 2 1

2011/12






Reader ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Professor 1 1 ‐ ‐

2012/13




Lecturer 1 1 3 1


Reader ‐ ‐ 1 1

Professor 2 1 2 2

2013/14




Lecturer ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐


Reader ‐ ‐ 1 1

Professor ‐ ‐ 3 2

2014/15






Reader ‐ ‐ 2 1

Professor 2 0 4 2


Figure 4.5: SEBE Successful Academic Promotions by Gender: 2010/11‐2014/15

100%

50%

100%

100%

100%

83%

50%

100%

100%

0%

100%

14%

100%

50%

100%

100%

33%

75%

100%

100%

80%

100%

67%

100%

83%

50%

50%2

1

5

1

2

1

4

2

1

3

1

2

1

1

4

1

1

0

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

2

1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

Female Male


Table 4.6: SHLS Academic Promotions by Gender, 2010/11‐2014/15

Role Applied For

Female Male

Total Applications


Total Applications


2010/11



Senior Research Fellow 3 3 2 2



Reader 1 0 1 0


2011/12





Senior Lecturer 4 0 ‐ ‐

Reader ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Professor 3 1 1 1

2012/13


Researcher 1a 1 1 ‐ ‐

Senior Research Fellow 2 1 ‐ 0



Reader 1 1 2 1

Professor 2 2 3 2

2013/14






Reader ‐ ‐ 2 1

Professor 2 2 1 1

2014/15






Reader 1 1 1 1



Figure 4.6: SHLS Successful Academic Promotions by Gender: 2010/11‐2014/15

100%

100%

22%

0%

50%

100%

0%

33%

100%

50%

43%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

78%

100%

100%

100%

33%

0%

100%

0%

50%

67%

100%

50%

100%

100%

100%1

2

1

1

1

2

1

0

0

1

0

1

2

1

1

7

1

2

3

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

4

2

3

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

Researcher 1a


Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Professor

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

Female Male


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

GCU has introduced University‐wide frameworks to address local variation in management practice and support women’s career progression during key transition stages, while allowing discretion for Schools and Departments to address specific challenges in their areas. All three Schools adhere to the policies outlined in Table 4.15 and described in the following sections. Rather than provide support specifically to women (which may result in gender equality being marginalised as a women’s issue11), we have tried to address issues highlighted in the self‐assessment process through the overall policy framework. All university policies are available online to staff and students, and changes and updates are communicated to all staff via the newsletter.

ACTION PLAN A3.7: Promote GCU as an employer with a strong culture of supporting individuals and families through consistent statements on gender, cultural diversity and flexible working.

To ensure these policies are effectively implemented, all line managers must complete a 4‐day ‘People Passport’ development programme. This programme introduces People Management and Leadership Accountabilities, and provides specific training on Equality and Diversity; recruitment, selection and induction procedures; and career development tools. The Equality and Diversity module includes an outline of the Equality Act 2010; protected characteristics and how to recognise discrimination, harassment and victimisation; the relevant University policies and procedures; and introduces the network of local Equality Champions working with SMGs on local action plans.

During the early stages of the self‐assessment process, consultations with staff highlighted variability in local orientation and line management. In response, a new role of Assistant Head of Department (AHoD) was introduced in 2014, with responsibility for line management of academic staff. Regular University‐wide workshops for this cohort of managers are led by the Deputy Vice‐Chancellor to improve the reliability of leadership and management and to enable managers to share learning. From an institutional perspective the AHoDs represent a ‘talent’ pool within which people can be prepared for future Senior Management roles12.

Recruitment and selection

Our 2014 staff survey found that 89% of men and women felt that “the University acts fairly,

regardless of ethnic background, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability or agewith regard to recruitment.”

11 European Commission. (2011). Structural Change in Research Institutions: Enhancing Excellence, Gender Equality and Efficiency in Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.

12 In March 2016, 18 of the 32 AHoDs at GCU were women, broadly representing the gender balance of academic staff across GCU. Within SEBE four of 13 AHoDs were female. Within SHLS 10 of 11 AHoDs were women. Thus in both STEM Schools women are over‐represented as AHoDs, when compared with the overall distribution of academic staff (shown previously in Tables 3.4 and 3.5).


A standard template for job specifications has been designed by People Services and is shared with hiring managers to ensure consistency, and all job specifications are reviewed by People Services prior to publication. Given the need to attract more female applicants to certain posts, some Departments, particularly within SEBE, tailor advertisements to reflect the need to attract applications from women.

ACTION PLAN A2.2: Include consistent statements on gender, cultural diversity and flexible working in GCU staff recruitment materials, with flexibility to tailor materials to reflect local needs.

Search methods vary locally, supported by People Services. People Services has recently begun using an online public‐sector recruitment site. This reduces the level of manual input required, and allows us to accurately capture monitoring data.

To reduce the risk of bias effecting recruitment, a cross‐section of staff (including the Senior Management Group in SEBE and People Services teams) participated in a pilot programme of face‐to‐face unconscious bias training workshops. Following positive evaluation of this pilot, unconscious bias training will be made available to all academic staff in 2016.

ACTION PLAN A2.1: Improve consistency in recruitment processes by requiring all panel members to complete formal training, including unconscious bias awareness.

Induction

The University provides an induction programme for all new staff, alongside local orientation organised by Schools and Departments. University induction, introduced by a member of the University Executive, outlines GCU’s strategic mission, goals and values. The programme emphasises GCU’s commitment to equality, and signposts staff to key policies and information including career development and promotion. All new staff complete a suite of mandatory e‐learning programmes, including an Equality and Diversity e‐learning module (approx. 1 hour).

Promotion

The Academic and Research Promotions process provides a transparent and equitable method of ensuring that contributions to the University are appropriately recognised. Criteria are reviewed annually to ensure strategic alignment. Concerns were raised during the self‐assessment process that feedback could be inconsistent, and a standard feedback template was introduced in 2014. A more tailored application form was introduced in 2015, cross‐referencing the application with the GCU Career Pathways framework and Career Review Survey tools, which are promoted to all staff.

Promotions criteria include core behavioural elements, along with evidence of excellence in two or more of Research; Learning & Teaching; Knowledge Transfer & Income Generation; Administration & Management; Community Engagement & Outreach. These requirements place equal weight on Research and Learning & Teaching, and set out clear career pathways for promotion for those academic staff focusing on the teaching and management pathways where women tend to be over‐represented. Detailed guidance on the criteria and process is published online and sent to all academic staff at the start of the promotions process, along with comprehensive information on preparing for promotion.

ACTION PLAN A2.1, A2.2, A2.3: Set targets to increase the proportion of women applying for promotion; provide unconscious bias training for all members of Promotions Panels.


As part of the academic promotions assessment process, the chair of the panel identifies where additional mentoring might be helpful and this is included in the specific feedback to candidates.

4.2 Career development

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

In the 2014 staff survey, 65% of staff were satisfied with their learning and development opportunities and 68% believed they were given the same opportunities to develop as other staff. There were no significant differences in responses from men and women.

The main mechanism for individuals’ discussion of performance and career development is Performance and Development Annual Review (PDAR), required for all employees at least annually. PDAR was reviewed in 2014, in consultation with Trade Union representatives and members of the SAT. Following this, PDAR was explicitly linked to an online GCU Career Guide tool that helps staff to understand their career options and have a useful personal and professional development conversation with their line manager. All line managers are specifically trained in equality and diversity, and the use of the Career Guide tool.

GCU provides career development support for women through the Aurora women‐only leadership initiative. Participation is promoted via the University’s Senior Management Forum and all staff communication channels, and managers are encouraged to identify and support potential participants. We have supported 40 participants through the Aurora programme to date, 18 from STEMM areas (Table 4.7). Unsuccessful Aurora applicants are encouraged to access other development resources including 1:1 career coaching sessions, mentoring, GCU’s management development programme ‘People Passport’, and other tools and workshops through the GCU Development Library.

A series of professional development workshops specifically for women has also been introduced, including titles such as ‘Communicating with Influence’ and ‘Leading Others with Emotional Intelligence’.

The Accelerate initiative, based in the GCU Learning Enhancement and Academic Development (GCU LEAD) department, supports staff to engage in professional development and gain recognition as a fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA). The Accelerate approach centres on strengthening the culture and capacity for high quality, scholarly learning and teaching and developing a vibrant learning and teaching community. Accelerate enables GCU to confer, on behalf of the HEA, professional recognition to GCU staff in the range of fellowship categories offered through the UK Professional Standards Framework. In September 2015 117 staff entered the programme, of whom 79 were women. 51 of these women were in SHLS and 6 were in SEBE. As promotion through the learning and teaching route at GCU requires staff to have HEA membership or to hold a recognised teaching award, this initiative supports academics in learning and teaching focussed roles, where women tend to be overrepresented, to progress to senior positions.


Table 4.7: Participants in the Aurora Programme, 2013/14 to 2015/16

Number/Year 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Total

Participants 4 21 15 40

of which STEMM 4 9 5 18

Mentors 8 11 16 16 (includes 3

men)

Role Models 3 7 10 10

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

GCU’s academic‐led Graduate School is at the heart of the research community. The Graduate School works in close partnership with the Schools, support departments and external collaborators to enhance and support all aspects of researchers’ personal and professional career development, at all levels of the research career. The Graduate School provides an extensive workshop programme; Masters of Research and Professional Doctorate programmes; enhancement of the researcher experience through academic leadership; and a central quality focus for research student progression and awards. The Graduate School also organises social and intellectual events throughout the academic year, and provides a dedicated space where researchers can network and share ideas. GCU is a member of Vitae and provision is designed around the Vitae Researcher Development Framework.

The Caledonian Research Excellence Development Opportunities (CREDO) initiative has been set up to provide cross‐institutional support for research staff development. The programme supports the development of research excellence across the University, by providing specific cohorts of researchers with tailored interventions relevant to their needs. Members of the SAT directed the design and implementation of this extension of researcher development provision built on GCU’s 2013 action plan for the implementation of the Concordat. As a result of the on‐going focus on researcher development, in 2013 Glasgow Caledonian University gained the HR Excellence in Research Award from the European Commission.

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

The University supports mentoring and coaching, and a framework is provided by People Services consisting of a career coaching and career development planning service, alongside guidance, information, and face to face training for potential mentors and mentees.

Departments also have specific mentoring schemes in place to reflect local needs: for example an adapted mentoring programme is provided in the Department of Construction & Surveying; in SHLS, mentors specifically support new staff in relation to placement activity and working with partner organisations.

There are now 16 mentors and 10 role models available to support participants in Aurora. Informal networking meetings for current participants and Aurora alumni are held during each programme, and role models participate in the programme and networking. Internal mentoring is provided to support Aurora participants. This enhanced format has proven popular with staff, who


can raise concerns regarding gender at a local or institutional level, and provide feedback to improve internal processes. One area identified by the SAT and by Aurora participants, was the need for more male academics to be involved in the programme, and more male mentors have now been recruited.

The Graduate School offers mentoring opportunities to all research‐active academic staff, and those wanting to become more research‐active. All mentors are given training and matched with academic staff. In 2014/15, The GCU Research Staff Mentoring Scheme recruited 15 mentors (10 women and five men) who together mentored 13 women and eight men.

ACTION PLAN A2.4: Build on existing good practice to implement a more consistent overarching mentoring framework across GCU, particularly to support key transition points.


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

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

GCU actively encourages, and funds, academic staff to engage in their subject areas and professional environments through participating in external networks, collaborating with partners, attending and presenting at conferences and giving public lectures. This external profile raising is encouraged through a generic approach designed to benefit men and women equally. Active role models at senior levels of the organisation, along with strong mentoring and professional development frameworks, contribute to a vibrant and supportive female academic community.

For example, Professor Anita Simmers founded Glasgow Neuroscience in 2010 with colleagues from the University of Glasgow and Strathclyde and the NHS. Glasgow Neuroscience is an academic and clinical community, which aims to stimulate and improve neuroscience across Glasgow. A strong female representation ensures role models for a career in STEMM at all levels from PhD through to Professors.

Dr Tuleen Boutaleb organises events at GCU aimed at inspiring more young women to get involved in STEMM careers. The inaugural SmartSTEMs event won an Inspiring City Award, from The Herald and Glasgow Chamber of Commerce in association with city brand People Make Glasgow.

The SAT noted that internal visibility of women in STEMM does not always match external achievements, and the action plan therefore includes more active showcasing of academics’ activities.

Action Plan A2.1, A1.3 and A2.4: Raise the profile of women in STEMM by encouraging and supporting participation in external events, activities and networks as part of targeted support and development. Highlight these achievements more effectively to staff, student and external audiences.

Women from STEMM departments contribute significantly to local events and activities in the community, including Café Scientifique, a monthly forum promoting public engagement with science and to making science accountable.

Women from STEMM departments contribute extensively to the programme of events at Glasgow Science Festival, which has grown to be one of the largest science festivals in the UK. The Deputy Chair of Glasgow City of Science is Professor Tracy Howe of SHLS.

The SAT has worked closely with local Schools and colleges to highlight the role of women in STEMM more widely. Some notable examples are provided in Table 4.8.


Table 4.8: GCU Examples of Activities to Highlight the Role of Women in STEMM

Interconnect Project

GCU has supported the Interconnect Project (Scottish Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology) since 2009, where activities included a network for female students in the construction, built and natural environment subject areas, and running and hosting networking and training events. “Meet the Professionals” events brought together women students, professionals in the industry, professional bodies and teaching staff. This activity has been well received by students who have indicated that participation in the network has increased their confidence in having a career in STEMM.

Smart STEMs

The Smart STEMs event at GCU in June 2015 aimed to inspire more young women into STEMM and saw 500 school pupils aged between 11 and 18 attending to hear from female role models from industry and participate in 30 breakout sessions. The event was a collaboration between GCU, industry and education partners and won the Inspiring City Award.

Y Not Game Jam

The ‘Y Not Game Jam’ (August 2014) was delivered in partnership with BAFTA Scotland to raise awareness of women's under representation in the creative industries and to encourage more women to participate into the industry.

Biorama

The Department of Life Sciences have for many years held an annual event called Biorama where school pupils spend a day investigating various aspects of science on campus. Parents are also invited. Female students and staff host many of the areas, and act as positive role models.


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

Our Marketing and Communications team co‐ordinate the provision of expert comment and analysis for media opportunities and have a pool of (self‐selecting) ‘Media Experts’ for this purpose, published on the GCU website. Experts are trained in dealing with the media. Currently 27 of the 64 ‘experts’ are women.

ACTION PLAN A1.3: Review and improve information on academic subject experts made available to the media, and ensure it reflects the diversity of academics within the institution.

Two prominent recent examples of women’s media exposure include:

o Professor Dawn Skelton appeared on BBC radio to discuss fitness for older people in relation to the One You campaign from Public Health England, which encourages fitness in the over‐40s. Dawn has been filmed for the BBC’s ‘Trust me I’m a Doctor’ programme.

o Dr Angela O’Hagan appeared on BBC TV Scotland 2016 ahead of International Women’s Day, discussing the persistence of the gender pay gap, pregnancy discrimination, and other barriers to women’s economic independence and equality in the labour market.

One avenue for media engagement actively promoted by GCU is The Conversation, an online independent source of news and views from the academic and research community. Since GCU joined the community in 2013, 24 of 44 GCU academics featured on the website were women. 15 of these women wrote on STEM subjects.

Activities where GCU Women in STEMM areas have had impact or raised the profile of their work are communicated to staff in our weekly all‐staff Caledonian Connected email newsletter, in our corporate publications such as The Caledonian magazine and GCU Alumni magazine, and through the University’s digital and social media channels.

ACTION PLAN A1.2: Showcase the achievements of women in STEMM more effectively, and develop our internal communications, highlighting the importance of gender equality to achieving our strategy and mission. Work with our Student’s Association and Student Leaders to more effectively promote the work of women in STEMM to existing and prospective students.

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

The Principal, Professor Pamela Gillies, was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2015, in recognition of her achievements, and as an inspirational figure for young women who want to excel in their chosen professions.

In recent years four GCU academics have been awarded membership of the Royal Society of Edinburgh's Young Academy of Scotland, all women: Professor Sharon Hutchinson (epidemiology of blood borne viruses), Dr Karen Lorimer (medical sociology), Dr Vicky Long (modern British history and the history of health services) and Dr Karly Kehoe (history, focussing on religion, national identity and migration). The Academy brings together able and innovative young academics, entrepreneurs, artists and professionals in Scotland to address global challenges.

Table 4.9 outlines some other of the many notable achievements, and awards held, by female academics at GCU.


Table 4.9: GCU Female Academic Staff, Examples of External Recognition and Awards

Professor Pamela Gillies CBE, FRSE Principal and Vice‐Chancellor

Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 2015

CBE 2012 in recognition of her services to education and public health

Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health of the Royal College of Physicians of London

Fellow of the Academy for Social Sciences

Honorary Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow

Dr Karen Lorimer Senior Research Fellow in Applied Public Health, SHLS

Co‐Chair of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) Young Academy of Scotland Trustee of the RSE Scotland SCIO, the charity arm of the organisation

One of only two Young Academy of Scotland members to be part of the Global Young Academy

Dr Azam Nekahi, Lecturer, Electrical Power Engineering, SEBE

Co‐ordinator of Women in Engineering (WIE) in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society since 2013.

Professor Tracy Howe Professor of Rehabilitation, SHLS

Editor, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, and convenor, Cochrane Healthcare of Older People field

REF2014 Expert Advisory Group and RAE2008 panel member

Dr Romana Ramzan, Lecturer in Game Design, SEBE

In 2012, named one of Develop’s Top 30 Under 30 most influential rising stars of the international gaming industry; named Woman of the Future at the Scottish Asian Women’s Awards in March 2014, and featured in MCV Top 100 women in the UK games industry 2015.

Professor Jacqui Reilly Fellow of the Faculty of Public Health Professor of Infection Prevention and Control, SHLS

Elected Chair of the European Centre for Disease Control Healthcare Associated Infections Surveillance Network

Professor Sharon Hutchison Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health

Young Academician of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) Young Academy of Scotland

Co leader and plenary speaker at first Global Hepatitis Summit in Glasgow 2015, hosted in Glasgow by the Scottish Government in partnership with GCU and Health Protection Scotland

Professor Anita Simmers Professor of Vision Science

Elected to Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers London

Freedom of the City of London – Liveryman The Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers.

Fellow of the Royal Society of the Arts

Fellow of the Biological Society

Professor Dawn Skelton Professor of Ageing and Health

Commissioned author for the World Health Organisation and the Department of Health

Honorary Doctorate, Umeå University, Sweden

Professor Rachel Baker Professor of Health Economics / Deputy Director Yunus Centre

President of the International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity and Past President of the International Q Methodology Society

Invited Committee Member of the Chief Scientist Office Research Advisory Committee: Health Improvement, Protection and Services (Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer Directorate) since 2012


4.3 Organisation and Culture

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

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

The Deans of GCU academic Schools and STEMM‐focussed schools are shown in Table 4.10. During 2015, the female Dean of SHLS accepted a position on the University Executive, and was replaced by the male Vice‐Dean. No STEMM‐focussed schools are currently led by women; the Dean of GSBS is female.

The University has nine Heads of Department (HoD), of whom three are women. Two of the three HoDs in SHLS are women. In SEBE all HoDs are men (Table 4.11).

ACTION PLAN A2.2: Improve recruitment and promotion of women to senior roles, by actions including statements in recruitment materials; improved gender balance on interview panels; use of professional networks to encourage female applicants; improved promotions process and measures to encourage and support women into school SMG roles.

Table 4.10: GCU School Deans by Gender, 2012‐15



SHLS 1 1 1 1

SEBE 1 1 1 1

GSBS 1 1 1 1

Total 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Table 4.11: GCU Heads of Department by Gender 2012‐2015



SHLS 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1

SEBE 3 3 3 3

GSBS 1 2 3 1 2 1 2

Total 2 7 2 7 3 6 3 6


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

In each year since 2012 there have been more women than men on the GCU Executive Board (Table 4.12).

Table 4.12: GCU Executive Board by Gender, 2012‐15



Executive Board members 5 4 5 4 6 3 6 2

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

The University Court is the University’s governing body, responsible for approving the University’s overall strategic direction13. Nine of 22 Court members are women (Table 4.13).

Opportunities for staff to join Court are advertised internally. External advertisements are placed across various media for lay member recruitment. To improve the gender balance of Court we have recently recruited new lay governors. The campaign was designed to ensure women and those from underrepresented groups were encouraged to apply. Unconscious bias training was provided to all Court governors.

University Senate14 is responsible for the overall planning and development of the University’s academic work. Opportunities to join Senate are advertised internally to all academic staff. The proportion of women on Senate (17/38) is higher than that of Court (Table 4.13), although slightly lower than the proportion of female academic staff at GCU (56%).

Table 4.14 shows the gender balance of other influential committees at GCU. The Academic Policy Committee, Deans Group, and International Committee have equal numbers of men and women. However, the proportion of women to men is 2:3 or less on the Equality and Diversity Committee, Joint Consultative Committee and Research Committee.

With all these committees membership, particularly ex‐officio, takes time to shift and relies on the appointment of, for example, female Deans. The Research Committee in particular has improved gender balance over time through, where appropriate, the recruitment of women non ex‐officio members.

13 The membership of Court comprises: lay members drawn from business, industry and the professions who retain an overall majority; Ex‐Officio members: the Principal and the President of the Students’ Association; two elected members, one from academic staff and one from non‐academic staff; and one member appointed by the University Senate.

14 Senate comprises of a number of Ex‐Officio members, four elected members from each Academic School, one member elected by academic staff not in Schools, one Student elected by the Students’ Association, and several co‐opted members and non‐voting advisers.


ACTION PLAN A3.4, A3.5 and A4.6: Monitor and improve the gender balance of key University and School‐level Committees and decision‐making groups; and continue to embed standard equality impact assessment as a requirement for all decision‐making groups.

Table 4.13: GCU University Court and Senate Membership by Gender, 2012‐2015



University Court members 7 12 6 15 6 13 9 13

University Senate members 17 19 17 19 16 21 17 21

Table 4.14: GCU Influential University Committees by Gender, 2012‐15



Academic Policy Committee 5 11 9 7 11 10 10 10

Deans group [1] ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 7

Equality and Diversity Committee 6 6 5 6 4 6 5 8

International Committee [1] ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 6 6

Joint Consultative Committee 5 4 5 5 4 6 4 6

Research Committee 7 12 6 16 7 15 8 14

[1] International Committee and Deans Group were convened in September 2014

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

GCU has clear policies and procedures to support equality and diversity. These are outlined in Table 4.15. At School level, these are supported by a suite of activities to promote gender equality, particularly in SEBE where the need for change is greatest, and preparations towards pursuing an Athena SWAN departmental award are most advanced.

Women in SEBE meet at least once every semester to discuss relevant issues for example promotions, inductions, workload, marketing to attract women staff and students, and sharing relevant Athena SWAN activities. This also provides a socialising and networking opportunity.


Table 4.15: GCU Policies Supporting Equality and Diversity, February 2016

Dignity at Work and Study Policy

Sets out the University’s aim to be an environment where everyone is treated with dignity and respect, equality is promoted, and diversity is valued, and to outline the rights and responsibilities associated with this commitment.

Zero Tolerance approach to any form of unlawful discrimination, including harassment, victimisation, racism, sexism, homophobia, and any other unacceptable behaviour.

Performance and Development Policy

Outlines promotion processes applicable to all staff, and supporting guidance for staff and managers

Emphasises that applications must take into account the University’s Dignity at Work and Study policy.

Specific measures to address women’s development needs are provided with reference to the Aurora scheme, mentoring opportunities and departmental initiatives.

Conduct and Capability Policy

Establishes discrimination on the basis of sex or any other protected characteristic as gross misconduct.

Designed to ensure issues are generally addressed in a fair and consistent manner, regardless of the beliefs, needs or other characteristics of the staff involved.

Where an individual’s specific circumstances are relevant to the matter being addressed, the requirement for discussion and communication provides opportunity for those circumstances to be taken into account.

Supporting Families Policy

Outlines the University’s commitment to creating an environment in which staff are supported in balancing their work commitments with family responsibilities.

Ensures that the University adopts a fair, consistent and transparent approach to dealing with family‐related matters including maternity, adoption, paternity and parental leave, time off to care for dependants and arrangements to cater for nursing mothers.


(i) Transparent workload models – describe the systems in place to ensure that workload allocations, including pastoral and administrative responsibilities (including the responsibility for work on women and science) are taken into account at appraisal and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of responsibilities e.g. responsibilities with a heavy workload and those that are seen as good for an individual’s career.

GCU has been developing a university‐wide Workload Allocation Model (WAM) to provide a consistent, transparent and fair approach to plan, manage and evaluate academic activities and annual workloads. The allocation of work results from one‐to‐one developmental discussions between an individual and their AHoD during the annual Performance, Development & Annual Review cycle.

The WAM was developed in consultation with the Trade Unions and has involved considerable engagement with staff. Following a pilot during 2014/15 the university is currently running ‘version one’ of the WAM during the 2015/16 academic year.

The GCU WAM utilises the 550 unit model which is typical across the post‐92 HE sector where 1 unit notionally represents 3 real hours of work. Tariffs recognise teaching duties including preparation and assessment, as well as academic leadership responsibilities such as module and programme leadership. A range of school‐wide and departmental roles that support the student and staff experience are valued and recognised with a WAM. All academics receive a WAM allocation for Citizenship and Governance activities and personal CPD.

ACTION PLAN 3.1: Continue to monitor WAM implementation including revised tariffs for 2015/16; gather feedback from staff, managers and trades unions; and review equality impact of WAM, especially for non‐standard working patterns.

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

The Marketing and Communications team is responsible for ensuring that our publicity materials (including the website; printed prospectuses and course information; annual review; magazines and other publicity and communications materials) effectively reflect the diversity of our staff, students and stakeholders. The School Marketing Business Partners work closely with academic staff to ensure that this depiction of campus diversity is implemented at School level. Our focus is on representing all members of society, and this includes featuring a balance of male and female academics from SEBE and SHLS, as well as male and female undergraduate and postgraduate students in our publications, website and campaigns. This is captured in both the photographs and videos we produce for both corporate initiatives and student promotional activity.


4.4 Flexibility and managing career breaks

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

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

Guidance on flexible working is provided to staff and managers on the staff pages of the website, ensuring that staff have the opportunity to balance work with home life, whether due to family and caring responsibilities, illness or other reasons. All members of staff with at least 26 weeks’ service are eligible to make a request for a formal flexible working arrangement.15 Any member of staff may request informal arrangements. Staff are encouraged to start with an informal arrangement for a period of six months, giving flexibility to identify the optimum solution to their individual needs before the arrangement is formalised.

Due to the current configuration of the HR system, it is not possible to record non‐standard working patterns electronically and therefore not possible to accurately report on overall uptake of flexible working. Manual records show that 36 formal applications for flexible working were received in the 18 months from March 2014. Of these, 34 were from women and 21 were on return from maternity leave. Only one of the 36 applications was not approved.

During SAT consultation sessions in 2013/2014, some staff were unaware that GCU supported flexible working, and concerns were expressed about inconsistent approaches. A project was commissioned on the effectiveness of flexible working arrangements within SHLS during 2015 and the main recommendations were to develop more consistent guidance on flexible working for staff and managers, and to enhance training and communications with example models to demonstrate possibilities.

ACTION PLAN A3.2: Improve provision of flexible working arrangements for academic staff and ensure clear communication of policies, guidance and case studies; improve electronic recording of flexible working arrangements.

Our HR system does record numbers of staff working part‐time. This information is routinely included in half year and annual workforce reports presented to our Executive Board and Court Committees. The ratio of part‐time to full‐time workers is around 1:3 for women (114:314 in 2015), and 1.10 (30:305) for men (Table 4.16). This ratio is fairly consistent across the two STEMM schools for women, but within SEBE just 5 of 142 men worked part time in 2015 compared to 11/70 in SHLS.

ACTION PLAN A3.2 Utilise focus groups to understand the reasons for low uptake of part time working by men in SEBE.

15 Including part‐time working, compressed hours, flexi‐time, job‐sharing, trimester time only working, and working from home


Table 4.16: GCU Academic Staff Part‐time and Full‐time, 2012‐15

Fulltime Part‐time

Female % Female Male Total Female % Female Male Total

GCU

July 31 2012 297 50.3 293 590 96 78.0 27 123

July 31 2013 306 49.7 310 616 99 78.6 27 126

July 31 2014 298 49.8 300 598 108 81.8 24 132

July 31 2015 314 50.7 305 619 114 79.2 30 144

SEBE

July 31 2012 32 19.0 136 168 8 61.5 5 13

July 31 2012 28 16.1 146 174 12 66.7 6 18

July 31 2014 27 16.2 140 167 10 71.4 4 14

July 31 2015 32 18.9 137 169 10 66.7 5 15

SHLS

July 31 2012 163 69.7 71 234 66 84.6 12 78

July 31 2012 167 70.5 70 237 65 83.3 13 78

July 31 2014 162 70.4 68 230 69 86.3 11 80

July 31 2015 165 70.2 70 235 67 85.9 11 78

% Female refers to % of Total (full or part‐time) workforce that were women

Benchmark: In 2013/14, 47.2% of full‐time academic staff in the UK were women. 66.9% of part‐time academic staff were women.

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

GCU’s Supporting Families policy was reviewed in May 2015, and includes enhanced entitlements for maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental leave. Table 4.17 provides a breakdown of staff taking parental leave, and their return to work arrangements.

Teaching and research is normally backfilled by fixed term contract staff and/or occasional lecturers, sometimes supplemented by re‐allocation of work for other members of staff in the area. Schools have contingency within their staffing budgets to cover additional costs and Executive Board have ruled that additional costs for parental leave will be funded centrally if necessary so that no department will be disadvantaged in the annual budget setting round.

During consultation sessions, some staff felt that they had not had sufficient support after returning from parental leave or a career break, although there were good examples of local development budgets being used to provide specific support for individuals (for example, buying in backfill to allow staff members to fully re‐engage with their research).

ACTION PLAN A3.3: Develop transition/return to work guidance for managers supporting staff before, during and after family leave; communicate policy and guidance on family leave and flexible working.


Table 4.17: GCU Staff Returning from Parental Leave, 2011/12‐2014/15

no

yes, but took less hours

(come back to part‐time job)

yes, the same amount of hours which was full‐time

yes, the same amount of hours which was part‐

time Grand Total

GCU

2011/12 1 ‐ 21 11 33

2012/13 ‐ 2 12 8 22

2013/14 2 1 20 4 27

2014/15 3 2 25 3 33

Total 6 5 78 26 115

Academics

2011/12 1 ‐ 11 5 17

2012/13 ‐ 2 4 4 10

2013/14 1 ‐ 9 2 12

2014/15 ‐ 2 12 ‐ 14

Total 2 4 36 11 53

SEBE

2011/12 ‐ ‐ 3 1 4

2012/13 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1

2013/14 ‐ ‐ 3 ‐ 3

2014/15 ‐ ‐ 1 ‐ 1

Total ‐ ‐ 8 1 9

SHLS

2011/12 1 ‐ 5 4 10

2012/13 ‐ ‐ 2 4 6

2013/14 1 ‐ 3 2 6

2014/15 ‐ 2 4 ‐ 6

Total 2 2 14 10 28


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

GCU operates a ‘salary sacrifice’ childcare voucher scheme open to all members of staff, whereby individuals can choose to exchange part of their salary for childcare vouchers. Table 4.18 details the number of staff who took advantage of the scheme during February 2016. Members of the scheme do not pay tax or National Insurance on the vouchers and could save over £900 per year on childcare costs. The scheme is promoted at induction for new staff and information on the scheme is contained on the staff intranet.

GCU has an on‐site nursery offering staff full and part‐time childcare. Spaces for 59 children (split between staff and students) are allocated on first come first‐serve basis. Details are available on the GCU website.

GCU has had facilities available for breastfeeding mothers for more than ten years. In 2016 updated facilities have been provided within the central Refectory area, available to both students and staff.

ACTION PLAN A3.3: Continue to promote details of childcare vouchers and onsite nursery to all staff through line management system and internal communication channels.

Table 4.18: GCU Take‐up of Childcare Vouchers, February 2016

Female

% Of Total Childcare Vouchers Taken Male

% Of Total Childcare Vouchers Taken

Total Number of Childcare Vouchers Taken

GCU All Academic and Support Staff 109 75 36 25 145 GCU All Academic Staff 58 73 22 28 80

SEBE Academic Staff 4 22 14 78 18

SHLS Academic Staff 33 85 6 15 39

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

GCU’s Staff Surveys consistently include questions about work‐life balance, and the number of staff who feel they have a good work‐life balance increased from 57% in 2011 to 66% in 2014. The University undertook a number of initiatives to support achievement of this, including the establishment of a Joint Taskforce on Health & Wellbeing during 2013/14 and establishment of a regular programme of wellbeing events linked to Business in the Community’s Work Well model.

At University level, there were no significant differences in 2014 Staff Survey responses on questions about work‐life balance (or indeed any other survey questions) between men and women. 67% of women, and 66% of men, gave positive responses to the statement: “I feel I have a good work‐life balance”. There were differences between academic staff in the two STEMM Schools. Whilst 58% of academic staff in SEBE felt that they have a good work‐life balance, only 48% of academics in SHLS felt the same.


ACTION PLAN 3.1, 3.2 and 4.7: Utilise focus groups and survey approaches to explore differences in workload allocation and perception of workload between the Schools, and further analyse staff surveys to understand differing experiences of work life balance by gender. Continue to work towards fair and transparent workload allocation through WAM.

In response to staff and student feedback a timetabling project, with representation from the SAT on the project group, is underway. This will support staff and students through provision of personalised timetables well in advance. Core hours are currently 9am‐5pm and consideration of impacts on work life balance has been an integral part of the project. Informal flexible working arrangements are specified as constraints in the new timetabling system, and the project has already enabled a better understanding of formal and informal flexible working arrangements and family commitments.

SAT consultation events identified email traffic as a key issue affecting work life balance in SHLS. Despite awareness that staff were not expected to answer email outside work hours, they felt under pressure to do so. In collaboration with staff an email charter was developed and approved. Preliminary feedback has identified a significant reduction in out‐of‐hours email, with staff reporting that their work/life balance has improved.

ACTION PLAN A3.2: Implement School‐level actions to restrict meetings to core working hours, and reduce out‐of‐hours email traffic. Communicate a tailored email charter in each School and monitor awareness and impact of the charters.

Professors and Senior Management are regularly invited to briefing sessions with members of the Executive Board. These were previously held as Breakfast Briefings starting before 9am, but following feedback from the SAT these have been moved to within core hours.

Previously, University Court and Committees met at 4.30 pm, but during 2015/16 meetings at different times of day are being trialled.

ACTION PLAN A3.4: Trial different timings for Court meetings to assess impact on participation from under‐represented groups

(4493 words)


5. Any other comments

5.1 Additional gender pay gap analysis

To provide current data for this report we undertook an internal review of gender pay gaps by grade in December 2015 (Table 3.22‐3.24). At the broadest level the data show a decrease in the gender pay gap amongst all academic staff from 7.5% in 2011/12 to 6.6% in 2014/15 (Table 3.22). This rather blunt tool provides a useful yardstick of progression towards gender equality as it captures both horizontal and vertical segregation by gender. In 2014/15 this pay gap equated to an actual difference in salary of £3,447 in favour of men. It should be noted that men were, on average, three years older than women.

Turning to within grade comparisons we highlighted pay gaps of greater than 5% in bold and 3% in italics. Notably differences of greater than 5% are all in favour of women, and occur only amongst Grade 5 research staff (in years 2011‐13) and Professors on senior management contracts (all years) (Table 3.22).

In SEBE, there was a significant closing of the gender pay gap for all academic staff, from 9.4% in favour of men in 2011/12 to 5.8% in favour of men in 2014/15 (Table 3.23), perhaps reflecting the measures undertaken in support of the Athena SWAN principles, led by this School. All grade gender pay gaps of greater than 5% occurred at grades where there were three or fewer women. All of these had also been reduced to less than 3% by 2014/15.

In SHLS the gender pay gap widened from 11.1% in 2011/12 to 13.2% in 2014/15 (Table 3.24). Gender pay gaps of greater than 5%, all occurred at grades where there were two or fewer men.

5.2 Women in Scotland’s Economy (WiSE)

A major area of activity in the field of gender inequality is the GCU WiSE Research Centre, dedicated to the elimination of inequality in society through an innovative, multidisciplinary approach to gender analysis of economic and public policy in Scotland and internationally. Using a feminist economics lens WiSE highlights women’s visible and invisible economic contribution, challenging established norms and models, focussing on gender and equality analysis of poverty, income inequality, financial exclusion, living standards, labour market and occupational segregation, employability and skills, and gender equality policy.

WiSE works collaboratively through research, civic engagement, teaching and CPD to foster creative interdisciplinary initiatives exploiting new knowledge to inform public policy. WiSE engages policy and decision makers and influences the policy process through work with the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, and through membership of expert groups and commissions. Members of WiSE are involved in the Equalities Budget Advisory Group of the Scottish Government; Commission on Local Tax Reform; and Scottish Parliament Welfare Reform Committee (including contributing to the Committee’s Women and Social Security Inquiry and report); Equal Opportunities Committee, Finance Committee and Local Government Committee.

(458 words)


Glossary

Accelerate .............. Development initiative for academic staff, based in GCU LEAD

AHoD ...................... Assistant Head of Department

Aurora .................... Women‐only leadership initiative from Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

CREDO .................... Caledonian Research Excellence Development Opportunities initiative

GCU ........................ Glasgow Caledonian University

GCU LEAD ............... GCU Learning Enhancement and Academic Development department

HEA ......................... Higher Education Academy

GSBS ....................... Glasgow School for Business and Society

PDAR ....................... Performance and Development Annual Review

People Passport ..... GCU’s development programme for managers

SEBE ........................ School of Engineering and Built Environment

SHLS ........................ School of Health and Life Sciences

WAM ...................... Workload Allocation Model

Glasgow Caledonian University – Athena SWAN Bronze University Application: Response to previous feedback 72

Table 2.3 Response to previous feedback

Athena SWAN feedback “Would like to see” GCU response/reference

Letter of endorsement

The letter highlighting issues that emerged from

the self‐assessment process.

More reflection on the challenges and how the

university intends to address them.

Letter now highlights issues identified in self‐assessment, particularly underrepresentation of

women at Professorial level in SHLS and at all levels in SEBE; previous issues with lack of women

at Executive level; effects of fixed term contracts and lack of flexible, family‐friendly policies on

women’s research careers.

Letter now highlights measures to address these challenges, including an effective policy

framework; revised promotions procedure; mentoring and support programmes for women

academics and the detailed Action plan.

Letter recognises the need for further detailed analyses of the data

The self‐assessment process

More men on the SAT.

More representation from early career staff

(and consideration of student representation)

on the SAT.

Stronger commitment to undertaking action

whether or not an Athena SWAN award is

achieved.

How regularly the SAT will meet in future.

How the SAT will engage with departments,

especially with Engineering and Built

Environment.

The panel recommended that a survey be

conducted and repeated in order to obtain a

broader range of anonymous opinions, and to

be able to monitor progress.

SAT now has a better balance of gender, career stage, and has representation from both taught

and research students.

Areas where action has already been taken are highlighted in the action plan, along with plans for

further progress; Schools’ trajectory towards departmental applications is outlined. High level

commitment and oversight from Executive Board.

Plans for future of SAT including quarterly meetings; role in monitoring implementation of action

plan; ongoing work with School academic Athena Swan champions and Equality Champions to

form School SATs and support School departmental applications

Staff surveys 2011 and 2014 included questions on perceptions of University’s policies and

approach to equality and diversity, particularly as applied to recruitment and career

progression/promotion; support for training and development; work‐life balance and experiences

of workload. Further monitoring and tracking of staff survey responses is included in the action

plan.

A gender equality event held in 2015 included open discussions, anonymous voting and

anonymous commenting to develop SATs understanding of the issues. A calendar of future events

is included in the action plan to monitor progress and deeper our understanding.


Evidence of external consultation.

External consultation was carried out with Equate Scotland, the Athena SWAN Scottish network,

and colleagues in other HEIs in Scotland and England that have achieved Athena SWAN awards.

All external consultees were broadly positive about the direction of travel at GCU and gave some

specific feedback on elements to include or highlight in the Bronze application.

About the University

More clarity about whether Figure 2 is limited to

academic staff, or whether it includes other

staff.

For direct comparison, staff turnover for men

presented in Figure 3.

Graphical representation of the data in

paragraph 14 and more clarity about the

benchmark data used, i.e. whether this was

STEMM in general, or Psychology etc.

specifically

Data consistently broken down by faculty.

The data presented in Figure 5a and 5b using

the same proportionate y‐axes (if not presented

on the same graph).

More in‐depth consideration of reasons for

higher rates of women on fixed‐term contracts.

Discussion of higher grades regarding pay gap

analysis.

Pay gaps of 3–5% also considered and

monitored.

The data, tables and figures have been completely refreshed since the last submission. Data

sources were reviewed, HR data recalculated and new tables and figures constructed with the aim

of presenting a complete and clear analysis. Therefore:

o Distinction between academic and professional support staff is now clear

o Figures for men and women are presented in all tables for comparison

o Benchmark data sources are cited

o Data is presented by School in order to illustrate differences between the two STEMM

schools

o Axes are proportionate and wherever possible matching between graphs of a comparable

series

Consideration has been given to higher rates of women on fixed term contracts, possible reasons

for this, and sector benchmarking.

Pay gap analysis is now more comprehensive and detailed.

All gender pay gaps are monitored and detailed data on pay gaps by grade are provided.


Supporting and advancing women’s careers

Unconscious bias training for staff responsible

for recruitment.

The breakdown of data by grade and school.

Greater detail about the wording to be used in

future advertisements.

More detail about how staff are directed toward

family‐friendly policies.

Further self‐assessment, to allow for actions to

be developed.

Raw numbers to be provided – the panel

considered these to be necessary for the proper

interpretation of application and interview rates

in Figure 7.

Further clarity about how Figures 7 and 8 link;

the panel were unsure if success for

appointments is measured based on

applications or interviews.

Unconscious bias for several groups of staff, including those involved in recruitment, is included in

the action plan and progress has already been made.

Data are generally provided by grade and school unless in exceptional circumstances (pay gap

analysis by school and grade) this would disclose confidential information about individuals.

Provision of policy information to staff and students is covered in the application with further

embedding and promotion of policies included in the action plan.

More detailed self assessment has taken place since the last submission, both at University level

and within Schools; the action plan also outlines plans for continuation of self assessment and

monitoring.

Raw numbers as well as percentages are provided wherever possible.

New tables provided, with clear distinction between application, invitation to interview, and

appointment stage


Career Development

More clarity about the criteria for promotions.

Numbers to be provided for PDPR uptake,

AcceleRATE participation etc.; evidence of

uptake from women and the effect on careers.

The panel recognised that good activity was

ongoing, but wanted to see evidence of how this

activity will improve the situation for women.

In Figures 9 and 10, more information regarding

at what levels the promotions are occurring.

Evidence of how women are supported to apply

for promotion.

For paragraphs 45–51, how this information is

disseminated to others and how it is used to

help others; the panel considered that too much

information was provided about individuals.

Clarity about SMT breakfast meetings; the panel

were unsure if they are held within core hours.

More consideration of the effect of promotions criteria on women is included

Data is provided, where available, on participation in / uptake of professional development

opportunities including Aurora and Accelerate. More information is provided on ongoing

networking, mentoring and development opportunities in addition to, or instead of, participation

in these development programmes.

Promotion information is split by grade, gender and school to give a more complete picture

More information is included in section 4 and the action plan on existing and planned efforts to

increase promotion applications from women

Examples of both activities and individuals are provided to highlight the breadth of activities

undertaken by women in STEMM. The SAT noted that external awareness can be higher than

within the University, therefore the action plan includes internal communications measures as

well as actions to increase participation in high profile activities.

Following feedback from the SAT, SMT breakfast meetings have been redefined and take place

within core hours.


Organisation and culture

Better representation of women on committees

and senate, although the panel recognised that

an action to address this will be implemented.

Better addressing of previous feedback with

regard to publicity materials, i.e. more detail on

how diversity and gender are taken into

account.

More detail about other high‐level university

committees, including their gender balance.

Details of core hours and meeting times.

Representation of women on key decision making committees is increasing, and further actions

are underway including review of meeting timings.

Further work has been undertaken with the Marketing and Communications department to

review the practices in place and assess progress, both in corporate communications and in the

participation of women academics in profile‐raising activities. Progress has been made but further

actions are needed, and are outlined in the action plan.

Gender balance of high level university decision making bodies is provided and consideration

given to how to address imbalances, particularly in ex officio members.

Core university hours are 9am‐5pm (currently under review through the timetabling project).

Actions to address workload concerns include email charters adopted by Schools and amendment

of meeting times (Section 4.4 a iv).

Flexibility and managing career breaks

Childcare voucher information to be

communicated to applicants.

More detail about what the flexible working and

parental policies are. The panel noted that this

issue was also raised in previous feedback.

More detail regarding negative consultation

feedback about parental leave, and more detail

about the planned policy to address this.

Figures for parental leave.

Consideration given to breastfeeding/expressing

requirements.

Greater discussion of work–life balance.

Childcare voucher information is communicated to all staff

Information is provided on how flexible working and other family friendly policies are promoted

and communicated to staff. Further embedding actions are also included in the action plan.

GCU’s Supporting Families policy was reviewed and refreshed in 2015 following feedback, and

information is provided on numbers of staff taking parental leave and their return to work

arrangements.

Breastfeeding and expressing requirements are considered here, and a new dedicated space has

been provided as part of a recent refurbishment.

Work life balance is considered in more detail, with specific feedback from staff in the Schools and

actions taken to address this. Further monitoring and discussion in this area is included in the

action plan.


Any other comments

Use of staff survey results throughout the

application.

Details about the response rate of the survey.

Staff survey results are referred to where appropriate in the application, and response rates are

included in the table.

Action plan

More ambition in the Action Plan overall,

and more forward‐looking actions.

Success measures to be made more

quantifiable and appropriate.

A greater balance in the assignments of

responsibilities; the panel also noted that

the Director of People has a lot of

responsibility but is not on the SAT (unless

this refers to the Deputy Director).

The inclusion of actions to support

departments in applying for Athena SWAN

awards.

For actions that run over three years, the

panel recommended the provision of

interim milestones or dates.

The action plan has been developed significantly since the previous submission, and clearer links

described between the issues identified by the self‐assessment process and the actions we are

taking to address them.

As part of the ongoing development of the action plan, in depth discussion with owners of the

actions has been carried out to ensure that there is strong commitment to the actions outlined,

and the corresponding success criteria and timescales.

Several actions, by their nature, are the responsibility of People Services and duties have been

allocated as appropriate between the Director and Deputy Director; however both individuals and

the wider People Services team are fully involved in furthering the equality and diversity agenda.

The Deputy Director is represented on the SAT while the Director is a member of Equality and

Diversity committee, providing a balance of operational expertise and strategic oversight between

the two groups.

Improvements have also been made to the monitoring and implementation of the action plan,

with improvements to data gathering allowing more regular and consistent monitoring, and clear

reporting lines ensuring high level oversight.

Support is outlined for Schools currently undertaking self‐assessment in preparation for

departmental applications during 2016/17.

Majority of actions are now within 3 year timescale, those outwith 3 years (eg REF return rates)

are part of a suite of actions where interim milestones contribute to achievement of the overall

objective.


Final comments

The panel recognised that good activities are

underway; however, they considered that the

application showcased these activities poorly

and could have provided better analysis of the

current situation in the institution.

The application responds well to the issues

raised by focus groups, but showed a less

developed understanding of other data,

resulting in a lack of action in some key areas

such as recruitment and promotion. The panel

considered that the application lacked clarity

and detail.

The panel noticed the relative lack of external

consultation, and considered that this might

help for future applications. They also suggested

that participation in Athena SWAN workshops

might help going forward, in addition to reading

other institutional applications.

Feedback from the previous submissions and external critical appraisal has been instrumental in

helping the SAT better understand the requirements of the submission and carry out a more

thorough self‐assessment.

The action plan has been revised so that it links more clearly to the issues identified in the data

analysis, and ensures appropriate support structures are in place throughout the university to

embed the Athena SWAN principles.

Glasgow Caledonian University – Athena SWAN Bronze University Application: Action Plan 79

6. Action plan

The Plan covers current initiatives and the university’s aspirations for the next three years; however actions contained within the previous submission and subsequently completed are included to demonstrate continuing commitment and progress. Priority actions are identified in bold typeface.

Ref. Planned Action /

Objective Rationale / detail Key outputs / milestones and progress to

date Timeframe Responsible

person Success criteria and measures Start End

A0 Establish a cross School advancing gender equality group, with representation from men and women and all levels of the organisation

The advancing gender equality group will recognise, support and share good practice, develop our commitment to advancing women's careers in STEMM, and will be responsible for coordinating Athena Swan activities.

Advancing Gender Equality group constituted

2013 Ongoing Vice‐Chancellor Effective implementation and monitoring of the Action Plan; improvements in key metrics

Meetings at least quarterly, and more frequently at times of intensive activity

2013 Ongoing Athena Swan Champion (Chair)

Engage and communicate

A1.1 Support departmental Athena SWAN applications and set targets for achievement of Silver Awards

Continue to promote and develop gender equality at GCU, in spirit of the Athena Swan Principles. The SAT will work with the nine departmental E&D champions, Deans, and School academic Athena Swan champions to develop departmental SATs and support departmental applications

SEBE preparing departmental application for Silver Award

Nov‐14 Nov‐16

Dean, SEBE (supported by academic champion Prof Malcolm Allan and Tuleen Boutaleb)

Two Departmental Silver Awards by 2018

SHLS planning departmental application for Silver Award

Nov‐15 Nov‐17

Dean, SHLS (supported by academic champion Prof Anita Summers)


A1.2 Showcase achievements, and engage staff at all levels through activities and communications highlighting the importance of gender equality for the University’s Strategy 2020 and values

In many areas of addressing gender equality, GCU is among the best in the UK but we are not good at highlighting this internally or externally

Set calendar of consultation and information events for all staff

Apr‐14 Ongoing

Director of Marketing and Comms, supported by Executive Support, Athena Swan champion, School academic champions and Students Association

Increasing attendance at gender equality events; Improvements in awareness of University commitment to equality, as measured in staff survey.

Publicise GCU’s Athena Swan activities more effectively via external and internal comms channels (website, intranet, Caledonian Connected, etc)

Apr‐14 Ongoing

Use GCU’s social media platforms to consistently promote news and good practice on supporting female academics in STEMM and gender equality more broadly

Apr‐16 Ongoing

Work with our Students’ Association and Student Leaders to more effectively promote the work of women in STEMM to our student body and prospective students

Apr‐16 Ongoing

A1.3 Ensure public face of the organisation reflects the diversity of academic staff

Currently the Marketing and Communications department identify academic experts by expertise. The information held on experts is currently under review with the aim of providing a better match for expert enquiries and reflecting the diversity of academic expertise in the organisation.

Review how potential experts are identified, trained and communicated to the media. Work with School Athena Swan champions to ensure female academics are included. Feb‐16 Feb‐17

Director of Marketing and Communications

Pool of subject experts is as far as possible representative of the academic body and of society: % of subject areas female in each School

Increasing diversity of the academic constituency should improve representation of this diversity in the media; but more proactive measures could improve the diversity of the available pool sooner.

Provide media awareness workshops to female academics in STEMM.

Feb‐16 Feb‐17

Increase in female academics that have participated in media awarenessworkshops

Use planned meetings showcasing achievements and highlighting importance of gender equality (A1.2) to remind academics of opportunities and support from Comms team to engage with the media.

Feb‐16 Ongoing

Increase in academic engagement with Comms, particularly female academics


Recruit, retain and promote

A2.1 Improve recruitment and promotion by ensuring staff involved in recruitment, appointment and promotion have appropriate training and awareness; and where possible that panels are appropriately diverse.

Data shows that women are under‐represented at all levels in SEBE and at Professorial level within SHLS and internal audit of recruitment & selection practices in 2015 identified inconsistent approaches and opportunities for improvement. While developing policies to promote equality is one aspect of our goal, we also need to ensure these policies are implemented with respect to gender equality. We therefore plan to achieve this by: ∙ improving gender balance on interview panels in SEBE ∙ implementing consistent training for staff involved in recruitment and selection which includes Unconscious Bias awareness, and ∙ providing online unconscious bias training for all staff Unconscious bias training will also be provided for all members of promotion panels

Pilot face‐to‐face UB training with SEBE senior management team, People Services team & cross section of staff & managers

Jul‐14 Complete

Deputy Director – People Services/ Chairs of Recruitment & Promotion Panels

% of staff completed training

Establish group of in‐house UB trainers and deliver tailored training

Aug‐15 Ongoing

Identify and promote online UB training for all staff (Pearn Kandola)

Oct‐15 Ongoing

Aim for at least one member of all recruiting panels, to have received face to face recruitment training, including awareness of unconscious bias

Aug‐16 Jul‐17

% People Managers completed recruitment training by July 17

Provide UB training for all members of promotion panels and all members of Resourcing Group Jul‐16 Oct‐16

All members of promotion panels and resourcing group completed training by Oct 16

Provide UB training for all academic staff winning research grants which lead to the appointment of new staff Aug‐16 Ongoing

% Academics winning research grants with staff have completed training

In SEBE, seek to ensure a female academic is on the interview panel for all academic appointments

May‐16 Ongoing

SEBE Dean & champions, supported by People Services

SEBE target is for 100% of staff involved in appointment to have UB training. Existing staff to be trained by August 2016.


A2.2 Increase the proportion of female academic staff at all levels within SEBE by setting targets to increase the proportion of female applicants for advertised positions at all occupational levels, and for the internal academic promotions process

Data shows that women are under‐represented at all levels in SEBE; under‐representation is particularly marked within the Department of Engineering Actions to address this focus on encouraging more applications from females to academic positions; supporting female academics to apply for promotion; and supporting females into SMG roles.

Include tailored statements to encourage female applicants in recruitment materials for specific SEBE lecturer positions

Apr‐14 Complete and ongoing

Heads of Department and Assistant Heads of Department, SEBE

SEBE target is for a minimum 20% of academic staff to be female at each level by April 2019.

Encourage staff at all levels within SEBE to use own networks and social media channels to encourage applications from women

Apr‐14 Ongoing

Offer external applicants to academic roles in SEBE a ‘taster day’ in the School prior to interview, to appreciate the positive working environment.

Apr‐16 Ongoing

Continue to encourage Heads & Assistant Heads of Department in SEBE to actively encourage and support female academics with potential for promotion to apply

Apr‐14 Ongoing Dean, SEBE

Seek to ensure women are encouraged and prepared (through personal and professional development including Aurora and other LFHE opportunities, and roles such as Assistant Head of Department) to apply for roles on SMG, 50% of which are on rotational basis.

Apr‐16 Ongoing Dean and Heads of Department, SEBE


A2.3 Continue to improve representation of women at professorial level across GCU by setting and pursuing targets to increase the proportion of female applicants for advertised Senior Lecturer/ Reader/ Professor positions, and for the internal academic promotions process.

Data shows that women are under‐represented at Professorial level across GCU compared to men, although we perform well against national benchmarks and significant improvements have been made in recent years from 25% in 2012 to 33% in 2015.Data highlights underrepresentation of female Professors within SHLS, and in particular within the Department of Life Sciences.Data highlights gender imbalance particularly in high profile fractional professorial appointments.

Revise the academic promotions process, criteria & guidance. Roll out new guidance with tailored briefings for academic line managers and new feedback template

Apr‐15 Complete: Annual review

Director of People/ PVC Research/ PVC Learning & Student Experience

Increase in proportion of female applicants for internal academic promotion to Senior Lecturer/ Reader/ Professor level (esp. SHLS)

Review promotions process annually & introduce of open briefings for staff Apr‐16

Annual review

Continue to encourage Heads & Assistant Heads of Department in SHLS to actively encourage and support female academics with potential for promotion to Senior Lecturer/ Reader/ Professor level to apply

Apr‐15 Ongoing Dean, SHLS

Increase in proportion of female applicants for new positions at Senior Lecturer/ Reader/ Professor level

Include tailored statements to encourage female applicants in recruitment materials for all Senior Lecturer/ Reader/ Professor positions in SHLS

Apr‐16 Ongoing Heads & Assistant Heads of Department, SHLS

Encourage staff within SHLS to use own networks and social media channels to encourage applications from women for senior academic positions

Apr‐16 Ongoing

Monitor and address gender balance offractional professorial appointments and honorary graduates. Encourage Schools to nominate female role models for honorary recognition.

Apr‐16 Ongoing

People Services / Executive Board / School academic champions

Improvements in gender balance of professorial appointments (to be monitored annually)


A2.4 Continue to increase the provision of career development support for female staff with potential for promotion, including support to raise their profile and join external networks

Data shows women are under‐represented at Professorial level with SHLS and at all levels within SEBE, particularly the Department of Engineering. High numbers of women are on fixed term contracts and in research specific roles. Increasing representation of females in the professoriate is needed to ensure academic role models and mentors; and improved career development for research‐active female staff will improve gender balance in future REFs. Frameworks to support mentoring activities are provided but awareness of, and access to, mentoring is not universal. A more consistent overarching mentoring framework can be provided across GCU, particularly to support key transition points such as academic promotion.

Continue to support female staff with potential (40 to date) to participate in the LFHE Aurora programme

Aug‐13 Jun‐18 Athena Swan Champion/ Deputy Director – People Services

60 Aurora programme participants by June 2018, continuing to provide positive feedback and form an active alumni network

Continue to support GCU Aurora Alumni network by organising in‐house events for development and networking on topics identified by members

Oct‐14 Ongoing

Target communication of opportunities for nominations to public or professional bodies and external prizes at female academics in STEMM Apr‐14 Ongoing

Associate Deans Research in SEBE & SHLS/ Marketing Business Partners

Increased number of female academics in STEMM nominated for public bodies & external prizes

Promote career planning and staff development resources for new and existing researchers, linked to the VITAE framework Oct‐13 Nov‐17

Director, Graduate School

Improved outcomes in surveys of research staff

Review current provision of mentoring support (offered formally to researchers and to Aurora programme participants), then develop and launch more consistent approach (to be piloted in SHLS)

Mar‐16 Mar‐17 Director of People

Increased number of female academics in STEMM engaged in mentoring relationships


A2.5 Obtain comprehensive feedback on leaving reasons for female staff

Data shows higher female staff turnover in SEBE and SHLS but monitoring has been challenging due to limited availability of data and low numbers of responses.

Pilot externally administered exit survey for permanent staff leaving

Feb‐15 Complete Deputy Director ‐ People Services

Pilot exit survey achieved 66% response rate in first six months (versus 30% for internally administered)

Exit survey now extended to cover all staff, including fixed term

Feb‐16 Ongoing

Findings reported to Executive Board & Staff Policy Committee

Sep‐15 Six‐monthly Director of

People Findings to be reported to E&D CommitteeSep‐16

Six‐monthly

A2.6 Continue to monitor and report on gender balance of fixed term staff. Implement new processes to minimise the use of fixed term contracts which are not tied to projects limited by time or funding.

Data shows an increase in fixed term contracts among research staff and academic non‐research staff. This is in part due to an institutional effort to recognise casual workers, resulting in an increase as fixed term contracts are taken up.While it is difficult to identify trends due to low numbers, turnover rate was higher for females than males in both STEMM Schools in most years.Routine monitoring will allow analysis of trends, and timely identification of, and intervention on, any issues.

Implement new resourcing approval process requiring justification to be provided where fixed term contract is requested

Oct‐15 Complete Director of People

Implementation of new process completed.No further increase in fixed term contracts

Monitor gender balance of staff on fixed term contracts, and reasons for nature of contract (e.g. external funds versus maternity cover) and report regularly to Advancing Gender Equality group. Sep‐16

Ongoing (annual reporting)

Deputy Director – People Services


Embed

A3.1 Promote fair and transparent allocation of work for academic staff

In 2013, self‐assessment team identified use of different work allocation models for academic staff across GCU. Feedback to the WAM working group identified some issues with the recognition of research career development. The WAM working group has been reviewing the allocation of research time. Changes have been made to ensure that tariffs recognise research excellence, effectively support early career researchers and new or renewed engagement with research and scholarship; that the impact of external factors, such as parental leave, is acknowledged; and that staff are supported to return to active research and academic careers following leave.

Develop GCU‐wide Work Allocation Model (WAM) for academic staff, in consultation with Trade Union representatives, staff and managers

May‐13 Complete

Academic lead(s)/ Director of People

Complete

Invest in Strenton software, and roll out on pilot basis

Mar‐14 Complete Complete

Train Assistant Heads of Department to consistently apply model

May‐15 Complete Complete

Review pilot model with feedback from staff including research‐active staff, managers and Trade Union representatives. Apply revised tariffs for academic year 2015/16.

May‐15 Complete

Heads of Department; Assistant Heads of Department

Feedback from staff, managers & trade unions indicates WAM implementation is improving workload and flexibility

Review equality impact of WAM, especially for non‐standard working patterns and allocations for research and scholarly activity

Jun‐16 Jun‐17 Equality and Diversity Advisor; SAT

EIA demonstrates WAM has no unequal impact on groups of staff


A3.2 Review and improve provision of flexible working arrangements for academic staff

Review of local flexible working arrangements across GCU in 2014 highlighted inconsistent approaches. Research in 2015 reviewed operational effectiveness of flexible working arrangements in SHLS and highlighted the need for improved guidance and training. Legacy HR system unable to hold records of flexible working patterns electronically. New HR systems will improve recording and monitoring of flexible working arrangements.

Schools make explicit commitments to meet only in core hours, and not to expect email traffic outside core hours (email charter).

2014 End of 2015

Deans of Schools

Increased awareness and uptake of flexible working opportunities by both genders (e.g. using staff surveys)

Monitor and review awareness and impact of email charter.

Apr‐2016

Apr‐2017Exec Support

Improve University‐wide guidance on flexible working developed and rolled out to managers and staff

Feb‐16 Oct‐16

Director of People/ Director of Marketing & Communications

Ensure that flexible working is not seen as a ‘women’s issue’, by including flexible working case studies (including male staff examples) in internal communications and on website

Aug‐16 Oct‐16

Improvements to manual recording of flexible working arrangements

Aug‐16 Ongoing

Requirement to hold working patterns electronically in scope for new HR system

2016 2018/19

Utilise focus groups and survey approaches to explore differences in workload allocation and perception of workload between the Schools.

May‐16

Ongoing

Athena SWAN Champion; Equality and Diversity Advisor; SAT Utilise focus groups to understand the

reasons for low uptake of part time working by men in SEBE.

May‐16

Ongoing

A3.3 Review and improve guidance and support for managers to support staff returning from family leave or career breaks

During consultation sessions, some staff felt that they had not had sufficient support after returning from parental leave or a career break, although there were examples of local good practice.

Revise Supporting Families policy to offer enhanced terms for shared parental leave, and to encourage consideration of flexible working

Feb‐15 Complete

Director of People/ Director of Marketing & Communications

Positive feedback from managers and staff returning from family leave or career breaks;Increased awareness of family leave and flexible working policies

Produce enhanced guidance (including checklist) for managers on supporting female staff before, during and after family leave (e.g. maternity, carer)

Jun‐16 Jul‐16

Promote enhanced guidance on support for returning staff alongside improved guidance on flexible working

Aug‐16 Oct‐16


Promote availability of childcare vouchers and onsite nursery to existing staff through line management and internal communications channels.

Aug‐16 Oct‐16 Uptake of childcare vouchers and onsite nursery

A3.4 Improve the gender balance of key University and School level committees and decision making groups

Data shows that gender balance is not equal across sample groups, including Equality and Diversity Committee; Joint Consultative Committee and Research Committee.

Actively seek female applicants for Court Membership Committee lay positions including Chair. Provide the selection panel with unconscious bias training and introduce equality monitoring

May‐15 Complete and Ongoing University

Secretary and Court office

Increased gender balance in committees and decision making groups including governance and leadership / managerial groups

Shifting gender balance can take time due to ex‐officio representation.

Trial different timings for Court meetings to assess impact on participation from under‐represented groups

Sep‐15 Jun‐16

Actions to develop senior female academics across GCU will result in better representation on key decision making groups; and reduce ‘representation burden’ on senior female academics.

Equality impact assess selection processes for University‐wide and School level committees Aug‐16 Ongoing

Chairs of Selection Panels

Evidence of Equality impact assessment on selection processes

Guidance on new Organisational Change Policy to explicitly require mixed gender membership of key decision‐making groups Oct‐15 Ongoing

Director of People

Evidence of Equality impact assessment on organisational change activities

A3.5 Continue to embed Equality Impact Assessments as a requirement for all key decision‐making groups

Equality impact assessment is handled in different ways by different committees, which may lead to inconsistent approaches and outcomes. Consideration of 'equal opportunities' impacts has been embedded in Court, Senate and Court committee proceedings for several years, a project is underway to embed Equality Impact Assessment in these processes.

Develop and publish standard Equality Impact Assessment template and guidance on website

Mar‐15 Complete

University Secretary/ Equality & Diversity Advisor

Implementation of EIA as part of key decision making is complete.

Embed standard EIA guidance in cover sheets for committee papers, & train committee clerks

May‐16 Sep‐16

Develop and deliver briefing sessions to policy owners and decision makers

Jun‐16 Sep‐16


A3.6 Take steps to ensure more women are eligible for the next REF process

41% of staff returned by GCU in REF2014 were female; this should be closer to the gender balance of the research‐active staff overall. This will require a shift in the gender balance of females who are eligible for REF, through the production of quality research outputs. This will be supported by actions identified elsewhere in this Plan such as improved research career development for female staff (A2.4); workload allocation model development to ensure appropriate research allocations (A3.1); promotion and recruitment of females to senior positions (A2.3).

REF Management Group to receive E&D training

Aug‐16 Aug‐17

Associate Deans Research; PVC Research; REF Management

Group

Continue to develop application of WAM to research, particularly for part time staff, and maintain focus on internationally excellent/ world class outputs.

Jun‐16 Jun‐17

Continue to embed research output management (Pure) across all researchers, improving identification and professional development of potentially eligible staff.

Jan‐15 Ongoing Increase in publications held in Pure

Communicate examples of non‐standard research and academic careers to encourage female progression and build confidence.

Apr‐16 Ongoing

Director of Marketing and Comms, supported by Executive Support, Athena Swan champion

Positive feedback through focus groups of flexible attitudes to research careers

Monitor the gender balance of staff eligible and submitted to future REF 2014 2020

Achieve target 45% of women eligible for next REF

A3.7 Encourage female applications to academic positions throughout the organisation and promote GCU as an employer with a strong culture of supporting individuals and families.

Although applications from females are strong in some areas, and in others actions are in place to address specific deficit, there is a case for promoting GCU’s policy framework of supporting individuals and families.

Consistent statements on gender, cultural diversity and flexible working to be included in all GCU staff recruitment materials

Apr‐15 Complete Deputy Director – People Services

Complete


Monitor and evaluate

A4.1 Continue to monitor gender pay gap and conduct regular equal pay reviews

GCU has already made good progress on basic pay gaps and there are very few pay gaps in specific groups; progress on the mean gender pay gap in academics in STEMM will be addressed through actions elsewhere in this Plan. Mean gender pay gap will be monitored as an indicator of broad gender equality and direction of travel. Further analysis of all elements of pay is underway.

Calculate and publish gender pay gap data Apr13/ Apr 15

Apr 17/ Ongoing

Director of People; Trade Unions

Progress in reducing gender pay gaps (publish ed regularly)

Conduct and publish equal pay review findings (basic pay)

Apr‐14 Jun‐16

Work jointly with trade unions to conduct Equal Pay Audit which covers all elements of pay (using JNCHES Guidance for HE sector)

Feb‐15 Jun‐16

Conduct review of academic pay levels by gender and School

Nov‐15 Complete

Repeat full equal pay audit, and include analysis of 3‐5% pay gaps

Oct‐16 Apr‐17

A4.2 Monitor and report on gender balance of job applicants

To enable monitoring of progress on increasing female job applicants in areas with under‐representation

Purchase and implement online applicant tracking system to ensure comprehensive and accurate job applicant data capture

Aug‐15 Ongoing Deputy Director ‐ People Services

Improved data on job applicant characteristics. Regular reporting to SAT; Athena Swan silver institutional submission in 2019

Provide regular reports on gender balance of job applicants – six monthly to SAT Aug‐15 Ongoing

Director of People; SAT

A4.3 Continue to monitor and report on gender balance within academic promotions process

To enable continued monitoring of progress on increasing number of female staff in senior academic roles

Collate and report on gender balance within academic promotions process

2014/15 2016/ Ongoing

Director of People; SAT

Regular reporting to SAT.

A4.4 Monitor and report on gender balance of fixed term staff, and reasons for fixed term contract

To enable monitoring of progress, ensuring fixed term contracts are normally only in place when necessitated by time‐limited project or funding

Revise and implement new data conventions for fixed term staff on the HR system (relating to contract status and funding source)

Dec‐15 Ongoing Deputy Director ‐ People Services Regular reporting to

SAT. Provide regular reports on fixed term staff by gender ‐ six monthly to SAT

Dec‐15 Ongoing Director of People; SAT

A4.5 Monitor and report on turnover levels and leaving reasons by gender

To enable monitoring of progress in reducing turnover levels of female staff in target areas, and cross‐referencing with feedback on leaving reasons

Extend independent leaver survey to all staff leavers Feb‐16 Ongoing

Deputy Director ‐ People Services Regular reporting to

SAT. Provide regular reports on turnover levels and leaving reasons by gender ‐ six monthly to SAT

Feb‐16 Ongoing Director of People; SAT


A4.6 Monitor and report on gender balance of University and School committees and decision making groups

To enable monitoring of progress in improving gender balance of University and School committees and decision making groups

Six monthly reporting of University and School committees and decision making groups to SAT

Ongoing

Equality and Diversity Advisor, supported by Court office and Schools; SAT

Regular reporting to SAT.

A4.7 Continue to collect data and report on staff perceptions of gender equality

As well as gathering quantitative evidence, comprehensive assessment of progress on gender equality will include qualitative evidence. Opportunities for staff feedback contribute to awareness raising of the gender equality commitment of the University and role in supporting our Strategy 2020 ambitions.

Ask specific questions about gender equality perceptions in Staff Survey

2011 & 2014

Ongoing Director of People

Athena Swan silver institutional submission in 2019

Continue to hold regular consultation sessions with staff

2014 Ongoing

Athena Swan champion, supported by SAT

Continue to include questions and analyse staff surveys to understand differing experiences of work life balance by gender.

2016 Ongoing

Athena Swan champion, supported by SAT

A4.8 Monitor implementation of the Athena SWAN action plan

To ensure that issues identified in the self‐assessment are addressed through implementation of actions

Continue meetings of Advancing Gender Equality group on a quarterly/bi‐monthly basis to oversee the implementation of the action plan, reporting to the Equality and Diversity Committee twice a year and Executive Board

2014 Ongoing

Athena SWAN Champion; Equality and Diversity Advisor; SAT

Regular meetings and reporting to E&D Committee and EB

Produce an annual report on progress made on implementing action plan

2016 Ongoing Regular progress reports published

Use Equality Champions and School Equality and Diversity Committees to reinforce Athena SWAN actions

2016 Ongoing

Improved engagement with Schools and progress towards Departmental awards

Continue developing action plan and activities to support Athena Swan institutional Silver submission 2016 2019

Athena Swan silver institutional submission in 2019

Date post:	09-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Athena SWAN Bronze university application€¦ · External critical appraisal has been invited from...

Documents