76
Department Application Bronze and Silver Award
Department Application Bronze and Silver Award
2
ATHENA SWAN BRONZE DEPARTMENT AWARDS
Recognise that in addition to institution-wide policies, the department is working
to promote gender equality and to identify and address challenges particular to the
department and discipline.
ATHENA SWAN SILVER DEPARTMENT AWARDS
In addition to the future planning required for Bronze department recognition,
Silver department awards recognise that the department has taken action in
response to previously identified challenges and can demonstrate the impact
of the actions implemented.
Note: Not all institutions use the term ‘department’. There are many equivalent
academic groupings with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition
of a ‘department’ can be found in the Athena SWAN awards handbook.
COMPLETING THE FORM
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION FORM WITHOUT READING THE ATHENA SWAN AWARDS HANDBOOK.
This form should be used for applications for Bronze and Silver department awards.
You should complete each section of the application applicable to the award level
you are applying for.
Additional areas for Silver applications are highlighted
throughout the form: 5.2, 5.4, 5.5(iv)
If you need to insert a landscape page in your application, please copy and paste the
template page at the end of the document, as per the instructions on that page. Please
do not insert any section breaks as to do so will disrupt the page numbers.
WORD COUNT
The overall word limit for applications are shown in the following table.
There are no specific word limits for the individual sections and you may distribute
words over each of the sections as appropriate. At the end of every section, please
state how many words you have used in that section.
We have provided the following recommendations as a guide.
3
Department application Bronze Silver Actual
Word limit 10,500 12,000 11,838*
Recommended word count
1.Letter of endorsement 500 500 494
2.Description of the department 500 500 503
3. Self-assessment process 1,000 1,000 999
4. Picture of the department 2,000 2,000 1461
5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers 6,000 6,500 7133
6. Case studies n/a 1,000 995
7. Further information 500 500 233
* Includes quotations and text written in Impact Boxes; excludes tables, figures and images.
Name of institution University of Oxford
Department National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit
Focus of department STEMM
Date of application 30 November 2016
Award Level Silver
Institution Athena SWAN award
Date: November 2013 Level: Bronze
Contact for application Must be based in the department
Professor Maria Quigley
Email [email protected]
Telephone 01865 289725
Departmental website www.npeu.ox.ac.uk
4
GLOSSARY
CDWG Career Development Working Group
CTU Clinical Trials Unit
FT Full-time
IT Information Technology
MQ Maria Quigley (Chair of Self-Assessment Team)
MRC Medical Research Council
MSD Medical Sciences Division
NDPH Nuffield Department of Population Health
NIHR National Institute for Health Research
NPEU National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit
PDR Personal Development Review
PT Part-time
RoD Recognition of Distinction
RR Rachel Rowe (Deputy Chair of Self-Assessment Team)
SAT Self-Assessment Team
SMG Senior Management Group
T&D Training and Development
URL University Research Lecturer
5
1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Silver: 500 words
An accompanying letter of endorsement from the head of department should be
included. If the head of department is soon to be succeeded, or has recently taken
up the post, applicants should include an additional short statement from the
incoming head.
Note: Please insert the endorsement letter immediately after this cover page.
6
Ruth Gilligan
Athena SWAN Charter
Equality Challenge Unit
First Floor, Westminster Tower
3 Albert Embankment
London
SE1 7SP
28 November 2016
Dear Ruth
Re: Renewal application for Athena SWAN Silver Award
As Director of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit I fully endorse and support
our renewal application for the Athena SWAN Silver Award and I confirm my
personal commitment to all the principles of the Athena SWAN initiative. I
encourage all staff in the Unit to focus on implementing our action plan and
embedding the Athena SWAN principles within our culture to achieve maximum
impact for everyone across the Unit.
I see at first hand, on a daily basis, the impact for all our staff of the changes we
have made as a consequence of our action plan and, as I outline below, our earlier
actions have proved successful and have motivated us to identify new goals to
advance further our Unit culture, promoting equality and diversity for all. Action
plan impacts of which I am particularly proud relate to the complete overhaul and
development of an improved, more supportive and inclusive, personal
development review (PDR) process:
Not all staff initially welcomed the change from optional appraisal to
mandatory PDR, but during the PDRs which I conduct staff now tell me
that this has been a very positive change which has resulted in
development and promotion opportunities that were unlikely to have been
identified through the old process. We now have 100% participation in PDR
compared with 35% in 2012. During the PDR discussions I see individuals
taking stock and planning their future career path in a much more effective
way than in the past with some of the results outlined in the point below.
Two of our senior female researchers applied and have been made full
Professors (resulting in a total of three female professors in the Unit), five
senior researchers were made Associate Professors (2f, 3m) and the
status of University Lecturer was conferred on two junior female
researchers; seven researchers have been re-graded.
The focus of our research is women, babies and families and in common with
other research groups in this field, we have a predominantly female workforce.
However, with an inclusive culture this area of research can attract both men and
7
women, as illustrated by our eight current DPhil students, five of whom are women
and three of whom are men. I am fully committed to continuing to develop and
enhance our research field to ensure that maternal and child health research is a
field which is accessible to all.
It is a joy to watch everyone (women and men; research, professional and support
staff) in the Unit thrive and flourish. I am pleased that I am able to contribute
towards enabling and supporting ALL staff in striving to achieve their full potential
in their chosen career. As Unit Director I will ensure that we will continue on this
path with a strong inclusive effort based around our new action plan setting the
goals for the years ahead.
I can confirm that the quantitative and qualitative data used in support of our
renewal application are an accurate representation of the Unit.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer J Kurinczuk
Professor of Perinatal Epidemiology
Director, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit
8
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT
Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Silver: 500 words
Please provide a brief description of the department including any relevant
contextual information. Present data on the total number of academic staff,
professional and support staff and students by gender.
Image 1: Photo of NPEU in 2015
The National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) is a vibrant, multi-disciplinary research
unit which was established within the University of Oxford in 1978. It is part of the
Nuffield Department of Population Health (NDPH) within the Medical Sciences Division
(MSD) of the University (Figure 1). NDPH was established in July 2013 by bringing
together ten leading research units (including NPEU). The NPEU has its own Director and
Administrator and has its own practices and policies related to staff development and
management, in addition to those of the wider Department, Division and University. The
NPEU hosts postgraduate students via the admission system of NDPH.
Figure 1: How the NPEU fits into the structure at the University of Oxford
Oxford University
Medical Sciences
Division (MSD)
Nuffield Dept of Population
Health (NDPH)
NPEU9 other NDPH units/centres
15 other MSD departments
Mathematics and Physical Life Sciences
Division
Social Sciences Division
Humanities Division
9
The NPEU mission is “to produce methodologically rigorous research evidence to improve
the care provided to pregnant women and their families during pregnancy, childbirth, the
newborn period and early childhood, as well as promoting the effective use of resources
by perinatal health services.” The NPEU has an excellent national and international
reputation for conducting studies which have contributed to policy change, influenced
practice and helped improve the care of women and their babies. Two examples, which
were included as case studies demonstrating research impact in the 2014 Research
Excellence Framework, resulted in changes to the management and prevention of
eclampsia in pregnancy (worldwide) and influenza in pregnancy (in the UK/Europe).
NPEU staff and students are based in one building, together with other staff and students
from NDPH. All NPEU staff, including the Director, are funded by competitively obtained
research grants. Hence, NPEU is primarily a research unit although several NPEU staff
have teaching responsibilities, such as on NDPH’s MSc in Global Health Science,
undergraduate teaching, examining, tutoring, supervising MSc and DPhil students and
teaching on short courses. The current NPEU Director is a woman and two of the four
previous Directors were women.
In this application, staff are classified either as ‘research staff’ or ‘professional/support
staff’. When staff data were collected in July 2016, there were 84 staff in the NPEU (30
research staff and 54 professional/support staff), 6 DPhil students and 2 academic
visitors. Research staff include clinical and non-clinical researchers, research nurses and
trial directors. Among research staff, 80% (24/30) are female and 40% (12/30) are part-
time.
Professional/support staff include: project managers and trial co-ordinators;
programmers and other IT staff; and other administrative staff. Three support staff (Unit
Administrator, Head of IT and Security, and Senior Trials Manager) have significant line
management responsibility and are members of the NPEU Senior Management Group
(SMG). Three-quarters of the professional/support staff (76%, 41/54) are female and 40%
(21/54) work part-time.
Most staff work as part of one or more project teams fostering a collaborative and team-
working culture. A project team will usually include research staff, professional/support
staff, staff from different disciplines, with different levels of seniority and will often
include external collaborators from other universities, the NHS or service user groups.
Most staff feel valued irrespective of their role, gender or seniority: 92% of staff in the
2016 survey reported that they felt valued for the work they do in the NPEU.
10
3. THE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Recommended word count: Bronze: 1000 words | Silver: 1000 words
Describe the self-assessment process. This should include:
(i) a description of the self-assessment team
The SAT currently comprises nine members across a range of backgrounds and
experience:
Table 1: NPEU SAT
Name/Job title Gender SAT responsibility Background
Sue Bellenger Unit Administrator
F HR policy implementation. SMG member.
Has grown-up children and caring responsibilities for older relatives, benefits from flexible working.
Sarah Chamberlain Graphic and Multimedia Designer
F Perspectives of raising a young family and working part-time.
Works part-time. Benefits from flexible working to fit in with childcare.
Jane Henderson Researcher
F Researcher perspective. Co-chair of Career Progression Group
Works 70%FTE to maintain outside interests. Benefitted from flexible working when her children were younger.
Andrew King Head of Trials Programming
M Leads data analysis. Represents trials and programming.
Benefitted from flexible working when his children were younger.
Andy Kirk Webmaster and Design Co-ordinator
M Perspectives from the design team. Web/design skills.
Has young family, benefits from flexible working.
Marian Knight Professor
F Senior academic. SMG member.
Three secondary school children. Benefits from flexible working.
Maria Quigley Professor
F Chair of SAT. SMG member.
Works 90%FTE, one child. Benefits from regular home working.
Oliver Rivero-Arias Associate Professor
M Perspectives of raising a young child. Co-led some of our surveys. SMG member.
Benefits from regular home working to fit in with childcare.
Rachel Rowe University Research Lecturer
F Deputy Chair of SAT. Works 80% FTE with flexible working. Had maternity leave and completed DPhil while in Unit.
11
Advised by
Charlotte Smith F MSD Athena SWAN Facilitator
Brid Cronin F MSD Athena SWAN Facilitator
Stephanie McCall F NDPH Athena SWAN and Training Facilitator
Adrienne Hopkins F University Senior Equality Advisor
(ii) an account of the self-assessment process
SAT membership
The SAT has been in place since 2012. Members are volunteers and membership is
reviewed annually at SAT meetings to ensure that the group is sufficiently balanced with
respect to gender (6f, 3m) and job type (5 research, 4 professional/support); additional
volunteers are sought (via email or Unit meetings) when necessary. Maria Quigley (MQ)
agreed with the Director that she would chair the SAT until 2017. In March 2015, MQ
asked Rachel Rowe (RR) to be the Deputy Chair of the group, partly to recognise Rachel’s
commitment to Athena SWAN activities and to provide some continuity when MQ steps
down as chair.
Working Groups
The main Athena SWAN activities are led by the SAT, with policies signed off by the SMG.
One of the first things that the SAT did in 2012 was to set up two working groups on
Career Development (currently led by Jane Henderson and Jennifer Hollowell) and
Flexible Working (currently led by Claire Carson) (Figure 2). These topics were chosen to
address the needs identified in our first Athena SWAN survey (2012). Based on
information and feedback gathered through NPEU surveys, discussions at NPEU
meetings/seminars, and small group meetings, the groups have developed many of the
actions described in this application. Membership of the working groups is on a voluntary
basis and is reviewed annually or whenever someone leaves the group to ensure that all
groups (e.g. research/professional/support, male/female) are represented. Some
members have been asked to join a group in order to represent a particular section of
the NPEU (e.g. Clinical Trials).
12
Figure 2: Relationship between SMG, SAT and Working Groups
SAT and Working Group Meetings
The SAT meets on average four times per year. The agenda includes standing items, such
as updates from working groups and monitoring progress on the action plan, together
with new items for discussion. Minutes are circulated to the SAT and saved on the NPEU
network. The Working Groups each meet 2–4 times per year, as appropriate, e.g. more
often if they are running a survey or developing a policy. At least one member of each of
the working groups is on the SAT and that person feeds back at the SAT meetings and
vice versa.
Consultation within NPEU
This application has been developed with input from the NPEU. Athena SWAN is a
standing agenda item at the termly NPEU meetings (attended by all NPEU members)
where MQ and RR present an update of activities and this usually generates some
discussion in the meeting. MQ and RR also encourage NPEU members to follow up or
provide additional comments outside of the meeting (e.g. one-to-one discussion or by
email). Since 2012, we have conducted four online surveys of all NPEU members and
these have had high response rates (Table 2). The survey results, which will be discussed
throughout this application, have been extremely positive and confirm that the NPEU
provides a supportive environment. The surveys identify areas for improvement and
allow us to monitor the impact of our activities.
SMG
Athena SWAN SAT
Working Group on Career
Development
Working Group on Flexible
Working
13
Table 2: Summary of NPEU surveys related to Athena SWAN
Purpose of survey was to inform:
Date Response rate Dissemination of results via:
Athena SWAN application
Nov 2012
98% (61/62; 49f, 12m)
Unit email
NPEU flexible working policy
Jul 2014
79% (62/78; 48f, 13m, 1 not stated)
Unit seminar in Nov 2014
NPEU career development policies
Dec 2014
93% (76/82; 59f, 17m)
Unit email
Athena SWAN application
Mar 2016
88% (71/81; 55f, 12m, 4 not stated)
Unit email & Unit meeting Oct 2016
Consultation outside NPEU Three NPEU members (MQ and RR from the SAT; Claire Carson from the Flexible Working
Group) are part of the SAT for NDPH and this allows us to share ideas and experiences.
For example, NPEU has shared experiences of flexible working with NDPH, while NPEU
members have benefitted from new initiatives developed by the NDPH SAT, such as a
mentoring scheme and the Early Career Researchers Network. The SAT has ongoing input
from the Divisional Athena SWAN Facilitator, who attends the SAT meetings and provides
information on Athena SWAN activities and best practices across the University.
Members of the SAT attend workshops and information sharing sessions with other
University departments, and external speakers such as a ‘Frameworks for Change
Workshop’ by Dr Jennifer de Vries (2014), and seminars by Departmental Gold Award
holders such as Professor Paul Walton (York, Oct 2015) and Professor Tom Welton
(Imperial, Nov 2015). These inspired us to explore extending flexible working even to
those posts which are traditionally assumed to be unsuitable for flexible working (see
Section 5.5 and Action 4.1). In January 2016, two of our SAT (MQ and RR) gave a talk on
our experiences of Athena SWAN to staff within the Social Sciences Division of the
University who were preparing Bronze applications.
(iii) plans for the future of the self-assessment team
The two Working Groups have produced a timeline for all of their tasks to enable progress
to be monitored. The SAT will meet every three months at which there will be a progress
report from the Working Groups. The SAT chair will continue to report on progress at the
monthly SMG meetings at which Athena SWAN is a standing agenda item. Athena SWAN
will continue to be a standing item at the termly Unit meetings and the SAT will continue
to seek views of NPEU members at Unit meetings, seminars, small group meetings and
via email. The SAT will continue to contribute to Athena SWAN activities in NDPH, the
Division and the University as appropriate.
The impact of the action plan will be measured with accurate and timely data collection.
Data are collected by the NPEU Admin Team and downloaded onto a secure area of the
network every 1–2 months, and two SAT members (AKing, MQ) analyse the data annually
14
and present to the SAT. The Admin Team and SMG monitor compliance with new policies.
The SAT also conducts surveys when there is a need to evaluate perceptions and
awareness of new initiatives, or to monitor impact (Table 2) and will continue to do so
(Actions 1.2 and 4.1), as well as using focus groups (Actions 1.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.5) to
inform actions and policy.
MQ and RR oversee implementation of the action plan. Having two people leading on
activities, and two different people leading the working groups, ensures that the
workload is shared. Membership of the SAT and Working Groups is optional and is
discussed at an individual’s annual PDR. Membership may change to ensure effective
implementation of the action plan.
15
4. A PICTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT
Recommended word count: Bronze: 2000 words | Silver: 2000 words
All staff and student data collection for this application was in July 2016 unless stated
otherwise. Owing to small numbers, we have combined data into larger categories
where appropriate and we have tended to show absolute numbers when percentages
would be misleading (e.g. Figure 3).
4.1 Student data
If courses in the categories below do not exist, please enter n/a.
(i) Numbers of men and women on access or foundation courses
Not applicable
(ii) Numbers of undergraduate students by gender
Full- and part-time by programme. Provide data on course applications, offers,
and acceptance rates, and degree attainment by gender.
Not applicable
(iii) Numbers of men and women on postgraduate taught degrees
Full- and part-time. Provide data on course application, offers and acceptance
rates and degree completion rates by gender.
Not applicable
(iv) Numbers of men and women on postgraduate research degrees
Full- and part-time. Provide data on course application, offers, acceptance and
degree completion rates by gender.
NPEU postgraduate students are DPhil students who are registered within the Nuffield
Department of Population Health (NDPH). DPhil applicants may apply to NDPH for a full-
time or part-time DPhil programme; NDPH was the first University Department to
implement the part-time DPhil in 2015.
DPhil places are advertised by NDPH. Applicants may choose from a list of projects with
named supervisors, or may apply with their own project, having first identified a potential
supervisor. Some applicants have funding when they apply, others apply for an
NDPH/University scholarship. Applications are reviewed by an NDPH panel (2f, 1m), and
shortlisted applicants are interviewed by the panel plus one of the potential DPhil
supervisors. DPhil places are awarded on merit, irrespective of funding or full/part-time
status.
DPhil students who are supervised by NPEU staff sit with NPEU members during their
DPhil studies and are fully integrated within NPEU, NDPH (74 DPhil students, 62% female)
16
and an Oxford College. Owing to their official registration within NDPH, the students have
been considered as part of the NDPH Athena SWAN application (silver awarded 2015).
However, some information on NPEU DPhil students is presented here to present a
complete picture.
In July 2016, NPEU had 6 DPhil students (4f, 2m, Table 3); as of October 2016, the NPEU
has 8 students (5f, 3m). Completion rates are high – 100% of students who have started
within the last 10 years have completed or are on track to complete within 4 years (pro
rata for part-time).
Table 3: Number of NPEU DPhil students by year and gender
Year Female Male Total
July 2013 4 (1 PT) 1 5
July 2014 3 (1 PT) 0 3
July 2015 4 (1 PT) 0 4
July 2016 4 (1 PT) 2 6
PT Part-time
(v) Progression pipeline between undergraduate and postgraduate student levels
Identify and comment on any issues in the pipeline between undergraduate and
postgraduate degrees.
The DPhil students in NPEU (Table 3) and NDPH cover a variety of disciplines including
clinical/statistical epidemiology and health services research. NDPH does not offer
undergraduate courses. There are numerous undergraduate pipelines (e.g. medicine,
nursing, mathematics, economics, psychology, nutrition) and DPhil students often
complete an MSc before starting their DPhil. Two of the current NPEU DPhil students
completed the NDPH MSc in Global Health Science before starting their DPhil.
4.2 Academic and research staff data
(i) Academic staff by grade, contract function and gender: research-only, teaching
and research or teaching-only
Look at the career pipeline and comment on and explain any differences between
men and women. Identify any gender issues in the pipeline at particular
grades/job type/academic contract type.
Staff grades and pipelines
All NPEU staff including the Director are funded by competitively obtained research
grants and are classified as ‘research staff’ or ‘professional/support staff’. Some research
staff undertake teaching responsibilities, although this does not affect their job
title/description or source of salary funding. Hence, all researchers are categorised as
‘research-only’. Some researchers have University titles (e.g. Professor) which are
awarded as part of the University Recognition of Distinction Exercise (RoD). These data
are shown in Section 5. 1. iii)).
17
NPEU researchers represent many academic disciplines and come from a variety of
clinical (e.g. public health, obstetrics, paediatrics, midwifery) and non-clinical (e.g.
epidemiology, statistics, health economics, psychology) backgrounds. For example, a
recent grade 7 researcher post asked for ‘a postgraduate qualification in epidemiology,
statistics or a health related science, a substantial part of which relates to statistical
methods in health research’.
Figure 3 and Table 4 show researchers by grade, year and gender. The majority are female
(80%, 24/30 in 2016) which is consistent with the gender profile in NPEU (77% female,
65/84). Such a high proportion of female researchers is characteristic in public health
departments (e.g. Athena SWAN application for: Department of Health Sciences,
University of York 2013, 82% female; Institute of Health and Society, University of
Newcastle 2014, 72% female) or maternal and child health (e.g. Athena SWAN application
for Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of West of England 2014, 79%
female).
A third of all researchers (33%, 10/30 in 2016) are grade 6–7 (the most junior of the non-
clinical research grades) and nearly a quarter (23%, 7/30 in 2016) are grade 10 or clinical
consultants. While the number of men is too small to draw conclusions about gender
differences over time or by grade, men are represented across all levels of seniority and
the data do not show any appreciable pipeline issues across seniority.
We are mindful that the number of male researchers is small and our previous Athena
SWAN application sought to investigate this and address possible unconscious bias in our
recruitment process. Our actions on gender equity have narrowed the gap between male
and female success rates at being shortlisted or appointed (see Section 5.1 i). We will
build on these actions and successes in line with the expanding remit of Athena SWAN
principles, arranging for more detailed focus groups on gender and ethnicity to identify
any potential barriers to working in, or applying for, a NPEU post (Actions 1.1 and 2.2).
We continue to monitor data on recruitment (see subsequent section, Action 6.1).
The 19 men who currently work in NPEU include 6 researchers, 9 IT staff, 2 trial co-
ordinators and 2 support staff. We continue to ensure that there is appropriate gender
representation on NPEU committees and research management groups.
18
Figure 3: Number of research staff by year, grade and gender
Table 4: Number of staff in each grade by year and gender
Grade
6–7 Grade 8–9*
Grade 10/ Clinical
consultant Total
2013 F
M
11 (46%)
0
9 (38%)
2 (50%)
4 (17%)
2 (50%)
24 (100%)
4 (100%)
2014 F
M
8 (31%)
1 (25%)
13 (50%)
1 (25%)
5 (19%)
2 (50%)
26 (100%)
4 (100%)
2015 F
M
8 (36%)
2 (40%)
9 (41%)
1 (20%)
5 (23%)
2 (40%)
22 (100%)
5 (100%)
2016 F
M
9 (38%) 1 (17%)
10 (42%) 3 (50%)
5 (21%) 2 (33%)
24 (100%) 6 (100%)
* includes clinical trainee
SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY
Where relevant, comment on the transition of technical staff to academic
roles.
The NPEU professional/support staff include programmers/other IT staff, Study Co-
ordinators, and other administrators (e.g. finance, HR). NPEU policies support career
progression of all staff, usually as part of the annual PDR process and regular one-to-one
meetings. For example, NPEU provided financial support and study leave to two female
trial co-ordinators to undertake a Diploma in Clinical Trials, which will help facilitate
career progression (to Trial Director or Trials Manager) or career transition (to
researcher, should they wish to go down this route). A female project co-ordinator who
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
2013 2014 2015 2016
Male 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 2
Female 11 9 4 8 13 5 8 9 5 9 10 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
19
was considering a career as a researcher was encouraged by her line manager to
undertake an MSc (part-time); NPEU policy allowed her regular study leave and flexible
working.
(ii) Academic and research staff by grade on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent
and zero-hour contracts by gender
Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts. Comment
on what is being done to ensure continuity of employment and to address any
other issues, including redeployment schemes.
All NPEU researchers are funded by external research grants and are initially employed
on fixed-term contracts. For externally-funded research staff, NDPH encourages open-
ended contracts to be offered to staff who have been employed by the University for at
least 4 years, provided that there is a reasonable prospect that external funding will
continue in the foreseeable future and the work is central to the future plans of NDPH.
Figure 4 shows the number of researchers with fixed/open-ended contracts by gender,
grade and year. In 2016, 30% (9/30) of researchers have open-ended contracts. This
proportion does not vary by gender (7/24=29.2% in women, 2/6=33.3% in men) but it
varies by grade (6/7=86% of grade 10/consultants, 0/10 grade 6–7 researchers). This
reflects the fact that most of the senior staff have been in the NPEU for more than 4 years
and are more likely to be employed on grants with longer term funding. No NPEU
researchers have permanent or zero-hours contracts.
Figure 4: Contract type of research staff by year, grade and gender
The length of initial staff contracts varies according to the staffing model in the grant, but
the majority are 2–3 years, while contracts of less than one year or more than 5 years are
unusual. For example, for staff appointed in 2015, 8 had initial contracts of 12–23
months, 9 had contracts of 24–35 months and 3 had contracts of 3 or more years.
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Open-ended
Fixedterm
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
Grades 6/7Grades
8/9/Clinicaltrainee
Grade10/Clinicalconsultant
2013 2014 2015 2016
Male 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1
Female 0 11 3 6 4 0 0 8 2 11 5 0 0 8 2 7 5 0 0 9 2 8 5 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
20
Every effort is made to retain staff by extending contracts within the NPEU, particularly
when planning new grant applications, or as soon as a principal investigator is informed
that a grant application has been successful. Since 2011, the SMG undertake a review of
all staff with 6 months left on their contract, with a discussion of their potential match
with upcoming posts. In addition, the Director and NPEU Administrator regularly review
the NPEU’s budget as a whole (made up of the individual grants), with a view to extending
staff contracts where possible.
There are several policies in place which help re-deploy NPEU staff when their contract
in the NPEU cannot be extended. The employee is offered a meeting with their line
manager to discuss re-deployment and is advised to look at the University’s Jobs website
and Careers Service website. Staff are entitled to time off to attend interviews. Staff with
at least 2 years’ service in the University are also informed that they are a priority
candidate for other University posts (this gives them the opportunity to interview for the
post before it is open to external candidates).
(iii) Academic leavers by grade and gender and full/part-time status
Comment on the reasons academic staff leave the department, any differences
by gender and the mechanisms for collecting this data.
All leavers have an exit interview with one of the HR team. A form records administrative
data (e.g. forwarding contact details) together with the reason for leaving. Figure 5 shows
the number of researchers who have left NPEU in the past four years by gender and
reason for leaving. The numbers are too small to allow comparisons by gender (12f, 3m)
or full/part-time status (6 full-time, 9 part-time). As expected, the most common reason
for leaving was to take up another post at Oxford University (4f, 0m) or elsewhere (6f,
2m). We will review exit processes and consider introducing more detailed exit interview
questions (Action 1.3).
Figure 5: Reason for staff leaving the NPEU by year and gender
RetiredFamilymovedaway
New postat
Universityof Oxford
New postelsewhere
RetiredFamilymovedaway
New postat
Universityof Oxford
New postelsewhere
RetiredFamilymovedaway
New postat
Universityof Oxford
New postelsewhere
RetiredFamilymovedaway
New postat
Universityof Oxford
New postelsewhere
Aug 12–Jul 13 Aug 13–Jul 14 Aug 14–Jul 15 Aug 15–Jul 16
Male 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Female 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 2
0
1
2
3
21
5 SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS
Recommended word count: Bronze: 6000 words | Silver: 6500 words
5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff
(i) Recruitment
Break down data by gender and grade for applications to academic posts
including shortlisted candidates, offer and acceptance rates. Comment on how
the department’s recruitment processes ensure that women (and men where
there is an underrepresentation in numbers) are encouraged to apply.
Our recruitment numbers are relatively small, therefore we have presented data by
broad grades (7 versus 8–10/clinical). In order to assess impact, we have also presented
data for two time periods, before (2009–12) and after (2013–16), to coincide with the
introduction of some Athena SWAN-inspired recruitment policies. The majority of
applicants for NPEU research posts in 2013–16 were female (58%), as were the majority
shortlisted (66%) and appointed (73%) (Table 5). As data for grade 8–10 posts is sparse,
we compared male and female success rates in being shortlisted (Figure 6a) and
appointed (Figure 6b) for combined grades.
Table 5: Number of applicants for NPEU research posts by year, grade and gender
2009–12 2013–16
All grades Grade 7 Grade 8–10* All grades Grade 7 Grade 8–10*
No. of posts 22 11 11 17 14 3
No. of applications 223 158 65 178 171 7
% Female 63% 61% 68% 58% 57% 71%
No. shortlisted 64 37 27 47 42 5
% Female 75% 73% 78% 66% 64% 80%
No. appointed 19 11 8 15 12 3
% Female 84% 82% 88% 73% 75% 67%
*includes clinical trainee/consultant
Figure 6: Percentage of applicants who were a) shortlisted and b) appointed, by year
and gender
a) Percentage shortlisted from all
applicants
b) Percentage appointed from shortlist
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2009–12 2013–16
Female Male
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2009–12 2013–16
Female Male
22
The NPEU website and job descriptions of advertised posts display ‘We are proud to hold
an Athena SWAN Silver Award’. Contextual information around NPEU recruitment
includes: advertising posts in research disciplines historically seen as female disciplines
(proportion female 52% in clinical medicine, 60% in psychology, 65% in health and
community studies, 75% in nursing and allied health professionals; Equality in higher
education: statistical report 2015. Part 1: staff); the percentage of applicants who were
shortlisted (Figure 6a) is calculated out of all applicants and we have noted a higher
tendency among men to submit applications that do not meet the advertised criteria for
a post; finally, the percentage of shortlisted applicants who were appointed is based on
small numbers (11/31=35% of women and 4/16=25% of men in 2013–16, Figure 6b).
In our previous Athena SWAN application, we sought to monitor and remove potential
biases in our recruitment processes. Three actions from our previous application have
had a direct impact on NPEU recruitment. First, we have been monitoring recruitment
data since 2012 to improve awareness of the gender inequality. Second, in 2013 we
organised training in ‘Unconscious Bias’ for staff involved in recruitment and selection;
Unconscious Bias training has also now been incorporated into the standard recruitment
training which is untaken as a ‘refresher’ course every three years. Finally, in 2013 we
modified the recruitment and selection process such that when a panel is being planned,
the chair of the panel is reminded to include men and women. If a suitable male panel
member is not identified in NPEU, staff contact the NDPH Administrators, who will help
find an appropriate man. As a result of these process changes, all interview panels for
research staff and the majority of interview panels for professional/support staff include
both genders (Table 6).
Table 6: Gender representation on interview panels by type of post
2013 2014 2015
Up to
Sept 2016
Research staff
Total number of interview panels
Both genders represented on interview panels
5
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Professional & support staff
Total number of interview panels
Both genders represented on interview panels NK
11
9
20
18
8
8
All staff
Total number of interview panels
Both genders represented on interview panels NK
14
12 (86%)
22
20 (91%)
11
11 (100%)
NK Not known
23
We will continue to shortlist and appoint according to how well candidates meet the
criteria. We will facilitate this by continuing to ensure that all staff on recruitment panels
undergo regular training on unconscious bias and equality and diversity (Action 6.2). In
addition, we will carry out a pilot study to investigate whether it is feasible and beneficial
to anonymise job applications prior to shortlisting (Action 2.1). We will continue to
monitor data on recruitment by gender, together with the gender profile on NPEU
research management groups and committees, to ensure both genders are represented.
We will further investigate the recruitment experiences of men and ethnic minority staff
using focus groups (Action 2.2).
(ii) Induction
Describe the induction and support provided to all new academic staff at all
levels. Comment on the uptake of this and how its effectiveness is reviewed.
NPEU members have a Unit induction with one of the HR Team, usually on their first day.
The induction is offered to all new staff, DPhil students, MSc placements (typically 3
months), trainees in clinical specialties/public health (who have placements in NPEU for
3–12 months), and visitors who will be in the NPEU for at least 3 months; uptake is 100%.
The induction covers topics such as: Unit meetings and seminars on the campus; remote
working; the University’s childcare services and childcare vouchers, and includes bespoke
NPEU literature to take away for reference. In a follow-up email, researchers are sent the
link to the University website ‘Support for Researchers’ and encouraged to attend the
‘Welcome Event for Researchers’ organised by the University several times per year
which enables them to meet peers from different departments. There are separate
inductions by the IT team, the Health and Safety Officer, and the individual’s line
manager; the latter is tailored to the person’s individual job description.
Starting at their induction, training and development (T&D) opportunities are
encouraged for all staff. All new staff are given their own T&D folder which includes
information on computing and other courses (e.g. the University leaflets ‘Careers Support
for Research Staff’ and ‘Research Staff Support’). T&D needs are reviewed formally as
part of the probation (see below) and PDR processes, and informally at one-to-one
meetings with line managers. For new staff with line management responsibilities,
mandatory online training in ‘Unconscious Bias’ and ‘Bullying and Harassment’ has
recently been introduced and compliance is being monitored by the HR team.
IMPACT: Since implementing these 3 actions, female applicants still have higher success rates, but there is a smaller gap between male and female applicants in terms of their chance of being:
shortlisted (30% in females, 21% in males in 2013–16 compared with 34% in females, 19% in males in 2009–12, Figure 7a)
appointed (35% in females, 25% in males in 2013–16 compared with 33% in females, 19% in males in 2009–12, Figure 7b)
24
All new staff have a probationary period of 12 months which helps facilitate a smooth
settling in process and enables T&D needs to be identified and addressed. Induction is
evaluated as part of the probation process. New staff fill in a self-completion form which
is reviewed with their line manager at the one month meeting and submitted to the HR
team at the end of probation for review:
Staff almost always report that the induction was useful (in 2016, 100%
agreement among staff who had joined the NPEU in the past year compared with
60% for the University as a whole).
Improvements following feedback include revising the process in 2015 by
sending a follow-up email to include links to useful web pages (e.g. Welcome for
Researchers; Equality and Diversity) which reduces the number of leaflets. A
more recent suggestion for improvement, which is about to be added to the
induction, is for guidance using the online system for booking meeting rooms.
(iii) Promotion
Provide data on staff applying for promotion and comment on applications and
success rates by gender, grade and full- and part-time status. Comment on how
staff are encouraged and supported through the process.
Encouraging career progression has been a strong focus of our Athena SWAN activities
since 2013. Through mandatory PDR, we have ensured that staff are aware of promotion
opportunities and are encouraged and supported to apply.
There is no formal promotion process at the University, but exceptional performance is
recognised in other ways, such as re-grading of current posts where responsibility has
increased significantly, or securing a new or a higher grade post through open
recruitment. Researchers may also be promoted through securing an externally-funded
fellowship or being awarded a University title in the University Recognition of Distinction
Exercise.
We have presented data for each of these categories separately, but as the numbers are
small, we have combined the data from January 2013 to September 2016.
IMPACT: Since implementing our previous action of mandatory Personal Development Review (PDR) for all staff since 2013, there has been improved career planning for NPEU staff:
In the December 2014 survey (at the end of the second round of mandatory PDR), 15 staff said that PDR had encouraged them to apply for a promotion such as a University title, re-grading or new post.
Comparing survey data from 2016 and 2012 (when uptake of PDR was low), there is a statistically significant increase in the proportion of staff who report that their line manager supports them to think about professional development (70% in 2012, 90% in 2016, p=0.004).
25
Re-grading
Staff can apply to the University to have their post re-graded, a process which involves
submitting the reason for re-grade and their current job description. An individual’s
current responsibilities are reviewed against their job description as part of PDR,
although staff can apply for a re-grade at any time in the year.
In 2013–16, seven researchers and 20 professional/support staff were re-graded (n=19)
or secured a new, higher grade post within the NPEU (n=8). Owing to the small numbers
for researchers these data are presented for researchers and professional/support staff
combined (Figure 8a). There were no unsuccessful applications for re-grade although one
individual achieved a smaller increase in grade than requested and another individual
was advised to delay their application as they did not currently meet the criteria for re-
grade. Among the 27 successful applications, 78% were female, 37% were part-time and
26% were researchers (Figure 7a), which is broadly consistent with the profile of all NPEU
staff in 2013, the start of this reporting period (82% female, 37% part-time, 39%
researchers in 2013, Figure 7b). There was a spread of promotions across grades although
fewer at the higher grades (8+) than lower grades (3–6).
Figure 7a: No. of re-grades in 2013–16 by gender, job type, working hours and grade
Female21
Male6
Grades 3–614
Grade 78
Grade 8+5
Professional/support
20
Research7
Full-time17
Part-time10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
By gender By work hours By job type By grade
26
Figure 7b: Total staff in 2013 by gender, working hours, job type and grade
University titles and external fellowships
The University Recognition of Distinction exercise takes place every year (prior to 2014,
every two years for professorial titles) and invites academic/research staff to apply for
the title of Professor, Associate Professor and University Research Lecturer (URL;
recognises substantial independent research achievement, along with contributions to
teaching and citizenship). Staff are informed of the process by an email which is cascaded
down to departmental heads, and an advertisement in the University’s ‘Gazette’
magazine which is available online. The application invites disclosure of personal
circumstances, where relevant. For the URLs and Associate Professors, the SMG discuss
all eligible staff, and the Director or line manager will email or speak to them directly and
encourage them to apply.
Nine staff (7f, 2m) currently have University titles of University Research Lecturer,
Associate Professor or Professor (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Number of researchers with University title by year and gender
# Associate Professor is a new title, introduced in 2014; Reader is being phased out
Female59
Male13
Grades 3–626
Grade 725
Grade 8+21
Professional/support
44
Research28
Full-time45
Part-time27
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
By gender By work hours By job type By grade
Univ ResLecturer
AssocProf/Reader
ProfessorUniv ResLecturer
AssocProf/Reader
ProfessorUniv ResLecturer
AssocProf/Reader
ProfessorUniv ResLecturer
AssocProf/Reader
Professor
2013 2014 2015 2016
Male 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0
Female 1 1 2 0 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 3
0
1
2
3
4
27
Among the nine researchers who were successful during 2013–16, the following titles
were awarded: Professor (2f); Associate Professor (2f, 3m); and University Research
Lecturer (2f). The numbers are small but show representation across gender, working
hours and seniority of title (Table 7). There were five unsuccessful applications (3f, 2m; 2
full-time, 3 part-time). All were given feedback as to why they were unsuccessful and
were encouraged to develop the appropriate skills or experience in order to meet the
promotion criteria. Examples of the encouragement given include support to write grant
applications or protected time to write first-author papers. Two applications were re-
submitted successfully within a couple of years.
As part of the annual PDR, eligible staff are encouraged to apply for fellowships. Three
female researchers have been awarded externally-funded fellowships through NIHR or
MRC (Table 7). All three are part-time.
Table 7: Number of research staff awarded a University title or externally-funded
fellowship in 2013–16 by working hours and gender
University titles awarded
Fellowships awarded
Female 6 3
Male 3 0
Total 9 3
Unsuccessful applications 3f, 2m 1f
Pending - 1f
Full-time 6 0
Part-time 3 3
Total 9 5
Unsuccessful applications 2 FT, 3 PT 1 FT
Pending - 1 FT
FT full-time PT part-time
We will continue to monitor the number of applications for promotion and the success
rate (Action 6.1). We will improve communication about career development
IMPACT: Since implementing our previous actions of improved career development (through mandatory PDR) and the Director/SMG encouraging staff to apply for University titles (through annually reviewing all eligible staff), there has been an increase in the number of staff with University titles from 5/31 (16%) in 2013 to 9/30 (30%) in 2016 (Figure 8). The actions are discussed in Section 5.3 ii).
28
opportunities by putting the information on the Athena SWAN noticeboard in the kitchen
(Action 3.3), in addition to email circulars. We will continue to review and improve the
PDR process (Action 3.5).
(iv) Department submissions to the Research Excellence Framework (REF)
Provide data on the staff, by gender, submitted to REF versus those that were
eligible. Compare this to the data for the Research Assessment Exercise 2008.
Comment on any gender imbalances identified.
At the time of the census for the 2014 REF (October 2013), there were seven eligible
NPEU staff (5f, 2m) and six of these were included in the REF submission (4f, 2m), based
on the quality of their four best papers. For the 2008 RAE, there were also seven eligible
staff (3f, 4m) and five were included (2f, 3m). The numbers are small but suggest that
most eligible staff are submitted irrespective of gender.
SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY
5.2 Key career transition points: professional and support staff
(i) Induction
Describe the induction and support provided to all new professional
and support staff, at all levels. Comment on the uptake of this and how
its effectiveness is reviewed.
(ii) Promotion
Provide data on staff applying for promotion, and comment on
applications and success rates by gender, grade and full- and part-time
status. Comment on how staff are encouraged and supported through
the process.
Induction
Professional/support staff follow the same induction processes as researchers, with a
separate induction by their manager which is tailored to the person’s individual job
description. For example, staff working on clinical trials attend a ‘Good Clinical Practice’
course soon after starting. Induction uptake is 100%.
Promotion
The main promotion opportunities for professional/support staff are re-grading of
current posts due to increased responsibility or securing a new or a higher grade post
through open recruitment. During 2013–16, 20 professional/support staff were either re-
graded or secured a new, higher grade post within the NPEU (Figures 7a–b). Further data
on these promotions have been combined with data for researchers due to small
numbers, and have been presented and discussed just above Figures 7a–b. There were
29
no obvious disparities by gender or part-time status, and there was a spread of
promotions across grades.
5.3 Career development: academic staff
(i) Training
Describe the training available to staff at all levels in the department. Provide
details of uptake by gender and how existing staff are kept up to date with
training. How is its effectiveness monitored and developed in response to levels
of uptake and evaluation?
NPEU staff have regular one-to-one meetings with their line manager which include
discussion of career development, and training and development (T&D) needs. The
frequency of meetings varies from weekly to quarterly depending on the needs of the
individual. T&D is also discussed as part of annual PDR. Agreed training needs are listed
in a section of the PDR form and a copy of this section is given to the Unit T&D lead. The
T&D lead can help identify a suitable course or arrange for in-house training if
appropriate. Examples of in-house training include ‘Management training in positive and
performance management’ (for SMG, 2012–13), Structural Equation Modelling (for
researchers, 2014), ‘Addressing harassment and bullying’ (for line managers, 2015). The
T&D lead also discusses training with the Training Facilitator in NDPH, who can help
identify suitable courses and arrange in-house training within NDPH.
Appropriate training needs are agreed with line managers and are funded either by the
relevant research grant or NPEU funds. Many grants allow approximately £500 per
person per year for training. If there is no grant funding then the NPEU covers the cost.
For training identified as part of PDR, no applications have been refused on the basis of
funding in the past three years. Staff find out about conferences and external courses in
a variety of ways such as via line managers or by word of mouth. Many courses offered
by the University are advertised by email, e.g. via the University Research Staff email list,
and these are forwarded to NPEU researchers (who may not all be on this email list) by
the T&D Lead. Recent examples of courses advertised in this way include a workshop for
researchers returning to work after maternity leave, and the personal development
courses ‘Springboard’ (for women) and ‘Navigator’ (for men). Since 2013, five women (3
researchers and 2 professional/support staff) have undertaken Springboard.
There is strong evidence in the 2016 survey that staff take time to reflect on and plan for
career development (81%) and that their line manager actively encourages them to take
up career development opportunities (90%). Staff awareness about promotion
opportunities is somewhat lower; 65% of staff were clear about the development
opportunities available to them.
As part of our previous actions since 2013, we have made information about training and
development available in a number of additional ways. The NPEU website includes
information on courses, re-grading, fellowships and university titles under ‘Training,
development and career progression’ on the NPEU website (Image 2). The NPEU intranet
30
includes a list of courses attended by staff and a review by the attendee to help staff
evaluate whether any given course is likely to be effective for them (Image 3). This is
maintained and kept up to date by the chair of the Career Development Working Group
(CDWG). We have also hosted a seminar by the University of Oxford Researcher
Development Officer about University training available to researchers. The intranet also
includes information on career maps (Image 4, Section 5.4) and fellowships (Image 3).
Image 2: Screenshot of ‘Working in the NPEU’ section of NPEU website
Image 3: Screenshot of ‘Athena SWAN’ section of NPEU intranet
Most staff (86% in 2016) are comfortable discussing T&D with their line manager;
similarly most (83%) reported that they had opportunities to take on new responsibilities
and develop skills, demonstrating the effectiveness of PDR and the training facilitated
through PDR and ongoing review of training needs.
In our 2016 survey, 50% of line managers identified a need for further training in
conducting PDR and/or supporting staff to think about their careers. Our CDWG will
review the available training and discuss with the NDPH to ensure that we can develop a
list of recommended training to meet this need (Action 3.4). Our new T&D group, which
expands the remit of the CDWG to cover all T&D related issues, chaired by our new T&D
lead, will oversee monitoring of T&D needs for all staff (Action 6.3). We will also continue
31
to increase awareness of training opportunities through our new Athena SWAN
noticeboard (Action 3.3 & 5.1).
There are periodic reminders about these website/intranet pages in Unit meetings.
However, only 43% of research staff in 2016 were aware of the process for applying for
the title of Associate Professor or University Research Lecturer. We will improve
communication about career development opportunities by putting the information on
the Athena SWAN noticeboard in the kitchen (Action 3.3), in addition to email circulars.
We will continue to review and improve the PDR process (Action 3.1).
We will continue to monitor the number of applications for promotion and the success
rate (Action 6.1).
(ii) Appraisal/development review
Describe current appraisal/development review schemes for staff at all levels,
including postdoctoral researchers and provide data on uptake by gender.
Provide details of any appraisal/review training offered and the uptake of this,
as well as staff feedback about the process.
Prior to 2013, PDR and/or appraisal were optional for almost all staff and uptake was low.
As part of our previous action plan, mandatory PDR for all staff was implemented in 2013;
the only staff who are not eligible for PDR are those who are in their one year
probationary period, during which T&D needs are identified. In the 2012 survey, only 35%
of staff reported having had a career development plan or PDR. Since 2014, all eligible
staff have had an annual PDR (Table 8).
Table 8: Number of staff who had PDR by year and job type
2013 2014 2015
Research staff
Total staff in post at end of year 32 31 25
Total staff eligible for PDR* 22 24 18
Eligible staff who had PDR by end of year 22 (100%) 24 (100%) 18 (100%)
Professional and support staff
Total staff in post at end of year 43 46 48
Total staff eligible for PDR* 18 31 26
Eligible staff who had PDR by end of year 15 (83%) 31 (100%) 26 (100%)
*Staff who are still in their probationary period are assessed as part of a different process. Also
excludes staff who have left or are about to leave, or who are on maternity leave
Most staff find the PDR process useful (69% of staff in 2014 and 71% in 2016). In the 2014
survey on career development, staff reported that PDR had encouraged them to reflect
32
on their achievements (87%), think about their career path (60%) and enrol on a course
(58%). These results suggest that PDR is generally a positive process for many staff.
“I am pleased that it [PDR] has been made compulsory as otherwise I may not have participated but now I understand the value.” (Member of staff, Dec 2014 survey) “It's nice to have some time set aside to sit with your manager and discuss things as normally everyone is so busy it's something that you never get round to doing!” (Member of staff, Dec 2014 survey)
Whilst the data above show improvement due to implementation of our previous
actions, there is scope for further development. New actions include expanding the remit
of the Career Development Working Group to cover all T&D related issues (Action 6.3);
reviewing the PDR process to ensure it works effectively for all groups of staff (Action
3.5), including staff moving from one short-term contract to another (Action 3.1).
There are several mentoring opportunities for NPEU staff and these are discussed as part
of the PDR process. For example, in 2016, NDPH introduced a scheme for staff at all levels
and several NPEU members are taking part as mentees (3f) or mentors (3f). There is a
group mentoring scheme for junior and mid-career researchers within the Division and
this was taken up by several NPEU members (3f). Two women have taken part in the
University ‘Ad Feminam’ ongoing mentoring scheme for senior academics as either
mentee or mentor. Other NPEU members have external mentors as part of their NIHR or
MRC fellowship and other staff have identified a mentor through an informal process,
e.g. asking someone to be their mentor.
(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression
Comment and reflect on support given to academic staff, especially postdoctoral
researchers, to assist in their career progression.
Career progression (e.g. applying for university titles) requires fulfilling criteria in
research (e.g. publications, grants), teaching and citizenship. These activities are
discussed at PDR and we are pro-active in ensuring that all researchers are given
appropriate opportunities to gain experience in all of these areas:
Teaching
There are opportunities for researchers to take on teaching responsibilities. For example,
NDPH runs an MSc in Global Health Science and organisers email all staff annually asking
for volunteers to undertake teaching (e.g. delivering lectures, facilitating practicals,
IMPACT: PDR is almost always conducted by an individual’s line manager. Since the
PDR process was updated in 2013:
there has been a large increase in the proportion of staff reporting that
their line manager gives them helpful feedback (78% in 2012, 93% in 2016,
p=0.017).
33
marking assignments). A few NPEU staff undertake teaching duties outside the
Department, e.g. two staff teach on a Clinical Trials course elsewhere in the University.
In addition, NPEU leads an MSc module in Maternal and Child Health. In 2014–15, the
SMG discussed how to involve other researchers in delivering the module on Maternal
and Child Health. They invited one researcher to be a co-lead for the module and two
researchers and a DPhil student to facilitate a practical.
Grant applications
See Section 5.3 v).
Citizenship/committees
Citizenship opportunities are discussed as part of PDR. All researchers have the
opportunity to be on some committees (there are regular emails and announcements at
termly Unit meetings for volunteers to join the SAT and working groups). Other
citizenship opportunities include running seminars, being responsible for the ‘News’ on
the website, organising social events, etc. External committee membership is discussed
in Section 5.6 iv).
(iv) Support given to students (at any level) for academic career progression
Comment and reflect on support given to students at any level to enable them
to make informed decisions about their career (including the transition to a
sustainable academic career).
DPhil students have regular meetings with their supervisors (typically every 2–4 weeks).
It is a requirement of NDPH (and some DPhil funders) that students have a T&D plan; this
is discussed within supervision meetings. Each student has an annual T&D allowance
(funded by NDPH) which is used to supplement University courses (which are usually
free). As part of T&D planning in supervision meetings, students are encouraged to
present their work at conferences, and when other opportunities arise (the Annual NDPH
Symposium and poster competition), supervisors forward details to the students.
Students who wish to take on some teaching responsibilities are supported in this
endeavour. This is discussed as part of T&D planning, or as the opportunity arises. All the
current DPhil students (4f, 2m) have presented their work at a conference, and most have
undertaken teaching (3f, 2m).
IMPACT: With the improvements to the PDR process since 2013, line managers have been
proactive in ensuring researchers are offered, and encouraged to undertake, teaching
opportunities. Examples include:
Two researchers gave their first lecture on the MSc last year; this year they were
both asked to deliver more (2–3) lectures.
Senior researchers have encouraged 5 researchers to be co-supervisors of MSc
placements. One researcher now supervises her own MSc placements.
One mid-career researcher took on the role of DPhil co-supervision and is now
advertising a DPhil project as the lead supervisor.
34
The NPEU also hosts placements for MSc students (on average 3 students per year, from
May to August) and public health/clinical trainees (typically 1 trainee per year for 3–12
months). The student or trainee will undertake a piece of research with supervision by
NPEU researcher(s). Many of these placements result in a first-author paper for the
student/trainee, and some of the students (3f, 3m) have gone on to undertake a DPhil.
All students have access to the University careers service which hosts numerous local and
national seminars and careers fairs. These events enable students to learn about
academic (and non-academic) career paths and provide practical support such as
interview skills and CV workshops.
(v) Support offered to those applying for research grant applications
Comment and reflect on support given to staff who apply for funding and what
support is offered to those who are unsuccessful.
NPEU is proactive in encouraging junior staff to get experience in writing grant
applications. This experience ranges from shadowing to being a co-applicant or the
Principal Investigator. From January 2013 to July 2016, there were 17 grant applications
which were led by a junior or mid-career researcher (Table 9). Some of these were
fellowship applications (doctoral, postdoctoral, mid-career) and others were small to
medium size grants.
One of our 2013 actions was to establish a mechanism that enabled researchers to
develop grant application skills. Our target, since 2013, was for at least 50% of grant
applications led by NPEU staff to involve a grade 7–8 researcher as a co-applicant or
shadow. A less experienced researcher would initially shadow a more senior colleague to
gain experience in the whole grant application process, with a view to becoming a co-
applicant on a grant or leading their own grant application. A list of submitted grants,
including data on the involvement of grade 7–8 researchers, is reviewed at the monthly
SMG meetings and the collated data are reviewed annually by the SAT and the SMG. By
July 2016, we had exceeded our 50% target (62%) (Table 9). There are also many clinical
trial grants with an external lead which include a NPEU junior/mid-career researcher as
a co-applicant or shadow (60%).
Table 9: Number of NPEU grant applications 2013–16 which involved a junior-mid-
career researcher as a lead, co-applicant or shadow
Junior/mid-career researcher* as: Total
Lead applicant 17
Co-app/shadow on grant led by NPEU 10/16 (62%)
Co-app/shadow on clinical trial with external lead 12/20 (60%)
*grade 7–8 researchers, clinical research fellows or public health trainees
IMPACT: This action has involved more researchers in the grant application process, which has led to early/mid-career researchers developing their own applications. For example:
One researcher was supported by her line manager in leading an application for a small grant (her first grant), after which she successfully led an application for a larger and more complex grant; both applications were successful
Two other researchers were invited by their line managers to be a co-
35
This is a successful initiative and we will continue to ensure that early/mid-career
researchers have opportunities to develop grant application skills (Action 6.4).
The support given to researchers starts with the researcher and line manager discussing
suitable fellowships and project ideas either as part of PDR or regular one-to-one
meetings. To support researchers, senior staff read and comment on draft applications,
and the finance team assist with budgets. NPEU helps arrange mock interviews with the
on-site NIHR Research Design Service and senior researchers give feedback on
presentations before mock interviews. Unsuccessful applicants are supported in their
next steps which is often to develop another application for a different project and/or a
different funder; the applicant is then supported through the process again as described
above.
SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY
5.4 Career development: professional and support staff
(i) Training
Describe the training available to staff at all levels in the department.
Provide details of uptake by gender and how existing staff are kept up
to date with training. How is its effectiveness monitored and developed
in response to levels of uptake and evaluation?
(vi) Appraisal/development review
Describe current appraisal/development review schemes for
professional and support staff at all levels and provide data on uptake
by gender. Provide details of any appraisal/review training offered and
the uptake of this, as well as staff feedback about the process.
(ii) Support given to professional and support staff for career progression
Comment and reflect on support given to professional and support staff
to assist in their career progression.
Professional/support staff undergo the same processes for T&D and PDR as researchers
(described in previous sections). Uptake for PDR has been 100% since 2014 (Table 8). All
of the previous data and actions, except those related to grant applications and teaching,
36
apply to all NPEU staff. In addition, professional and support staff are given some specific
support to assist in their career progression:
The intranet has a list of courses (Image 3, Section 5.3 i)) with the name of NPEU
staff who have attended. Professional/support staff have taken many courses
covering topics such as: project management, spreadsheets, databases, taking
minutes, clinical trials methodology.
Shadowing opportunities are provided for some individuals, for example, on
costing grant applications, attending a Trial Steering Committee meeting, or
attending R&D Forum conferences for networking on trials.
In order to enhance access to, and diversity in, technical and support roles, the
NPEU has begun to develop apprenticeship roles, and has recently appointed its
first IT Apprentice Software Developer.
The NPEU intranet has a section on career development. This includes the career
maps of several staff which show the pathways taken in their career to date
(Image 3, Section 5.3 i)). One of these is for an administrator (Image 4) and
another is for a project co-ordinator.
Image 4: Example of career map on NPEU intranet
There is scope for further development. One action is to organise a focus group to explore
the development needs which might be addressed through shadowing for
professional/support staff (Action 3.2). There are limited mentoring opportunities for
professional and support staff and another action is to improve this by feeding back to
the organisers of mentoring schemes that there is a demand, and by considering
developing mentoring within the NPEU (Action 3.6).
37
5.5 Flexible working and managing career breaks
Note: Present professional and support staff and academic staff data separately
(i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave
Explain what support the department offers to staff before they go on maternity
and adoption leave.
As part of our previous action plan, we
developed a guide for parents which
gives information on maternity/
adoption leave, paternity leave, shared
parental leave and other information
about child care and schools (Image 5).
The guide and other relevant
information are given out at induction
and are on the NPEU website.
Image 5: The NPEU guide for parents
which is on the NPEU website
The University’s maternity leave scheme includes 26 weeks of full pay, 13 weeks of
Statutory Maternity Leave and up to 13 weeks of unpaid leave. Women on
maternity/adoption leave may also do up to ten days of paid work during maternity leave
(Keeping in Touch – ‘KIT’ – days). The Unit HR Team is responsible for discussing maternity
leave, KIT days, and return to work, with pregnant employees. Once a pregnant woman
first contacts the HR Team (before or after informing the line manager), she undergoes a
risk assessment by the Unit Health and Safety Officer to ensure a safe environment at
work. The woman will then make a plan outlining when she wants to start maternity leave
and eventually a plan for her return to work; the latter is usually finalised by the woman
while on maternity leave. The woman discusses these plans with the HR team and her
line manager.
The role of the HR team, as described above, is a formal University process. The
arrangements for covering work during maternity/adoption leave and supporting a
woman’s return to work are the responsibility of the line manager. Our actions on flexible
working (Action 4.1) and maintaining an inclusive environment (Actions 6.5 and 6.6) will
ensure that women who return to work after maternity/adoption leave are well
supported and they are fully included in NPEU activities. (Section 5.6)
38
(ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave
Explain what support the department offers to staff during maternity and
adoption leave.
NPEU staff are funded by research grants. When women go on maternity leave, the line
manager (in consultation with the Director, as appropriate) considers the most
appropriate way of covering the work, taking into account the interests of the pregnant
woman, the staff who cover the work and project deliverables. If a woman wants to
return to work, then the priority is to enable the woman to work on the project on her
return rather than employ someone for maternity cover. For 6 of the 7 NPEU maternities
in 2013–16, the woman returned to work (Table 10).
For three of these women, they were working with other researchers on a large
programme of work and there was flexibility to re-allocate the work across the team to
reflect staff availability and/or change the timelines. For one woman, the project timeline
was changed and her post extended accordingly so that she could resume working on the
project (which contributed to her DPhil) on her return. For two women, there was funded
maternity cover.
(iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work
Explain what support the department offers to staff on return from maternity
or adoption leave. Comment on any funding provided to support returning staff.
NPEU staff have access to subsidised childcare provision (including 5 university nurseries,
one of which is on the same site as NPEU). There is a salary sacrifice scheme for payment
of nursery fees and a childcare voucher scheme for eligible parents. The University also
offers a Returning Carers' Fund which is a small grants scheme designed to support
anyone who has taken a break of at least 6 months for caring responsibilities. The scheme
is advertised in the NDPH newsletters.
Women returning to work in the NPEU after maternity or adoption leave often choose to
have a staggered return to work, for example, using KIT days or accumulated annual leave
(6 weeks for staff on maternity leave for a year) to start working gradually. The planned
return to work is agreed with the line manager. Women returning following
maternity/adoption leave also benefit from the NPEU policy on flexible working – they
can apply to change their working hours or pattern (see vi) below. One of our future focus
groups will identify whether there is anything else we can do to support staff returning
after maternity, adoption or shared parental leave (Action 1.1 & 4.2).
(iv) Maternity return rate
Provide data and comment on the maternity return rate in the department.
Data of staff whose contracts are not renewed while on maternity leave should
be included in the section along with commentary.
Of the 7 women who took maternity leave in 2013–16, 6 returned to the NPEU and one
did not return as her family re-located. Of those who returned, three chose to return full-
39
time and three part-time. All 6 are still in post now (4 months to 2 years after returning
to work). Two additional women are now on maternity leave; one is planning to come
back part-time.
Table 9: Return rate following maternity/adoption leave by job type during 2013–16
Researchers Professional/Support
Total maternities 5 2
Returned full-time 2 1*
Returned part-time 2** 1
Did not return after maternity leave 1# 0 * full-time with flexible working ** one woman was part-time already but reduced hours from 85% to 65% # one woman re-located abroad due to family circumstances
SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY
Provide data and comment on the proportion of staff remaining
in post six, 12 and 18 months after return from maternity leave.
See data in previous section.
(v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake
Provide data and comment on the uptake of these types of leave by gender and
grade. Comment on what the department does to promote and encourage take-
up of paternity leave and shared parental leave.
In 2013–16, two men had paternity leave and one is currently on shared parental leave.
The policies for paternity, adoption and shared parental leave are available on our
website. The website links are given out at induction and are mentioned at Unit meetings.
The process for these is contacting the HR Team and making a plan outlining the details
of the planned leave. These plans are discussed with the HR Team and line manager. One
of our actions will identify what else we can do to support staff going on, or returning
from, shared parental leave (Actions 1.1 & 4.2).
(vi) Flexible working
Provide information on the flexible working arrangements available.
The NPEU has a strong culture of flexible working. Types of flexible working include part-
time, non-standard hours, regular home working, compressed hours (e.g. 5 days over 4
long days) and term-time only working. For staff in posts for which regular flexible
40
working is not possible, staff can request flexible working on an ad hoc basis such as
working at home when there are domestic appointments or home repairs.
In the past, flexible working was arranged on a case-by-case basis in agreement with a
person’s line manager rather than through a formal procedure. As part of our previous
action plan, we set up a Flexible Working Group in 2013 with a view to making the process
of flexible working more transparent and equitable. In 2014, the Group conducted a
survey of all NPEU staff to find out about their experiences of, and attitudes towards,
flexible working. A quarter of staff reported that they would choose to work alternative
patterns to their current pattern. Staff (including line managers) also explained what they
thought were the pros and cons of flexible working. The Group went on to develop a
flexible working policy, with training for line managers in July 2015 and a launch of the
policy at a Unit meeting in October 2015. The policy describes the types of flexible
working arrangements available, the process for applying and some of the reasons why
flexible working may not always be approved.
In July 2016, 60% of researchers (18/30) and 37% of professional/support staff (20/54)
had ‘agreed flexible working’ arrangements (Figure 9). This figure is highest among
female researchers (16/24=67%) compared with female professional/support staff
(16/41=39%) and all male staff (6/19=32%). The proportion of staff who work part-time
is similar in female researchers (11/24=46%) and female professional/support staff
(18/41=44%), but lower in all male staff (4/19=21%) (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Staff working patterns in 2016 by job type and gender
Female Male Female Male
Researchers Professional/support
Part-time flexible 10 1 11 2
Part-time 1 0 7 1
Full-time flexible 6 1 5 2
Full-time 7 4 18 8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
41
These results show that there is a culture of flexible working among researchers but less
so among professional/support staff. This is at least partly because their job descriptions
are more constrained (e.g. ‘customer-facing’ or data security requirements of these
roles). Our actions will help promote and increase access to flexible working by
developing a ‘plain English’ leaflet and web page on flexible working, which will include a
commitment to ad hoc flexibility where permanent flexible working is not possible
(Action 4.1). We will evaluate the policy in 2018 and revise it if necessary (Action 1.2).
(vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work after career breaks
Outline what policy and practice exists to support and enable staff who work
part-time after a career break to transition back to full-time roles.
As part of the NPEU flexible working policy, all staff who want to change their hours (i.e.
an increase or decrease) can apply to do so. Requests are granted subject to the
availability of funds (since all staff are funded by research grants) and the demands of the
post (i.e. meeting the project deliverables on time). In the past 3 years, all requests to
change working hours have been granted.
IMPACT: Our new policy highlights that there is some ad hoc flexibility of working within all posts and some posts can accommodate an element of flexible working. For example:
One researcher, whose job requires data analysis within the Unit premises, identified the need to have more first-author papers in order to progress her career. Our policy enabled her to use regular home working as a way of getting protected time to write a first-author paper (now published) and start writing another paper.
IMPACT: Our 2013 action was to add a flexible working point to the checklist for
staff advertising posts. This has resulted in a greater number of research posts
being advertised flexibly* from:
43% (9/21) in 2009–12 pre-Athena SWAN to 69% (11/16) in 2013–16
*e.g. part-time or ‘full-time or part-time’
42
5.6 Organisation and culture
(i) Culture
Demonstrate how the department actively considers gender equality and
inclusivity. Provide details of how the Athena SWAN Charter principles have
been, and will continue to be, embedded into the culture and workings of
the department.
The Athena SWAN principles of equality, diversity and inclusivity are actively
considered through:
Recruitment
Staff on interview panels have training on unconscious bias and equality and diversity (Action 6.2).
69% of research posts are advertised ‘flexibly’. Induction
Uptake is 100% of all staff.
Information given on University’s Equality and Diversity website pages.
Training for line managers on ‘Unconscious Bias’ (Action 6.2) and ‘Bullying and Harassment’ which will be extended to all staff (Action 5.2).
PDR
Uptake is 100% of all staff.
T&D form included as part of PDR.
Extensive interactions involving all members
NPEU occupies shared and open-plan offices and a kitchen, which is used
extensively for informal interactions.
Interaction between staff is encouraged through the weekly 10:30am coffee
morning, which alternates between Tuesday and Wednesday to enable part-time
staff to attend.
We have a tradition of bringing in cakes and fruit to celebrate personal and work-
related achievements.
The Christmas lunch has been a regular social event for over 20 years. There is a
lunch rather than an evening event to facilitate attendance for those with caring
responsibilities. The ‘Secret Santa’ takes place on the same day and volunteers
bring in a home-made Christmas cake and other treats.
The NPEU marks its significant anniversaries (e.g. 25th) with one-day scientific
conferences. NPEU members are invited to these events.
NPEU members have their photograph taken when they join the Unit and copies
of these, with names and job titles, are displayed outside the kitchen.
We use email (including a weekly announcement email) and the intranet to keep
everyone informed of new developments such as new staff starting, media
coverage of a scientific paper, or a new grant being awarded.
43
We will improve on the processes for recruitment, induction and PDR (Actions 1.1, 2.2,
3.1, 3.5). We will maintain these good communication and social networks (Action 6.6).
We will create an Athena SWAN noticeboard to raise awareness of our activities (Action
5.1).
(ii) HR policies
Describe how the department monitors the consistency in application of
HR policies for equality, dignity at work, bullying, harassment, grievance
and disciplinary processes. Describe actions taken to address any identified
differences between policy and practice. Comment on how the department
ensures staff with management responsibilities are kept informed and updated
on HR polices.
NPEU employs professionally qualified HR staff who ensure all HR processes meet current
equality legislation. The team have access to HR specialists within the NDPH and the
University who provide additional expertise, e.g. for immigration advice.
The NPEU regularly reviews its policies and, when needed, it develops new policies which
enhance the University’s (e.g. Flexible Working, Probation) or fill a gap (e.g. PDR). The
NPEU’s policies have been requested by other Departments as a model (e.g. Flexible
Working, PDR).
All members of recruitment panels must undertake training. The Admin Team keep a
record of who has done (or needs to do) the training, and reminders are sent when
refresher courses need to be undertaken. Line managers, especially those who are new
to line management, are encouraged to undertake management courses. Following
suggestions from NPEU staff, we will improve training for line managers in topics such as
PDR and probation (Action 3.5).
The NPEU, NDPH and University have a zero tolerance attitude to bullying and
harassment. All line managers undergo training in bullying and harassment. Information
on bullying and harassment is included in the induction pack, and our website has details
of the University’s harassment service and the NPEU harassment officer. In the 2016
survey, about 5% of staff reported that they experienced bullying or harassment. While
this figure is relatively low (9% for the University as a whole), we are not complacent. We
will introduce training on bullying and harassment for all staff (Action 5.2) and will make
information on sources of help more accessible so that staff who feel they are being
bullied know where to turn (Action 5.1).
(iii) Representation of men and women on committees
Provide data for all department committees broken down by gender and staff
type. Identify the most influential committees. Explain how potential committee
members are identified and comment on any consideration given to gender
equality in the selection of representatives and what the department is doing
44
to address any gender imbalances. Comment on how the issue of ‘committee
overload’ is addressed where there are small numbers of women or men.
Table 10 shows committee membership by gender for 2016 (data are not available for
previous years except 2012; data for 2016 and 2012 show similar patterns). The Senior
Management Group (SMG) is the main decision-making body in NPEU and meets
monthly. The SMG comprises the Director, the Administrator, the Head of IT and Security,
the Senior Trials Manager and the most senior researchers (usually at least a grade 9
researcher or clinical consultant). SMG membership is reviewed every two years or when
a member leaves.
The Athena SWAN self-assessment team and the two Working Groups were formed in
2012 (Table 10). Membership of these committees is voluntary. These committees have
enabled (and will continue to enable) NPEU staff to influence policy and practice. NPEU
research falls under three streams, two of which have their own management structure
(Table 10).
The Director and another senior researcher sit on the NDPH Senior Management Group
(NDPH SMG) which influences wider Departmental policy and practice. Some NPEU staff
sit on other NDPH committees (Table 10).
Committee membership is reviewed at PDRs, in particular, to ensure that senior staff do
not have committee overload, and that more junior staff have the opportunity to join
committees which are important for their career development.
Table 10: Number of NPEU staff on committees in 2016 by gender
Method of
joining Female Male
NPEU committees*
SMG I 7 3
Athena SWAN SAT V 6 3
Flexible Working Group V 4 1
Career Development Group V 9 2
CTU Management Group I 6 4
PRU-MHC Management Group I 5 2
NDPH Committees*
SMG I 2
Athena SWAN SAT I 2
Teaching Committee I 2
Outreach Group V 1 1
Symposium Planning Group I/V 2
I invited to join V volunteered for this committee/group
* For NPEU committees, the total number of men and women listed is the total number on the committee; for NDPH committees, the total number of men and women listed is the total from NPEU, but there are other NDPH members on the committee
45
(iv) Participation on influential external committees
How are staff encouraged to participate in other influential external committees
and what procedures are in place to encourage women (or men if they are
underrepresented) to participate in these committees?
All senior researchers (5f, 2m) are members of at least one external committee such as
funding boards, Advisory Groups and Research Governance Groups. Membership is by
invitation or open competition.
Membership of external committees is often by invitation or open application. Following
discussions at monthly SMG meetings and annual PDRs, line managers are pro-active in
encouraging researchers to join committees, and looking for opportunities to shadow
another member. For example:
Several researchers are on NDPH committees.
A mid-career researcher shadowed a senior researcher on an external Advisory
Group and now sits on that Group in her own right.
The Director now circulates national adverts for applications to funding boards
to senior staff encouraging them to apply. This has resulted in 4 staff (2f, 2m)
successfully applying to be members or chairs since 2013. Two staff said:
“It has been a great professional and personal experience.”
“Discussion with, and encouragement from, the Director led me to
evaluate my suitability for the role and this gave me confidence to apply.”
(v) Workload model
Describe any workload allocation model in place and what it includes. Comment
on ways in which the model is monitored for gender bias and whether it is taken
into account at appraisal/development review and in promotion criteria.
Comment on the rotation of responsibilities and if staff consider the model
to be transparent and fair.
In our 2016 survey, 85% of staff reported that their workload was reasonable.
NPEU researchers are project-funded and their workload is largely determined by their
job description. Additional duties such as teaching and citizenship are optional and most
junior and mid-career researchers have a low teaching and administrative burden. They
may volunteer to undertake additional roles, such as membership of a Working Group,
after discussion with their line manager. These responsibilities are rotated when a person
wants to step down. As the burden is generally low, a detailed workload allocation model
46
is not appropriate, although individuals will continue to review their own responsibilities
with their line manager as part of PDR (Action 3.5).
SMG members have a larger administrative burden. The SMG has a list of the main
responsibilities and all senior staff volunteer to take responsibility for some of them.
Examples of the responsibilities include being the co-ordinators for: T&D; postgraduate
student enquiries; academic visitors and Athena SWAN lead. The list is reviewed regularly
at SMG Away Days (every 1–2 years). In the interim, new responsibilities are allocated at
SMG meetings, and often rely on volunteers. This relatively informal and flexible scheme
works well, given that the SMG is small and meets monthly. In addition, individuals review
their own responsibilities with the Director as part of PDR.
(vi) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings
Describe the consideration given to those with caring responsibilities and part-
time staff around the timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings.
For more than 14 years, all Unit-wide meetings and seminars have been held during core
working hours (10am–4pm). Most team meetings are arranged so that it is convenient
for all the relevant staff to attend, and it is often possible to join by teleconference. Owing
to the large number of part-time staff and the fact that many staff take some annual
leave during school holidays, there is a culture of arranging meetings in school hours and
in school term time, whenever possible. We will maintain these practices (Action 6.5) and
raise awareness of their importance outside NPEU (Action 6.8).
The NPEU has also encouraged this culture to others in the University. A previous action
in 2013 was for the SAT to develop a carefully worded email which is sent to those who
organise seminars or meetings outside of core hours or during school holidays.
Image 6: Email about timing of meetings/seminars
“We welcome the XXX seminar series. A number of our colleagues have expressed an interest
in the Inaugural Lecture in this series on 17th February 2016.
We note however that this date falls in the middle of an Oxfordshire school holiday. Here in the
National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (NPEU) we have a policy of not scheduling seminars and
meetings during school holidays as this makes it difficult for those with caring responsibilities
to attend, which disproportionately adversely affects women. This also helps to promote the
Athena SWAN agenda (https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/athena-swan).
We appreciate that many factors are considered when organising a lecture such as this and
note that crèche facilities have been provided. However, we are writing to request that when
scheduling future events in this series, careful consideration is given to timing with a view to
maximising opportunities for women and others with caring responsibilities to attend.
Thank you for considering our email.”
47
(vii) Visibility of role models
Describe how the institution builds gender equality into organisation of events.
Comment on the gender balance of speakers and chairpersons in seminars,
workshops and other relevant activities. Comment on publicity materials,
including the department’s website and images used.
NPEU holds a monthly seminar series organised by two female mid-career researchers.
All staff are invited and the seminars are open to staff from outside NPEU. Conscious that
seminars are often dominated by senior male academics, since 2014 we have aimed to
achieve gender balance in seminar speakers across the academic year, and invite both
established and early to mid-career speakers, and monitor statistics on both these. We
also have a statement to this effect on the seminar web page. Over the three years from
2014–16, 60–70% of speakers each year are female, with around 50% being early to mid-
career researchers. Monitoring our statistics has revealed that early to mid-career male
researchers in particular may be under-represented. We will continue to work to ensure
gender balance and specifically to address this under-representation. In addition we will
increase awareness of our policy through our new Athena SWAN noticeboard and using
the NPEU account (Action 6.7).
Diversity in images used in publicity materials and on the NPEU website is monitored by
the NPEU webmaster and design team. This has ensured, for example, that images used
in leaflets (Image 5) and reports (Image 7a–b) represent women and men, and families
from different ethnic backgrounds.
Image 7b: Cover of an NPEU report
Image 7a: Cover of an NPEU report
IMPACT: As a result of this action, a version of the email above has been sent to external committees when meetings have been arranged in school holidays and on two occasions, the meetings were re-arranged. This email has also been sent to several seminar organisers. We have taken these steps to raise awareness, and our emails have received positive responses.
48
A recent review of images on our website found that most images were of NPEU staff
and study logos, with a small number of other images accompanying ‘news’ items.
Inevitably, given the nature of our work, six of the ten images accompanying news items
since 2014 were of women, but men were represented in four images and two images
included people from ethnic minority backgrounds.
As part of an ongoing review of our digital presence, incorporating the development of
an image library, we are explicitly considering diversity, and are developing guidelines for
the use of imagery on our website and in social media which incorporate guidance on
gender and ethnic diversity (Action 5.3).
(viii) Outreach activities
Provide data on the staff and students from the department involved in outreach
and engagement activities by gender and grade. How is staff and student
contribution to outreach and engagement activities formally recognised?
Comment on the participant uptake of these activities by gender.
Since 2015, as part of our Athena SWAN activities, we explicitly encouraged staff and
students to engage in outreach and public engagement, with a view to involving the
public more in our work, but also as a way of promoting the involvement of women in
science.
We have held a meeting for staff interested in outreach, involving research and
professional/support staff; hosted a seminar on public engagement as part of our regular
seminar series open to all staff and students; and drawn attention to outreach
opportunities by emailing information to staff and students.
49
Image 8: Outreach activity November 2016
All outreach activities are discussed, encouraged and recognised as part of PDR and as
valuable ‘citizenship’.
IMPACT: As a direct result of these activities, there has been a demonstrable increase
in involvement in outreach and public engagement:
A mid-career female researcher was invited to join the NDPH Outreach
Working Group and is shadowed in this role by a male trial co-ordinator.
With support of the Head of Trials, 2 staff (1 female statistician, 1 male trial
co-ordinator) and 2 DPhil students are doing training in public engagement
to develop an activity for a schools science festival in 2017.
A female DPhil student gave a talk at the Annual OxFEST conference (‘Oxford
Females in Engineering, Science, and Technology’ is a society which promotes
and supports women working in these areas).
A female statistician gave a presentation on her career as part of the Oxford
International Women’s Festival.
A multi-disciplinary team of male and female staff took part in a public
‘LiveFriday’ event at the Oxford Ashmolean Museum exploring the art and
science of Hope and Fear, showcasing their work on pain in babies, Image 8.
50
SILVER APPLICATIONS ONLY
6 CASE STUDIES: IMPACT ON INDIVIDUALS
Recommended word count: Silver 1000 words
Two individuals working in the department should describe how the
department’s activities have benefitted them.
The subject of one of these case studies should be a member of the self-
assessment team.
The second case study should be related to someone else in the department.
More information on case studies is available in the awards handbook.
CASE STUDY 1
I joined the NPEU as a Grade 7 Researcher in 1999, applying for a six-month full-time job.
At the time I had two pre-school children and the ethos of the NPEU as a workplace which
provided a supportive environment for women with family responsibilities was evident
as it was quickly agreed that I could take up the post at 60%FTE over nine months.
Since that time I have always felt supported by the NPEU culture and commitment to
flexibility and career development for staff. For example, in 2002 I had my third child and
took six months maternity leave, returning to work at reduced hours (45%FTE) to help
manage child care for my growing family. I have benefitted from the NPEU commitment
to continuity of employment for contract research staff, working on a range of research
projects, developing my skills and experience of different areas of research in maternal
and infant health, while being encouraged to develop my own research interests and
programme of work. Successive line managers have supported me to write and publish
first-author publications; deputise for them on external groups and committees, which
has resulted in my becoming a member of some of these groups in my own right; and to
shadow and collaborate with them in developing grant applications, and later to develop
grant applications of my own.
In 2006, following an unsuccessful application the previous year, I applied for and was
awarded an NIHR Doctoral Fellowship which funded my salary and University fees to
undertake a DPhil (75%FTE for 4 years) and included further formal training. Towards the
end of my doctoral research I worked as a co-applicant with my line manager to develop
a funding application which subsequently funded my salary at 80%FTE for the two years
following my doctorate, from 2011. During regular meetings with my line manager, which
explicitly included consideration of my career development, I was encouraged to apply
for re-grading of my post and was promoted to Grade 8, Senior Health Services
Researcher, in 2012.
51
Having benefitted from the supportive culture of the NPEU, but recognising that more
could be achieved by formalising and developing this culture through concerted action, I
joined the NPEU Athena SWAN Self-Assessment Team in 2013, becoming co-chair of the
Career Development Working Group and, since March 2015, Deputy Chair of the SAT. I
have found the increased attention to career development that has come with Athena
SWAN beneficial, particularly the introduction of formal mandatory PDR and enhanced
support for early and mid-career researchers preparing grant applications. In 2014 I was
encouraged and supported to apply for an NIHR Post Doctoral Fellowship, including being
given protected time to develop my application, which now funds my work (75%FTE for
4 years. The structured approach to PDR has helped me focus on areas I need to develop,
leading me to develop my teaching and supervisory activities. In recognition of this I was
awarded the title of University Research Lecturer in 2015. I continue to benefit from
flexible part-time working to balance work with the needs of my family.
CASE STUDY 2
I joined the NPEU as a full-time postdoctoral researcher (grade 7) in August 2008 to work
on a 2-year project on child health after fertility treatment. I had my first child in 2009,
and took 7 months maternity leave, returning to work first 60%FTE and later 80%FTE. As
the role became part-time, the duration of the contract was extended to allow this
research to be completed. I was pregnant with my second child when that contract came
to an end. I was encouraged to apply for a Teaching Associate position, split between
research in the NPEU and teaching postgraduates in the NDPH, and was interviewed and
offered that role when 8 months pregnant. I again took a 7 month maternity leave,
returning 60%FTE, and later increasing to 80%FTE.
The supportive culture of the NPEU and the fact that many staff work part-time meant
that I felt fully involved in NPEU activities and I could continue to develop my career while
raising a young family. I found the updated PDR particularly helpful as it enabled me to
focus on what might help my career progression within the University. For example, I
took up the opportunity to become an Examiner for the NDPH MSc in Global Health and
to join a number of NDPH committees. My line manager has supported my involvement
in a number of different research projects, expanding my expertise in perinatal
epidemiology.
More recently I have been provided with both the time and support from senior staff to
develop my ideas for a mid-career research fellowship, returning to my interest in the
longer term health impacts of infertility. I successfully applied for an MRC Career
Development Award in 2014, which provides me with 6 years funding (80%FTE, as a grade
8) to develop an independent research career while allowing time with my young family.
Since submitting my MRC application, the NPEU policy of encouraging early and mid-
career researchers to work alongside more senior researchers as a shadow or co-
applicant has resulted in my becoming a co-applicant on another similar study, and has
developed my portfolio of research grants. Through PDR I have been encouraged to
52
consider other development opportunities and successfully applied for the title of
University Research Lecturer in 2015.
I continue to teach on the MSc, and my line manager has encouraged me to develop
supervisory skills. In 2010, I was given the opportunity to be a co-supervisor of an MSc
placement and since then I have supervised three more placements as the lead
supervisor. I have also been co-supervising a DPhil student since 2014. I have developed
my own DPhil project which has just been advertised.
I now benefit from the NPEU policy of flexible working, working 80%FTE with a day
working at home each week. In addition, I have been able to work a combination of
longer and shorter days allowing me to fit my work around my caring responsibilities.
53
7 FURTHER INFORMATION
Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Silver: 500 words
Please comment here on any other elements that are relevant to the application.
The NPEU is a friendly, supportive working environment, as reflected in the
overwhelming number of positive responses to surveys in 2012, 2014 and 2016 which
consistently indicate that more than 90% of staff feel valued for the work they do here.
The following word cloud encapsulates “what people like best about working in the
NPEU”.
What also comes out strongly from free-text responses to these surveys is the extent to
which our approach to Athena SWAN has always been inclusive, with a focus on all staff,
irrespective of gender or staff group.
“Inclusive environment and culture where everyone's contribution is recognised
and valued”
“Clear consistent policies and a sense that everyone's contribution is valued, not
just that of senior members of the Unit.”
“All staff from grade 4 upwards treated equally and equally valued. No them and
us for support and academic staff.”
This approach has resulted in demonstrable impact for all staff groups, as evidenced in
this application, and has been reinforced by the expansion of the Athena SWAN charter
to consider gender equality more broadly. As a small unit in a specialty which is
predominantly female we are continuing to challenge ourselves to make our
54
commitment to the Athena SWAN principles even more visible, both within the NPEU
and to the outside world; to broaden access to our specialty; and to ensure that all our
staff can achieve their full potential.
8 ACTION PLAN
The action plan should present prioritised actions to address the issues identified
in this application.
Please present the action plan in the form of a table. For each action define an
appropriate success/outcome measure, identify the person/position(s) responsible
for the action, and timescales for completion.
The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next four years.
Actions, and their measures of success, should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant and Time-bound (SMART).
See the awards handbook for an example template for an action plan.
55
National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Action Plan
Actions are colour coded according to theme and are listed in priority order within each theme Themes:
1. Baseline data and supporting evidence 2. Recruitment and appointments 3. Career development 4. Flexible working & career breaks 5. Culture, communication and organisation 6. Ongoing/recurring actions
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
1. Baseline data and supporting evidence
1.1 Develop use of focus groups to provide more information to support quantitative surveys and review processes (page 17, 38–39)
Past action: Actions have been informed by quantitative survey data Area for improvement: Some issues, because of the small numbers of staff involved, are not revealed or illuminated by large-scale surveys, and are best explored using small-scale qualitative methods.
Run focus groups as part of: (a) review of PDR and probationary processes (see Actions 3.1 & 3.5), (b) to investigate recruitment and working experiences of members of minority groups in the NPEU (including men and BME staff) (see Action 2.2), and (c) to evaluate staff experience of returning to work after maternity/ adoption/shared parental leave (see Action 4.2)
(a) Summer 2017
(b) December
2018 (c) December
2018
T&D Lead and Group Athena SWAN Lead and SAT Flexible Working Group
Focus groups conducted and results fed back to T&D Group and SAT Actions developed to address issues
56
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
1.2 Run surveys on specific topics and general staff experience (page 41)
Past action: Ran general staff experience surveys (2012 & 2016) and targeted surveys on flexible working (2014) and career development (2014) Area for improvement: These surveys have provided valuable insight so we will continue to use general and targeted surveys to monitor staff experience and evaluate impact of actions.
Follow up 2014 flexible working survey to investigate staff knowledge of and perceptions of flexible working and assess how flexible working policy is being applied (see Action 4.1).
Summer 2018 Flexible Working Group
Survey carried out; results analysed, trends evaluated and recommendations submitted to SMG for action
1.3 Consider developing exit interview questions to seek opinions of leavers (page 20)
Past action: Current exit processes for staff leavers include an interview between the member of staff and the personnel assistant in which basic data on reason for leaving are collected. Area for improvement: We do not currently systematically collect detailed information from staff leavers on their perceptions of the NPEU, their job, their line manager etc.
Review exit processes and consider introducing more detailed exit interview questions.
By November 2017
Unit Administrator/ Deputy Chair of SAT SMG
Review carried out; recommendations submitted to SMG for action
57
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
2. Recruitment and appointments
2.1 Pilot and evaluate anonymising job applications prior to shortlisting (page 23)
Past action: Recruitment data by gender monitored since 2012; requirement for training in unconscious bias for staff on recruitment panels; chair of panels reminded to ensure both genders represented on panel. Impact: Increase in number of interview panels with both men and women represented to 100% in 2016. Women continue to have higher application success rates, but gap between men and women is smaller for chances of being shortlisted and appointed. Area for improvement: It is possible that unconscious bias continues to influence shortlisting decisions. For apprenticeship posts systems allow shortlisting blind to gender, but for other posts this is only possible using manual anonymising of application documentation.
Pilot anonymising job application documents (application forms, CVs and covering letters) prior to shortlisting. Monitor and evaluate this process by collecting process (e.g. time taken) and outcome data. Consider whether to extend beyond pilot.
By November 2018
NPEU Administrator and personnel team SMG
Pilot carried out and evaluated with report submitted to SMG
58
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
2.2 Investigate recruitment and subsequent working experience of members of minority groups working in the NPEU (page 17, 23)
Past action: Actions have focussed on reducing bias in recruitment processes and improving the working culture for all NPEU staff. Area for improvement: Given the relatively small numbers of male and ethnic minority staff in the NPEU, it is not possible to investigate their experience of recruitment and working in the NPEU using large-scale surveys.
Run two focus groups to investigate the recruitment and working experience of (a) male and (b) BME staff in the NPEU. Commit to implementing actions to address any issues identified in these focus groups
By end 2018 Athena SWAN Lead and SAT
Information to inform future actions to improve recruitment and working experience of staff from minority groups.
3. Career development
3.1 Improve PDR processes for staff on a succession of short-term contracts (page 31–32)
Past action: Compulsory PDR scheme follows one year probationary period for new staff, or staff who are new to a particular post, when performance is reviewed and potential training/support needs are identified. Because we try to maintain continuity of employment for staff, some people, particularly professional and support staff, can work in the NPEU for a number of years on
Review PDR processes for staff moving from one short-term contract to another to ensure that staff do not miss out on PDR. Embed career development objectives within the probationary process. Ensure that end of probation discussions include at least one career development objective.
October 2017 T&D group All existing staff in post for at least two years to have had a career development discussion or PDR PDR processes revised to ensure that staff on sequential contracts have a career development discussion within two years of their first appointment
59
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
succession of short-term contracts. Impact: In 2013–15 almost 100% of eligible (non-probationary) staff had PDR. Area for improvement: Feedback to the CDWG indicates that some staff who have moved from one short-term contract to another within the NPEU may miss out on full PDR because they are effectively on probation for extended periods of time. Staff in this situation are more likely to be professional/ support staff.
3.2 Explore and develop shadowing opportunities, including opportunities for professional & support staff (page 36)
Past action: Shadowing initiatives for early and mid-career researchers on grant applications have proved successful and popular (see Action 6.3). Informally, other selected opportunities have been provided for some individuals, including professional & support staff, e.g. costing grant applications, attending Trial
Run consultation to explore development needs which might be addressed through extending shadowing opportunities to more staff, considering the needs of professional & support staff in particular. Develop systematic means of enabling all staff to access shadowing opportunities.
April 2018 T&D Lead and Group
At least 60% of staff (up to and including grade 7) aware of shadowing opportunities in staff survey.
60
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
Steering Committee and other meetings. Impact: Demonstrable impact for early and mid-career researchers (see Action 2.4). Individual professional & support staff report benefits, but no systematic opportunities or monitoring. Area for improvement: There may be other areas where staff could benefit from more formal shadowing. This may be particularly beneficial for professional & support staff.
3.3 Improve communication about career development opportunities.(page 27–28, 30–31)
Past action: 2013: developed section on website with information about career development opportunities, including:
Re-grading of posts
University titles & Junior Research Fellowships
In addition, on intranet:
Career maps of selected staff, including research and professional & support staff
As part of our plans to improve awareness of Athena SWAN in the NPEU we will create an Athena SWAN noticeboard in the NPEU kitchen which is a focal point for all NPEU staff (Action 5.1). We will use this noticeboard to disseminate information about career development opportunities and to signpost information available on our website and
Summer 2019 Noticeboard team
At least 80% of staff aware of how to apply for Reward & Recognition and at least 70% of research staff aware of how to apply for a University title.
61
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
Information about fellowships / studentships with names of previous successful applicants
2016: added list of career development opportunities to PDR prompt sheet. Impact: 2014 Survey: 72% of staff aware of information available on career development area of website; 55% had looked at the information. 2016 Survey: 55% of staff aware of process for applying for Annual Reward & Recognition Scheme. 43% of research staff aware of process for applying for University titles. Area for improvement: Some eligible staff may still not be sufficiently aware of available formal career development opportunities.
the NDPH and University websites.
62
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
3.4 Improve training for line managers in conducting PDR, probation reviews and supporting staff to think about career development (page 30)
Past action: Training for line managers is reviewed on an individual basis as part of PDR, with the T&D Lead overseeing training needs for the NPEU. Impact: 2016 survey: 86% of staff feel comfortable discussing career development with their line manager. 90% agree that their line manager supports them to think about their development (an increase from 70% in 2012). Area for improvement: Line managers identified training needs relating to supporting career development. 2016 survey: 50% of line managers want training in conducting PDR or probationary reviews and/or supporting staff to think about their careers.
Review training available to line managers and discuss with NDPH training officer with a view to providing training opportunities. Develop a portfolio of recommended training for line managers (including mandatory, optional and refresher courses) including, for example, Personal Development Review: Online Course and Coaching for Managers both run by the Oxford Learning Institute.
By October 2017
T&D Lead and Group
At least 80% of line managers to have undertaken some training in supporting staff to think about their careers in the past three years.
3.5 Review and improve Personal Development Review (PDR) processes (page 27–28, 32, 43)
Past action: 2013: compulsory PDR for all non-probationary staff introduced. 2016: PDR form expanded to include
Review use and perceptions of expanded PDR form and process.
October 2018 T&D Group At least 80% of staff report a positive experience of PDR
63
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
prompts for reviewers and reviewees to consider. Impact: In 2013 83% and 2014–16 100% of eligible staff had PDR, compared with 35% in 2012. 2014 Survey: 87% said that PDR encouraged them to reflect on their achievements; 60% said that PDR encouraged them to think about their career path. 2016 survey: 71% agreed that PDR was very/quite useful. Area for improvement: Current PDR form and process does not work equally well for all groups of staff. A significant minority of staff were neutral or negative about PDR.
Evaluate staff perceptions of PDR process in survey.
3.6 Improve opportunities for mentoring, particularly for professional & support staff (page 36)
Past action: University and departmental mentoring schemes investigated and advertised to staff by email and on NPEU website. Mentoring seminar held for all staff.
Advertise next round of NDPH mentoring scheme (open to all staff groups), and encourage all staff to apply. Feed back to organisers of departmental mentoring
September 2017 April 2017
T&D Lead and Group
At least 80% of professional & support staff offered opportunity for mentoring
64
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
Impact: 2013: 32% of research staff had a mentor. 2016 survey: 71% of research staff were aware of mentoring schemes available to them, 52% said they had been offered mentoring and 38% had a mentor. Area for improvement: There are fewer opportunities for mentoring for professional & support staff. 2016 survey: 52% of professional & support staff were aware of mentoring schemes available to them, 17% said they had been offered mentoring and 6% had a mentor.
scheme that there is demand for professional & support staff mentors. Consider developing informal mentoring for professional & support staff within the NPEU Organise seminar/training for staff who might consider becoming a mentor.
By end 2017 By September 2017
4. Flexible working & career breaks
4.1 Promote and increase access to flexible working (page 37, 41)
Past action: 2014: ran survey about flexible working 2015: developed and launched flexible working policy and supporting documents. Line managers received training in applying
Develop ‘plain English’ information leaflet and web page about flexible working, explaining the policy and how to apply in simple terms. Include a commitment to ad hoc flexibility where permanent
Spring 2017
Flexible Working Group
Leaflet developed and launched. Seminar held and survey carried out. At least 90% of staff think that
65
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
flexible working policy. Information about support for flexible working forms part of NPEU induction process and is communicated to all staff at Unit meetings and via NPEU website. Work/life balance discussed with all staff as part of PDR. All requests for flexible working monitored by SMG. Impact: Monitoring of impact is ongoing since flexible working policy introduced in 2015. 2014 survey: 82% of staff consider arrangements for flexible/part-time working to be transparent; 86% consider them to be fair. In 2016, 63% of research staff work part-time or with formal flexible working compared with 52% of professional / support staff. Area for improvement: A lower proportion of professional & support staff have agreed flexible working arrangements, partly
arrangements are not possible. Consult with line managers prior to launch of this information. Hold seminar to describe flexible working policy and launch new information. Carry out survey (see Action 1.2)
Summer 2017 Summer 2017 Summer 2018
arrangements for flexible/part-time working are transparent and fair.
66
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
because of the ‘customer-facing’ or data security requirements of these roles. Free text survey responses in 2016 suggest that some staff think that flexible working is just not available to them. Other feedback suggests that staff may not be aware of how the flexible working policy works.
4.2 Evaluate staff experience of returning to work after maternity/adoption/shared parental leave (page 38–39)
Past action: Our flexible working policy and inclusive and supportive culture ensure that staff returning from maternity/adoption/shared parental leave are well supported and fully included in NPEU activities. Area for improvement: Small numbers mean that we have been unable to evaluate staff experience or impact of our policies in survey data.
Run a focus group to investigate staff experience of returning from maternity/adoption/shared parental leave Commit to implementing actions to address any issues identified in the focus group
December 2018
Flexible Working Group
Information to inform future actions to improve experience of staff returning from maternity/adoption/ shared parental leave
5. Culture, communication and organisation
5.1 Increase awareness of Athena SWAN and related activities (page 30–31, 43)
Past action: Athena SWAN is a standing item at termly Unit meetings. We have also
Create a vibrant and informative Athena SWAN noticeboard in a prominent
April 2017 SAT Design team
Creation of noticeboard
67
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
held special Athena SWAN seminars, e.g. to disseminate survey results to staff or in response to demand, e.g. on mentoring. Area for improvement: In surveys, some people report not being aware of information on our website or may not be aware of relevant policies and opportunities open to them.
place in the NPEU kitchen. This is an ideal space to highlight ideas and distribute news as the NPEU kitchen is used by all members of NPEU staff on a frequent and regular basis and acts as an informal interaction hub. Commit to ensuring that notices are relevant and changed frequently. Assess perceptions and impact of noticeboard in next staff experience survey.
Noticeboard team
5.2 Reinforce messages about zero tolerance of bullying and harassment (page 43)
Past action: All line managers undergo training in dealing with bullying and harassment and it is strongly recommended for all staff. The NPEU website and a noticeboard includes information about the support provided by the University and the NPEU’s harassment officers. Area for improvement:
Require ALL staff to take online or face to face course in dealing with bullying and harassment Make information about support services and zero tolerance approach available on Athena SWAN noticeboard.
End 2017 SMG Noticeboard team
All staff to have undertaken online or face to face course in dealing with bullying and harassment
68
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
2016 survey: 5% of staff reported some experience of bullying or harassment. Although the absolute number of staff experiencing bullying or harassment is small, and not statistically significantly different from our previous survey in 2012, we are concerned to ensure that messages about zero tolerance for bullying and harassment, and support for staff are communicated effectively.
5.3 Ensure diversity in imagery used on our website, in publicity materials and in social media (page 48)
Past action: Diversity in images used is monitored by the Unit webmaster and design team. Area for improvement: Most images on our website are of staff or logos, but we are planning to extend our use of images on our website and in social media. We have no formal guidelines for considering diversity in imagery.
An ongoing review of our digital presence and website needs, conducted by an external company, will advise on the specification of our website and will be asked to ensure that diversity is considered in their review and recommendations. Guidance to accompany our developing image library will also explicitly refer to the need for gender and ethnic
April 2017 and ongoing
Head of IT Webmaster and Design Co-ordinator
Guidance on use of images developed Images used on our website, in publicity materials and in social media reflect diversity of society, including men and women, from different ethnic backgrounds.
69
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
diversity in the use of images.
6 Ongoing/recurring actions
6.1 Continue to collect and monitor staff data, by gender and grade where applicable, and by staff type (page 17, 27–28, 31)
Past action: Systems developed to collect and monitor the following data:
Recruitment: applications, shortlisted, appointed
Training: applications and attendance
Flexible working: applications and refusals
Committee representation
Promotion, including re-grading and University titles
Maternity leave
Leavers, including reason
Impact: Collecting and monitoring these data enables SMG to assess needs and plan, e.g. to ensure staff contract continuity of employment when short-term contracts come to an end.
Continue to collect, monitor and assess data:
Recruitment: applications, shortlisted, appointed
Training: applications and attendance
Flexible working: applications and refusals
Committee representation
Promotion
Maternity/adoption leave
Leavers, including reason
Ongoing SMG Data collected and assessed at monthly SMG meetings
70
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
Area for improvement: Continue to collect and monitor these data
6.2 Continue to ensure appropriate training on unconscious bias and equality and diversity for all staff on recruitment panels (page 23)
Past action: Since 2013, staff on recruitment panels have been required to undertake training in reducing unconscious bias. Impact: Women continue to have higher application success rates, but gap between men and women is smaller for chances of being shortlisted and appointed. Area for improvement: Need to ensure that unconscious bias training is repeated for all staff on recruitment panels and to introduce required training in equality and diversity.
Continue to require all staff on recruitment panels to undertake unconscious bias training at regular (at least three-yearly) intervals. Introduce a requirement for all staff on recruitment panels to undertake equality and diversity training at regular intervals.
Ongoing SMG T&D Lead
At least 90% of staff on recruitment panels have undertaken unconscious bias and equality and diversity training in the past three years.
6.3 Embed work of Athena SWAN Career Development Working Group (CDWG) in permanent training and development infrastructure of the NPEU (page 30, 32)
Past action: 2013 CDWG formed of volunteers, including T&D Lead, co-chaired by two mid-career researchers. 2016 CDWG expanded to ensure representation from all staff groups.
Expand remit of CDWG to cover all T&D related issues, chaired by new T&D Lead.
Ongoing T&D Lead and Group
Continued high proportion (at least 80%) of staff who indicate that they take time to reflect on and plan for career development
71
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
Impact: CDWG led Athena SWAN actions relating to career development. 2016 Survey: 81% said they take time to reflect on and plan for career development. Area for improvement: Clear overlap between work of CDWG and T&D Lead and lack of clarity about division of responsibility and co-ordination of the two.
6.4 Continue to ensure that early and mid-career researchers have opportunities to develop grant application skills (page 35)
Past action: Since 2013 senior staff have actively involved grade 7–8 researchers as shadow or co-applicant in grant applications and have reviewed this for all grant applications at SMG meetings. Impact: In 2013–16 62% of grant applications led by an NPEU senior researcher also involved a grade 7–8 researcher as a co-applicant or shadow. Some researchers have gone on to develop their own applications.
All senior staff to consider the involvement of early and mid-career researchers when developing grant applications: • Continue to collect data
on the number of grant applications which involve a grade 7–8 researcher as co-applicant or shadow.
• Continue to review the proportion of grant applications which involve a grade 7–8 researcher at SMG meetings.
Ongoing, monthly review
SMG At least 70% of grade 7–8 researchers involved as shadow or co-applicant on grant applications.
72
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
Area for improvement: This is a successful initiative which we will continue
6.5 Maintain inclusive environment (page 37, 46)
Past action: In line with long-established practice in the NPEU, in 2013 we formalised guidelines about scheduling of meetings and events within ‘core hours’ and outside school holidays. We made school holiday dates widely available to help people arranging meetings and developed a rotating schedule for Unit meetings to increase the likelihood of availability and attendance for part-time staff. Impact: 2016 survey: 79% of staff agreed that meetings were scheduled to take caring responsibilities into account; 5% of staff did NOT agree (16% didn’t know). Area for improvement: We will continue this policy and publicise it on our noticeboard so that all staff are aware.
Continue policy of scheduling meetings and events within ‘core hours’ and during school term time. Use Athena SWAN noticeboard to publicise this policy.
Ongoing All staff Noticeboard team
At least 90% of staff agree that meetings are scheduled to take caring responsibilities into account
73
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
6.6 Maintain good communication and social networking (page 37, 46)
Past action: For many years, the NPEU has had regular weekly coffee mornings for all staff. Since 2012 these have been held at 10:30 on alternating days to encourage maximum attendance. The annual staff Christmas celebration is at lunchtime, rather than in the evening, so that staff with caring responsibilities can attend. Until 2014 we held an annual Summer Party for staff and their families. All staff are explicitly encouraged to attend ‘scientific’ showcase and celebration events, e.g. to mark significant NPEU anniversaries and annually to showcase NPEU CTU activity. These events highlight and celebrate the work of a range of staff groups, including professional and support staff and are extremely well-attended.
Maintain actions on good communication and social networking Extend the use of showcase events to ensure that all staff continue to feel valued.
Ongoing Coffee-morning organisers Events organisers
Continued high proportions (at least 90%) of staff reporting that they feel included and valued for their work
74
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
Impact: Responses to successive surveys demonstrate that the NPEU is a friendly supportive place to work where people feel valued for the work they do. 2012 survey: 92% of staff feel valued for the work they do 2016 survey: 92% feel valued for the work they do. We no longer hold an NPEU Summer Party as NDPH now holds a family-friendly Summer Party. Area for improvement: We will continue these policies and practice and extend the use of ‘showcase’ events to ensure that all staff continue to feel valued.
6.7 Maintain policy of gender balance in seminar speakers, including established and early–mid career researchers (page 47)
Past action: Since 2014, for our monthly research seminar series, we have aimed to achieve gender balance in seminar speakers across the academic year, invite both established and early–mid career researchers to give seminars and monitor statistics on
Maintain policy of ensuring gender balance in academic speakers across the academic year, invite both established and early–mid career researchers to give seminars and monitor statistics on both these.
Ongoing Research seminar co-ordinator
To ensure diversity, maximum of 50% of all speakers to be early–mid career females.
75
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
both these. We have a statement to this effect on our seminar web page. Impact: 60–70% of our seminar speakers are female, with around 50% of all speakers being early–mid career researchers. Area for improvement: We will continue this policy and aim to increase the numbers of early–mid career male speakers, who are under-represented (less than 10% of speakers). We will continue to publicise this policy on our website, on the Athena SWAN noticeboard and develop the use of social media to increase awareness of this policy.
Continue to publicise this policy on our website, on the new Athena SWAN noticeboard and develop the use of social media to publicise our actions.
6.8 Continue to raise awareness of importance of inclusivity outside the NPEU (page 46)
Past action: In response to external seminars/meetings being scheduled outside core working hours or in school holidays we developed a standard letter to send to organisers reminding them of the potential impact on those
Continue to send our standard letter/email to organisers of external seminars/meetings held outside core hours or in school holidays.
Ongoing Athena SWAN leads All staff
Decrease in number of repeat emails sent about external seminars/meetings outside core hours or in school holidays
76
Action and description (application page number)
Action taken, impact & area for improvement
Action planned
Timescale (completion)
Responsibility Success measure
with caring responsibilities who are disproportionately women. Impact: We have sent this email on average 2–5 times per year and usually receive a response indicating that the meeting/seminar organisers will consider this in future. In a small number of cases the time of the meeting/session has been changed. Area for improvement: We will continue this policy and publicise it using the Athena SWAN noticeboard.
