FINAL CSU Athena SWAN Bronze award application 29 Mar€¦ · 1 Date of application 28 March 2018...

1

Date of application 28 March 2018

Award level Bronze

Date joined Athena SWAN September 2015

Contact for application Professor Tim Wess

Executive Dean of Science

Email [email protected]

Phone +61‐2 6933 2510

2

Table of Contents Lists of figures and tables ........................................................................................................................ 4

Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 4

Tables .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Summary of word count ......................................................................................................................... 6

1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR ............................................................ 7

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION ................................................................................................ 9

i) Information on where the institution is in the Athena SWAN process ..................................... 11

ii) CSU’s teaching and research focus ........................................................................................... 12

iii) The number of staff; present data for academic, professional and support staff separately . 13

iv) The total number of departments and total number of students ........................................... 13

v) List and sizes of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM)

departments. Present data for academic and support staff separately ....................................... 14

3. THE SELF‐ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................................................................. 16

i) A description of the self‐assessment team ................................................................................ 16

ii) An account of the self‐assessment process .............................................................................. 19

iii) Plans for the future of the self‐assessment team .................................................................... 23

4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTION ................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Academic and research staff data ............................................................................................... 25

i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender ................................................................... 25

ii) Academic and research staff on fixed‐term, open‐ended/permanent and casual contracts by

gender ........................................................................................................................................... 29

iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research‐only, research and teaching, and

teaching‐only ................................................................................................................................ 30

iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender ................................................................................... 35

v) Equal pay audits/reviews .......................................................................................................... 37

5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS ................................................................... 41

5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff .............................................................................. 41

i) Recruitment ............................................................................................................................... 41

ii) Induction ................................................................................................................................... 43

iii) Promotion ................................................................................................................................ 44

iv) Staff submitted to the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) by gender ........ 47

5.2 Career development: academic staff .......................................................................................... 50

i) Training ...................................................................................................................................... 50

ii) Appraisal/development review ................................................................................................ 52

3

iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression .......................................................... 53

5.3 Flexible working and managing career breaks ............................................................................ 54

i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave ......................................... 54

ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave ........................................ 54

iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work ............................... 54

iv) Maternity return rate ............................................................................................................... 55

v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake ............................................ 57

vi) Flexible working ....................................................................................................................... 59

vii) Transition from part‐time back to full‐time work after career breaks ................................... 60

viii) Childcare ................................................................................................................................. 61

ix) Caring responsibilities .............................................................................................................. 61

5.4 Organisation and culture ............................................................................................................ 63

i) Culture ....................................................................................................................................... 63

ii) HR policies ................................................................................................................................. 64

iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender ............................................... 64

iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees .............................. 65

v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees ............................. 66

vi) Committee workload ............................................................................................................... 66

vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures ..................................................................... 66

viii) Workload model ..................................................................................................................... 67

ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings .............................................................. 68

x) Visibility of role models ............................................................................................................. 69

xi) Outreach activities ................................................................................................................... 70

xii) Leadership ............................................................................................................................... 70

6. SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ........................................................................................... 71

i) Current policy and practice ........................................................................................................ 71

ii) Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 72

iii) Further work ............................................................................................................................ 72

7. INTERSECTIONALITY ...................................................................................................................... 73


ii) Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 74

iii) Further work ......................................................................................................................... 74

8. INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANS .......................................................................................................... 75


4

ii) Review ....................................................................................................................................... 79

iii) Further work ............................................................................................................................ 80

9. FURTHER INFORMATION .............................................................................................................. 81

10. ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................................................ 82

1. Recruitment and induction ........................................................................................................... 82

2. Career progression and promotion ............................................................................................... 85

3. Gender pay gap ............................................................................................................................. 88

4. Research ........................................................................................................................................ 88

5. Leave and flexible work ................................................................................................................ 90

6. Promoting inclusivity ..................................................................................................................... 91

7. Embedding the Athena SWAN principles ...................................................................................... 93

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. 96

Lists of figures and tables Figures

Figure 1 Location of CSU campuses and Indigenous lands ..................................................................... 9

Figure 2 Gender breakdown and reporting lines for CSU's SAT ........................................................... 11

Figure 3 CSU's research narrative ......................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4 Stills from the video produced by the ACT SAGE Regional Network ...................................... 23

Figure 5 Percent female STEMM academics, 2014‐2016 ..................................................................... 26

Figure 6 Percent female non‐STEMM academics, 2014‐2016 .............................................................. 26

Figure 7 Percent of academic appointments with doctorate level qualifications, across gender and

level in STEMM and non‐STEMM, 2016 (headcount in brackets) ........................................................ 27

Figure 8 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in STEMM 2014‐2016 .......................... 29

Figure 9 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016 ................. 29

Figure 10 Percent female STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016 ........................... 30

Figure 11 Percent female non‐STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016 .................... 31

Figure 12 Applicants for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016 ......... 42

Figure 13 Interviews granted for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016

.............................................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 14 Appointments to STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016 .... 43

Figure 15 Research grants secured in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016 .................... 47

Figure 16 Research income in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016 ................................ 48

Figure 17 Research publications by gender and STEMM/non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016 ............................. 48

Tables

Table 1 Campus locations of STEMM Schools ...................................................................................... 10

Table 2 Total number and percent female of research leadership roles at CSU, 2018 ........................ 13

Table 3 Number of academic, executive and professional staff by contract type, 2016 ..................... 13

5

Table 4 Number of students by Faculty, School and gender, 2016 ...................................................... 14

Table 5 STEMM staff by employment and contract type, 2016 ........................................................... 15

Table 6 SAT members and their roles, by location ............................................................................... 16

Table 7 Characteristics of current SAT members .................................................................................. 19

Table 8 Work of the SAT throughout the application process.............................................................. 20

Table 9 Proportion of academics by gender and STEMM ..................................................................... 25

Table 10 Breakdown of %F STEMM academic staff across schools (headcount), 2014‐2016 .............. 27

Table 11 Number and proportion of academics by contract function and employment type in STEMM

and non‐STEMM 2014‐2016 ................................................................................................................. 32

Table 12 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM research‐only academics by gender

and grade .............................................................................................................................................. 33

Table 13 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/research academics by

gender and grade .................................................................................................................................. 33

Table 14 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching‐only academics by gender

and grade .............................................................................................................................................. 34

Table 15 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/professional academics by

gender and grade .................................................................................................................................. 34

Table 16 Academic leavers by STEMM/non‐STEMM and reasons for leaving 2014‐2016 ................... 35

Table 17 Academic leavers by gender, grade and STEMM/non‐STEMM 2014‐2016 ........................... 36

Table 18 Academic leavers (fixed‐term and continuing) by STEMM Schools, (n=total staff), 2014‐2016

.............................................................................................................................................................. 37

Table 19 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 all sub‐groups by employment type ................................... 38

Table 20 Comparison of WGEA and CSU staffing categories ................................................................ 38

Table 21 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 by sub‐group ....................................................................... 38

Table 22 Full‐time Professional sub‐group ........................................................................................... 39

Table 23 Casual and part‐time Professional sub‐group ........................................................................ 39

Table 24 Overview of information from CSU's Equity & Diversity webpage ........................................ 44

Table 25 Evidence of the impact of the new academic promotion process ......................................... 45

Table 26 Overview of academic promotions at CSU 2014‐2016 .......................................................... 45

Table 27 Promotion applications and successes for part‐time staff in comparison to full‐time staff,

2014‐2016 ............................................................................................................................................. 46

Table 28 Staff perceptions of learning and development (L&D) at CSU ............................................... 51

Table 29 Staff perceptions of the EDRS process ................................................................................... 52

Table 30 Formal support schemes that assist with academic career progression ............................... 53

Table 31 Women taking maternity leave, 2014‐2016 .......................................................................... 56

Table 32 Average days on maternity leave per person ........................................................................ 56

Table 33 Parental leave by STEMM/non‐STEMM, gender and employment type, 2014‐2016 ............ 58

Table 34 Staff taking additional government paid parental leave ........................................................ 59

Table 35 Flexible work arrangements ................................................................................................... 59

Table 36 Overview of CSU's childcare centres ...................................................................................... 61

Table 37 Staff perceptions of CSU's flexible work conditions............................................................... 62

Table 38 Staff perceptions of equity and gender equality at CSU ........................................................ 63

Table 39 Proportion of females in university leadership roles ............................................................. 65

Table 40 Overview of membership of CSU's most influential committees (2017) ............................... 66

Table 41 Staff perceptions of workload ................................................................................................ 67

6

Table 42 CSU policies and procedures that address issues relating to transgender people ................ 71

Table 43 Indigenous Australians employed as % of total staff ............................................................. 76

Table 44 Key programs within CSU’s Indigenous Australian Employment Strategy ............................ 76

Table 45 CSU staff numbers who have completed the Indigenous Cultural Competency Program (all

years) ..................................................................................................................................................... 77

Table 46 Indigenous‐focused education programs at CSU ................................................................... 78

Summary of word count

Section Recommended word count

Actual word count

1. Letter of endorsement 500 530

2. Description of the institution 500 932

3. Self‐assessment process 1,000 1,272

4. A picture of the institution 2,000 1,174

5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers

5,000 4,590

6. Supporting transgender people 500 494

7. Intersectionality 500 282

8. Indigenous Australians 500 1,071

9. Further information 500 0

Total 11,000 10,345

7

VICE-CHANCELLOR

The Grange Chancellery Panorama Avenue Bathurst NSW 2795

Tel: +61 2 6338 4209 Email: [email protected]

1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR Recommended word count: 500 words

Actual word count: 530 words

An accompanying letter of endorsement from the Vice Chancellor, Director or equivalent should

be included. If the Vice‐Chancellor/Director is soon to be succeeded, or has recently taken up the

post, applicants should include an additional short statement from the incoming leader.

28 March 2018

Dear SAGE Team

As Vice-Chancellor of Charles Sturt University (CSU), it gives me great pleasure to support this application for an Athena SWAN bronze award, and endorse the action plan. Through association with a very active Women in Engineering program at Central Queensland University more than 20 years ago, I was fortunate to be exposed early in my career to training on unconscious bias and gender equity issues. I have made improving gender equity and diversity a priority ever since.

Charles Sturt University is a regional institution with campuses in Albury-Wodonga, Bathurst, Canberra, Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, Parramatta, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga. The University ethos, Yindyamarra Winhanganha, is a Wiradjuri phrase meaning, ‘the wisdom of respectfully knowing how to live well in a world worth living in’. Our University Values of Inclusive; Impactful; Inspiring and Insightful are built from this ethos and drive us to be leaders in gender equity within the University and more broadly in the regions in which we live and work and send our graduates out into the work force.

At CSU over 54 per cent of our managers are female including a balanced female representation on our executive team and a slight majority on our University Council. We recognise the value of gender diversity in our leadership and work to maintain it through succession planning and the decision to implement a Gender Equity Strategy by the end of 2018. This links to our overall University Strategy and endeavours to make gender equity embedded in the University’s normal business.

We have already taken action towards gender equity, implementing a new academic promotion process in 2015 which saw our success rate for female applicants rise from 60 per cent in 2014 to 83 per cent in 2017. We are also trialling a return to research pilot in the Faculty of Science that provides research support funding for academics returning from leave.

While Athena SWAN focuses on STEMM, the work we have done in putting this application together resonates across the institution. When I became a Pay Equity Ambassador, I pledged the University would “analyse and monitor our pay and talent management data, and take action to address any

8

inequalities that are found.” Our current gender pay gap of 14.6 per cent is unacceptable. As part of our planned actions, we have tasked the Self-Assessment Team with conducting further analysis into areas like the pay gap, the return rates from maternity leave and the number of women in fixed-term or casual academic positions so that the University can steer a course to reducing that gap. As a large institution, we need to adopt a broad approach to gender equity and further analysis will educate the process.

Gender equity requires conscious focus to ensure it forms part of our core business on a daily basis. While our aim is to normalise gender equity there is a lot to overcome. However through the ongoing work of our Self-Assessment Team and our commitment to action I believe that we are headed in the right direction.

The information and data presented in this application is an honest, original, accurate, and true representation of our institution. This work has my complete commitment.

Sincerely

Professor Andrew Vann Vice-Chancellor

9

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTIONRecommended word count: 500 words


Please provide a brief description of the institution, including any relevant contextual information

Charles Sturt University (CSU) is Australia’s largest regionally‐based university, enrolling 42,000

students from Australia and 120 countries around the world. CSU has campuses in Albury‐Wodonga,

Bathurst, Canberra, Dubbo, Goulburn, Orange, Parramatta, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga

(Figure 1), and Study Centres for international students in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne.

Staff gender distribution by

campus is generally balanced.

Canberra and Dubbo campuses are

the exception with 36% and 86%

females respectively, reflecting the

smaller size of these campuses and

the gender profile of the courses

taught.

CSU is an experienced leader in

online distance learning, which

affords flexibility for both students

and academic staff. In addition,

CSU offers students the option to

study across three sessions/year.

These features and the associated

demands and deadlines of teaching

within these timeframes, including

the potential expectation of

continual engagement for

academic staff, can affect

academic work‐life balance if not

well managed.

Figure 1 Location of CSU campuses and Indigenous lands

Academic staff, especially sessional lecturers, are often recruited from local professions, without

doctoral qualifications. While our staff PhD program supports staff to gain doctoral qualifications,

this starting point has a flow‐on effect on academic career trajectories and pipelines (explored more

in Section 4).

Biripi

country

Ngunnuwal

country

Wiradjuri

country

10

STEMM Schools are spread across multiple campuses (Table 1); staff travel between campuses is

time‐consuming, often requiring time away from family. The University provides assistance with

travel, and videoconferencing is used wherever possible.

Table 1 Campus locations of STEMM Schools

School Campuses

Agriculture & Wine Sciences Orange Wagga Wagga

Animal & Veterinary Sciences Wagga Wagga

Biomedical Sciences Bathurst Dubbo Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga

Community Health Albury Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga

Computing & Mathematics Albury Bathurst Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga

Dentistry & Health Sciences Orange Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga

Engineering Bathurst

Environmental Sciences Albury Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga

Exercise Science, Sport and Health Bathurst Port Macquarie Wagga Wagga

Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health Albury Bathurst Dubbo Orange Wagga Wagga

11

i) Information on where the institution is in the Athena SWAN process

CSU is in the first cohort of the SAGE pilot. The Self‐Assessment Team (SAT) reports to the

University’s leadership team via the Equity and Diversity Committee. Both the SAT and Equity and

Diversity Committee are chaired by the Executive Dean of Science, Professor Tim Wess (Figure 2).

Reporting structure for the SAT at CSU

Figure 2 Gender breakdown and reporting lines for CSU's SAT

CSU is developing its first Gender Equity Strategy and will apply for a Workplace Gender Equality

Agency (WGEA) Employer of Choice Award this year, hence Athena SWAN principles will be adopted

across the University. The Manager of Equity and Diversity, Division of Human Resources, who is

leading the strategy development and WGEA application, has contributed significantly to this

application and Action Plan, therefore issues uncovered during Athena SWAN self‐assessment will

inform the Gender Equity Strategy.

Vice‐Chancellor's Leadership Team

5 Female; 5 Male (50% Female)

Equity & Diversity Committee Chair: T Wess2 Female; 4 Male (33% Female)

Self Assessment

Team Chair: T Wess17 Female; 8 Male (68% Female)

SAGE ACT Regional Network

ANU CSIRO UC Geoscience

12

ii) CSU’s teaching and research focus

CSU has a strong emphasis on workplace learning and practical skill development to produce

workplace‐ready graduates. More than 70% of our suite of courses are delivered in areas of

identified national and regional labour‐market skill shortages.

CSU is also recognised for internationally‐competitive research strengths in agricultural science,

horticultural production, food and wine sciences, crop and pasture production, veterinary science,

animal production, education, curriculum and pedagogy, environmental science, applied ethics,

philosophy, religious studies, criminology, nursing and marketing (Excellence in Research for

Australia, 2015).

Our academics and researchers work in consultation and collaboration with end‐users, industry, the

professions and communities. CSU’s research provides meaningful outcomes for industry,

government, business and communities, and seeks to make an impact regionally, nationally and

globally. Our research is focused on contributing to economic, social and environmental

sustainability and well‐being. Three interdisciplinary research spheres have been identified to

encapsulate our research activity (Figure 3).

Figure 3 CSU's research narrative

Table 2 lists the gender breakdown of key research leadership roles at CSU.

13

Table 2 Total number and percent female of research leadership roles at CSU, 2018

Leadership role Total positions

Females %Female

DVC‐RDI 1 1 100%

PVC Global Engagement 1 1 100%

PVC Indigenous 1 1 100%

Associate Dean Research 3 1 33%

Sub‐Dean Graduate Studies 3 1 33%

Research Centre Directors 4 0 0%

Pathway Leaders (within Research Centres) 2 1 50%

CRC Leads 3 1 33%

Three Rivers UDRH 1 1 100%

TOTAL 19 8 42%

iii) The number of staff; present data for academic, professional and support staff separately

CSU’s three Faculties: Faculty of Arts and Education (FoAE); Faculty of Business, Justice and

Behavioural Sciences (FoBJBS); and Faculty of Science (FoS), comprise 25 schools and five teaching,

research and training centres. In 2016 CSU had 4,510 staff members (Table 3): 43.6% academic, 1.4%

executive and 55.0% professional. The most common contract was casual, 53% of whom are

employed as academics and 47% in professional roles. Of all staff on continuing (permanent)

contracts, 64% are professional, 36% academic and 0.1% executive. Professional staff comprise 62%

of fixed‐term contracts, with 28% academic and 10% executive. A gender breakdown of academic

STEMM and non‐STEMM staff is provided in Section 4.

Table 3 Number of academic, executive and professional staff by contract type, 2016

CSU staff Casual Continuing Fixed Total

Academic 1218 579 171 1968

Executive 0 2 63 65

Professional 1059 1041 377 2477

TOTAL 2277 1622 611 4510

Note: All data throughout this application are headcounts.

iv) The total number of departments and total number of students

CSU’s student profile is diverse – over 50% of students come from regional, rural and remote

locations, 23% from low‐socioeconomic status backgrounds, 70% first‐in‐family to attend university

and 3.3% Indigenous Australians.

Table 4 summarises the number of students by Faculty, School, and gender. Overall, CSU had a total

of 41,759 students in 2016 (57.4% female). The highest percentage of female students were in

Faculty of Arts and Education (76.4%), followed by Faculty of Science (69.1%) and Faculty of

Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences (40.9%).

14

Table 4 Number of students by Faculty, School and gender, 2016

Total number of students by Faculty, School & gender Total Female %F

Faculty of Arts and Education 11999 9172 76.4

Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation 334 181 54.2

School of Communication and Creative Industries 1235 834 67.5

School of Education 2936 1968 67.0

School of Humanities and Social Sciences 2446 2055 84.0

School of Indigenous Australian Studies (SIAS) 38 32 84.2

School of Information Studies 1644 1390 84.5

School of Teacher Education 2383 2191 91.9

School of Theology 517 277 53.6

Faculty of Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences 20495 8383 40.9

Australian Graduate School of Policing and Security 1556 579 37.2

Centre for Customs & Excise Studies 146 63 43.2

Centre for Law and Justice 518 355 68.5

CSU Engineering 29 5 17

School of Accounting and Finance 5328 2643 49.6

School of Computing and Mathematics 4709 695 14.8

School of Management and Marketing 3421 1777 51.9

School of Policing Studies 3413 1168 34.2

School of Psychology 1249 1029 82.4

Faculty of Science 9265 6403 69.1

School of Agriculture and Wine Sciences 1272 561 44.1

School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 925 779 84.2

School of Biomedical Sciences 1765 1165 66.0

School of Community Health 960 717 74.7

School of Dentistry and Health Sciences 1156 786 68.0

School of Environmental Sciences 708 353 49.9

School of Exercise Science, Sport and Health 152 77 50.7

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health 1940 1725 88.9

Grand Total 41759 23958 57.4

Notes: STEMM Schools are shaded grey. Following the advice of SAGE in 2015, CSU has not included

the School of Psychology in STEMM.

v) List and sizes of Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM)

departments. Present data for academic and support staff separately

Table 5 summarises academic, executive and professional staff within STEMM Schools, according to

type of employment. In 2016, 1,127 staff were employed in STEMM departments; 69.4% academics,

29.4% professional and 1.2% executive.

15

Table 5 STEMM staff by employment and contract type, 2016

Casual Continuing Fixed Total

STEMM Total 2016 616 444 67 1127

FACULTY OF BUSINESS, JUSTICE & BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE

49 32 6 87

CSU Engineering 4 6 4 14

Academic 4 6 3 13

Professional 1 1

School of Computing & Mathematics 45 26 2 73

Academic 37 25 1 63

Executive 1 1

Professional 8 1 9

FACULTY OF SCIENCE 567 412 61 1040

School of Agricultural & Wine Sciences 26 31 9 66

Academic 20 30 8 58

Executive 1 1

Professional 6 1 7

School of Animal & Veterinary Sciences 51 52 9 112

Academic 33 47 8 88

Executive 1 1

Professional 18 5 23

School of Biomedical Sciences 102 56 5 163

Academic 71 55 2 128

Executive 1 1

Professional 31 1 2 34

School of Community Health 114 40 3 157


Executive 1 1

Professional 41 1 42

School of Dentistry & Health Sciences 77 31 7 115


Executive 1 1

Professional 1 1

School of Environmental Sciences 22 23 4 49

Academic 22 22 3 47

Executive 1 1

Professional 1 1

School of Exercise Science, Sport & Health 13 9 2 24

Academic 13 8 1 22

Executive 1 1

Professional 1 1

School of Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health 83 40 5 128


Executive 1 1


16

3. THE SELF‐ASSESSMENT PROCESSRecommended word count: 1000 words


Describe the self‐assessment process

i) A description of the self‐assessment team

The self‐assessment team (SAT) comprises academic and professional staff (Tables 6 and 7) with a

personal/research interest in gender equity, providing a self‐motivated, resourceful team.

Established in 2016 within the Faculty of Science, the SAT was supplemented by invitations to

targeted individuals based on their intersectionality, or application from Faculties and Divisions. This

ensured a reflection of diversity including: gender balance; early‐career to senior leadership;

intersectionality; Cultural and Linguistically Diverse and Indigenous identities; and geographical

locations. Faculties and Schools funded travel to meetings.

Over the course of preparing this application, founding SAT members left CSU and others engaged

with the project, skewing the gender balance in favour of females. New membership is encouraged

and provides fresh perspectives and responses to data analysis.

Table 6 SAT members and their roles, by location

Albury

Dr Alexandra Knight, School of Environmental Studies, FoS

Dr Rachel Richardson, Sub‐Dean Learning and Teaching, FoAE

Dr Kristy Robson, Lecturer, School of Community Health, FoS

A/Professor Ben Wilson, Head of School of Environmental Sciences, FoS

Bathurst

Dr Donna Bridges, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, FoAE

17

Dr Hedy Bryant, former Manager Diversity & Equity, assisted in establishing SAT

Mr Craig Hinley, Manager Equity & Diversity, Division of Human Resources

A/Professor Will Letts, Associate Dean Academic, FoAE

Dr Chelsea Litchfield, School of Exercise Science, Sport and Health, FoS

Dr Patricia Logan, Course Director, FoS

Professor Jim Morgan, Course Director, CSU Engineering, FoBJBS

Professor Linda Shields, Professor of Rural Health, FoS

Dr Denise Wood, Course Design Lead, Division of Learning and Teaching

Orange

Professor Boyen Huang, Head of School of Dentistry and Health Sciences, FoS

Mr Andrew Smee, Manager Human Resources Systems Development, Division of Human Resources

Wagga Wagga

Ms Charmaine Carlisle, Technical Manager (Life Sciences and Health Team), FoAE

18

Mr Andrew Cox, Strategic Projects Officer, Faculty of Science

A/Professor Jane Heller, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, FoS

A/Professor Marta Hernandez‐Jover, School of Animal and Veterinary Science, FoS

Dr Julia Howitt, School of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, FoS

A/Professor Faye McMillan, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health, FoS

Dr Sandra Savocchia, Sub Dean (Graduate Studies), FoS

A/Professor Cate Thomas, Associate Dean Academic, FoS

Dr Lucy Webster, Sub Dean Learning and Teaching, FoS

Professor Tim Wess, Executive Dean, FoS Chair, SAT

19

Table 7 Characteristics of current SAT members

Current SAT members

32% (8) have school aged children

12% (3) have children not yet at school

52% (13) are in/have been in dual career relationships

40% (10) work/have worked part time

40% (10) have taken parental leave

36% (9) have conducted research in the area of equity and diversity

36% (9) have been members of promotions committee

100% (25) have been members of employment interview panels

20% (5) identifies as same sex orientation

4% (1) identifies as Indigenous

4% (1) 1 identifies as transgender

36% (9) have carer roles which impact on work

28% (7) are senior managers

32% (8) are professors

16% (4) are Level B academics

20% (5) are Level C academics

16% (4) are professional staff (Level 7 to 9)

0 are currently postgraduate students

20% (5) were invited to join SAT

80% (20) self‐nominated to join SAT

ii) An account of the self‐assessment process

The first SAT meeting identified four core areas. Working parties were formed around these:

1. Communication – internal and external;

2. Data analysis – identifying, obtaining and interpreting the data required;

3. Career transition – identified as a significant gender issue at CSU;

4. Cultural change – also a significant gender issue.

Working parties met independently throughout 2016, collecting relevant data and information, and

defining questions for investigation. The SAT met face‐to‐face (twice annually), by videoconference

(monthly), and communicated via email between meetings, reflecting the distributed nature of CSU.

An online site supported information sharing, such as meeting minutes, action and communication

plans, SAGE documents, data, literature, and surveys/questionnaires. Recognising the

interdependency of the working groups, these were merged early in 2017 to focus on data collection

and analysis and shared across the SAT.

20

Table 8 highlights work the SAT has completed to date.

Table 8 Work of the SAT throughout the application process

Date Activity Details and outcomes Impact

Late 2015 Visit of Zuleyka Zevallos

120 staff at 7 campuses Invitation to join team placed on What’s New (emailed daily to all CSU staff) Targeted members invited to join team First SAT meeting date set

Led to establishment of SAT, March 2016 Priorities defined

Ongoing SAGE advocates internally and externally

Team members spoke at School/group meetings, resulting in increased awareness‐building of issues/project Initiated partnerships/conversations with groups outside SAT team Work with other groups to complement their work: Division of Human Resources, ALLY, Leadership Development for Women (LDW), Equity and Diversity Unit Support application for WGEA employer of choice Collaborative tasks around equity: Respect Now campaign; HDR retreat, LDW presentation Delivered external presentations on Gender Equity to:

Inaugural Athena SWAN meeting (Nov 2014)

Garvan Institute

Veski Foundation (Lead Scientist of Victoria)

Adelaide (Chief Scientist of SA)

University of Tasmania

ANSTO

Department of Primary Industry Orange

Australian National University

University of Canberra

CSIRO

New members joined SAT. Webinars, presentations engage staff across CSU Development of Gender Equity policy

21

February 2016

Published ‘Advocating for gender equity within universities’ in Croakey Author: Prof Tim Wess

November 2016

Gender equity focus at FoS Forum

Improve awareness of experiences of women in science at CSU for all faculty members

Increased awareness of womens’ experiences

December 2016‐August 2017

Secured $2000 funding from Association of Commonwealth Universities for unconscious bias workshop for STEMM HDR students, held August 2017

Examined unconscious/conscious bias and the role it plays in workplace decision‐making to better understand why diversity remains a ‘work in progress’.

Attendance: 25 female and 20 male staff/students Evaluations: 30% indicated improved knowledge of unconscious bias 100% happy with level of knowledge presented

Throughout 2017

Analysed gender equity data for AS application

Obtained data from HR Illustrated trends and provided objective image through gender lens. Highlighted gaps and areas of concern.

March 2017 Published ‘A Call to Action’ in Nature Author: Prof Tim Wess

Challenged field to consider impact of gender bias; established CSU as advocate

PlumXAnalytics: 23 social media hits 8 usage hits 1 news mention 2 captures

September 2017

Shared SAGE/Athena SWAN information

Established and supported CSU SAGE/Athena SWAN webpage Promoted activities in What’s New

336 unique webpage views (at 20/3/2018)

22

2017

Work with SAGE Regional Network to produce video (launched September)

Video titled: What would be lost without their input? Highlights eminent female scientists and one male health scientist’s career paths, barriers and supports

1,356 YouTube views

September 2017‐March 2018

Develop Action Plan

Developed actions to address issues identified from data to guide policy and progress

Action Plan endorsed by VCLT

November 2017: launched; continues monthly in 2018

Webinars open to all staff

Topics: intersectionality, transgender, know your rights. Generated discussion and reflection with diverse group of employees. Planned future topics: indigeneity, life as a carer, gender‐based issues, multiculturalism.

Attendance: Intersectionality, Dec 2017: 32 Transgender, Feb 2017: 36 Rights, Mar 2018: 10

Production: 2017 Launched: November 2017

CSU women in STEMM video

Interviews with CSU women in STEMM, highlighting career paths, barriers and supports. Future uses: showcasing career issues for early academics or HDR students, discussion focus for staff and students

Attendance CSU video launch, Nov 2017: 20 177 YouTube views

Throughout the application process, CSU actively engaged with the SAGE Regional Network: CSIRO,

University of Canberra and Australian National University. Chairing the network is rotated among

organisations and each institution critiqued each other’s drafts. Tim Wess, drawing on his UK

experience with Athena SWAN, met with SATs from other institutions to provide guidance. The

network developed a video resource showcasing Australian women in science (Figure 3) and

launched at the 2017 SAGE National Conference.

23

Figure 4 Stills from the video produced by the ACT SAGE Regional Network

This work has led to other collaborative ventures including joining CSIRO with CSU Future Moves

pathway for Indigenous school children, highlighting CSIRO cadetships for Indigenous learners.

Professor Robin Perutz FRS, University of York, special advisor to the SAT, provided guidance and

feedback on CSU’s draft application. Prof Perutz’s leadership and experience of Athena SWAN,

gender equity and diversity issues in the UK was highly valuable.

The Athena SWAN SAT and application process was supported financially by FoS and Division of

Human Resources. The Faculty supplied $300,000 for project and research officer support from 2016

until mid‐2019. The Division of Human Resources supported the application with staffing and data

provision, and $70,000 to cover registration costs, training, expenses of visitors and travel.

iii) Plans for the future of the self‐assessment team

The SAT will address issues identified in the Action Plan, reporting to the Equity and Diversity

Committee. The team will engage members across all campuses and future meetings will focus on

prioritising activities and monitoring the Action Plan. Ongoing investigation through focus groups,

presentations, webinars and workshops will highlight challenges and issues, and provide information

to inform SAT activity. Findings from the current application will be shared with stakeholders across

the university to inform strategy, planning and actions. The SAT will also support Schools in applying

for Departmental Athena SWAN Awards should the pilot continue (detailed in Section 5.4.xii).

Key to success of the cultural, structural and process changes in the Action Plan is visible leadership

from the Vice‐Chancellor and his leadership team. Action Plan progress will be reported to the

Equity and Diversity Committee annually, who will evaluate and provide feedback. Communication

around actions and issues will continue through the ongoing program of webinars and a diversity‐

focused newsletter.

24

Actions

Rationale: The SAT has a clear role to play in monitoring and investigating issues

uncovered during the application process, as well as communicating these to

stakeholders and staff. This valuable work needs to be allocated time and

recognition by the University.

Actions: Specific tasks have been assigned to the SAT within the Action Plan,

including ongoing data analysis and investigation of issues [Actions 7.1]; and

continued communication of Athena SWAN principles via webinars, videos and

other communication tools [Action 7.3]; and to liaise with CSU stakeholders.

Once the future of the Athena SWAN awards are confirmed, the SAT will support

and guide Schools to apply for Departmental Athena SWAN awards [Action 7.1].

To ensure adequate time and recognition is awarded for this important work,

workload allocation will need to be provided across CSU [Action 7.2].

25

4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTIONRecommended word count: 2000 words


4.1 Academic and research staff data

i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender

Look at the career pipeline across the whole institution and between Science, Technology,

Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) subjects. Comment on and explain any differences

between women and men, and any differences between STEMM subjects. Identify any issues in the

pipeline at particular grades/levels.

Female representation in STEMM and non‐STEMM areas reduces as level of appointment increases

from A‐E (Table 9). Within continuing academic appointments, Level A has an over‐representation of

females across STEMM and non‐STEMM (89% females in STEMM in 2016). Fixed‐term early‐career

academic appointments are also skewed towards females, but to a lesser degree than continuing

appointments. A sharp reduction in female representation occurs within STEMM by level; decreasing

from over 50% at Level A, to less than 20% at Level E. This trend is also seen in non‐STEMM. Over

60% of sessional academic staff are female, across STEMM and non‐STEMM areas and across all

years documented.

Table 9 Proportion of academics by gender and STEMM

STEMM Non‐STEMM STEMM Non‐STEMM STEMM Non‐STEMM

F M %F F M %F F M %F F M %F F M %F F M %F

2014 2015 2016

Continuing

A 7 3 70 13 2 87 13 2 87 12 1 92 17 2 89 13 2 87

B 79 63 56 101 77 57 82 68 55 93 73 56 87 63 58 91 73 55

C 24 54 31 29 27 52 28 54 34 31 25 55 22 66 25 31 24 56

D 9 22 29 9 11 45 10 21 32 8 8 50 9 18 33 12 11 52

E 2 11 15 9 13 41 1 16 6 9 14 39 3 14 18 9 12 43

Fixed‐term

A 16 8 67 28 14 67 15 10 60 25 11 69 11 10 52 21 7 75

B 21 14 60 32 23 58 11 13 46 17 19 47 16 10 62 24 14 63

C 3 7 30 10 4 71 0 4 0 10 4 71 0 6 0 18 6 75

D 1 1 50 5 3 63 0 1 0 5 2 71 2 2 50 3 4 43

E 2 7 22 1 19 5 1 7 13 2 15 12 1 6 14 3 10 23

Sessional 255 138 65 483 210 70 235 144 62 476 225 68 243 140 63 560 249 69

Total 419 328 56 720 403 64 396 340 54 688 397 63 411 337 55 785 412 66

To illustrate the sharp reduction, or 'leaky pipeline' of female academics from Levels A‐E typical of many universities, we graphed data from Table 9 for continuing and fixed‐term staff, for STEMM (Figure 5) and non‐STEMM (Figure 6).

26

Figure 5 Percent female STEMM academics, 2014‐2016

Figure 6 Percent female non‐STEMM academics, 2014‐2016

Why are fewer female academics represented past Level B? Females were more likely than males to

be appointed without a doctorate, and therefore lack the means to progress past Level B (Figure

7Figure 7). Looking at the proportion of staff appointed with PhDs across levels, in STEMM there is a

greater proportion of male staff with doctorates at Levels A and B than female staff. Conversely,

there is a greater proportion of female staff with doctorates than males at levels C, D and E. This is

not the case in non‐STEMM areas. This may suggest inequity within the appointment process,

whereby men without doctorates are appointed at higher levels, where evidence of equivalence to a

PhD is required, and assessed by the members of an interview panel or promotions committee,

more often than women without doctorates.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C D E

Percent female

STEMM 2014 STEMM 2015 STEMM 2016

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B C D E

Percent female

NonSTEMM 2014 NonSTEMM 2015 NonSTEMM 2016

27

Figure 7 Percent of academic appointments with doctorate level qualifications, across gender and level in STEMM and non‐STEMM, 2016 (headcount in brackets)

Proportion of female staff varies across STEMM schools (Table 10) from 19% in the Computing and

Mathematics, to 90% in Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health, highlighting the need to consider

school‐specific data when reflecting on proportional female representation. Two schools had

consistently low female representation from 2014‐2016: Computing and Mathematics, and

Agriculture and Wine Sciences. Engineering also had low female representation (for 2016).

Conversely, there is consistent comparative over‐representation of females in two schools:

Community Health and Nursing, Midwifery and Indigenous Health.

Table 10 Breakdown of %F STEMM academic staff across schools (headcount), 2014‐2016

2014 2015 2016

SCHOOL F M %F F M %F F M %F

Computing & Mathematics 15 66 19% 14 58 19% 13 50 21%

Engineering* ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3 9 25%

Agriculture & Wine Sciences 26 46 36% 25 47 35% 17 45 27%

Animal & Veterinary Sciences 40 35 53% 37 37 50% 44 36 55%

Biomedical Sciences 50 59 46% 52 63 45% 55 65 46%

Community Health 80 27 75% 63 21 75% 66 23 74%

Dentistry & Health Sciences 44 46 49% 52 48 52% 59 45 57%

Environmental Sciences 18 19 49% 19 24 44% 22 27 45%

Exercise Science, Sport & Health 18 9 67% 14 8 64% 15 10 60%

Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health 118 13 90% 109 20 84% 104 13 89%

*School of Engineering formed in 2016

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sessional

Sessional

Level A

Level A

Level B

Level B

Level C

Level C

Level D

Level D

Level E

Level E

Sessional

Sessional

Level A

Level A

Level B

Level B

Level C

Level C

Level D

Level D

Level E

Level E

STEMM Non‐STEMM

Percent with doctorates

STEMM Non‐STEMM

Level A

Level A

Level B

Level B

Level C

Level C

Level D

Level D

Level E

Level E

Female Male

6 10 3 7 39 46 21 61 11 16 4 19 16 5 6 1 51 40 37 25 13 13 12 20Headcount

28

Actions

Rationale: There is a ‘leaky pipeline’, where proportional representation by

female academics decreases from Level A to E, particularly beyond Level B.

Action: We will develop policy to ensure women are actively recruited for

academic positions and that gender balance is considered when shortlisting for

each academic role advertised [Action 2.1]. The 2018 Faculty of Science Forum

will include a day‐long stream focussing on supporting Level A and B academics,

covering topics around issues and successes of women in STEMM [Action 2.2].

Rationale: There is inequity within the appointment process, particularly in

STEMM, where men without doctorates are appointed at higher levels more

often than women without doctorates.

Action: Inclusivity resources for managers and members of interview panels will

be developed to address this bias [Action 1.2], along with a process for interview

panels to check for bias prior to making the final decision on candidates and prior

to confirming the step/level of an appointment [Action 1.1].

Rationale: There is a gender imbalance of academic staff in Schools of

Engineering, Computing and Mathematics, Agriculture and Wine Sciences,

Nursing Midwifery and Indigenous Health, and Community Health. We

acknowledge to some extent this reflects the gender profile of those professions,

however each School needs to consider and address the issue individually.

Action: The Executive Dean of Science will discuss School‐specific results with

each School and the SAT will support these Schools to identify the reasons behind

these imbalances and develop appropriate programs to redress these [Action

2.3].

29

ii) Academic and research staff on fixed‐term, open‐ended/permanent and casual 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.

Gender proportions of academic staff employed by contract type are consistent for 2014‐2016 for

STEMM (Figure 8) and non‐STEMM (Figure 9). Percentages of women on continuing and fixed‐term

contracts for STEMM and non‐STEMM is comparable to males; 40‐60%. More females are employed

on a sessional basis (average 63% in STEMM, 69% in non‐STEMM), so females have less contract

security than males. CSU’s Enterprise Agreement includes provision for fixed‐term staff to convert

their employment in particular circumstances.

Figure 8 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in STEMM 2014‐2016

Figure 9 Gender proportions for academics by contract type in non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

Continuing Fixed Sessional

Male 153 161 163 37 35 34 138 144 140 Female 121 134 138 39 22 29 255 235 243

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of staff

Percent of staff

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Continuing Fixed Sessional

Male 130 121 122 63 51 41 210 225 249 Female 161 153 156 64 49 59 483 476 560

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

30

iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research‐only, research and teaching, and

teaching‐only

Comment on the proportions of men and women on these contracts and by job grade.

The gender balance of academic staff employed in teaching, teaching/research, teaching and

teaching/professional roles is shown for STEMM (Figure 10), and non‐STEMM (Figure 11). Females

are under‐represented in research and teaching/research roles, particularly for STEMM. Conversely,

females are over‐represented in teaching and teaching/professional roles, particularly in non‐

STEMM.

Figure 10 Percent female STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016

Actions

Rationale: The gender imbalance in sessional staff numbers, while not

unexpected as it is common across the sector, appears to be a gender equity

issue. There are various initiatives across CSU designed to address concerns for

this cohort, such as educational design staff specifically supporting and guiding

the teaching of sessional academics. A research scholarship program for sessional

staff was piloted in 2016/17. However, it is difficult to gain a clear picture of the

breadth of this work across the University.

Action: Existing knowledge about the needs and wants of sessional staff needs to

be aggregated across the University. The SAT will consult with existing groups and

roles who currently support sessional staff, to identify the known issues and

existing data [Action 1.3] as well as consult with sessional staff [Action 1.4].

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Research Teaching/research Teaching Teaching/professional

Male 14 22 19 143 133 131 143 164 167 10 7 8

Female 11 10 9 119 107 100 266 249 272 12 13 12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of staff

31

Figure 11 Percent female non‐STEMM academic staff by contract function, 2014‐2016

Note: teaching/professional role enables academic staff to perform other professional activities, eg

consultancy/partnerships, leadership of continuing professional development, professional practice

outside CSU, knowledge development and problem‐solving, and projects that enhance curricula.

Some of these activities may be research‐focused in nature.

Table 11 further investigates academic contract function through sub‐grouping staff by contract

type. The vast majority of research staff (STEMM and non‐STEMM) are on fixed‐term contracts,

suggesting lack of contract security. In contrast, teaching/research, teaching and

teaching/professional staff are more often on continuing contracts (STEMM and non‐STEMM). There

is a slight gender imbalance within non‐STEMM; with females on continuing contracts over‐

represented in the three teaching functions.

Percent of staff

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Research Teaching/research Teaching Teaching/professional

Male 22 20 15 124 105 99 240 240 262 13 9 7

Female 18 16 15 133 126 120 502 478 577 24 22 20

0% 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

32

Table 11 Number and proportion of academics by contract function and employment type in STEMM and non‐STEMM 2014‐2016

Work function

Contract type

2014 2015 2016

F M %F F M %F F M %F

STEMM

Research

Continuing 0 0 ‐ 0 1 0% 0 2 0%

Fixed‐term 11 14 44% 10 21 32% 9 17 35%

Teaching and research

Continuing 106 132 45% 103 126 45% 94 122 44%

Fixed‐term 13 11 54% 4 7 36% 6 9 40%

Teaching

Continuing 4 11 27% 18 25 42% 31 28 53%

Fixed‐term 13 10 57% 5 8 38% 13 9 59%

Teaching and professional

Continuing 10 7 59% 11 6 65% 12 8 60%

Fixed‐term 2 3 40% 2 1 67% 0 0 ‐

Non‐STEMM

Research

Continuing 1 7 13% 1 6 14% 1 4 20%

Fixed‐term 17 15 53% 15 14 52% 14 11 56%

Teaching and research

Continuing 121 105 54% 112 94 54% 108 94 53%

Fixed‐term 12 19 39% 14 11 56% 12 5 71%

Teaching

Continuing 7 4 64% 9 9 50% 22 16 58%

Fixed‐term 12 22 35% 8 18 31% 16 18 47%

Teaching and professional

Continuing 21 10 68% 22 7 76% 19 6 76%

Fixed‐term 3 3 50% 0 2 0% 1 1 50%

Tables 12 to 15 sub‐group academic contract functions by level and gender. Headcounts for some of

these sub‐groups are low, making it difficult to draw conclusions, particularly around gender

balance. The main feature seen is the high concentration of Level A and B staff, particularly for

teaching and teaching/professional contract functions. This is consistent across STEMM and non‐

STEMM, and confirms the ‘leaky pipeline’ data in Figures 4 and 5.

33

Table 12 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM research‐only academics by gender and grade

2014 2015 2016


STEMM

Level A 6 4 60% 5 8 38% 4 8 33%

Level B 4 4 50% 4 5 44% 4 1 80%

Level C 0 1 0% 0 2 0% 0 2 0%

Level D 0 1 0% 0 1 0% 0 0 ‐

Level E 1 4 20% 1 5 17% 1 7 13%

TOTAL 11 14 44% 10 21 32% 9 18 33%

Non‐STEMM

Level A 7 4 64% 7 3 70% 5 1 83%

Level B 6 2 75% 4 2 67% 4 1 80%

Level C 1 2 33% 2 1 67% 3 0 100%

Level D 1 1 50% 0 0 ‐ 1 4 20%

Level E 1 13 8% 2 14 13% 2 9 18%

TOTAL 16 22 42% 15 20 43% 15 15 50%

Table 13 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/research academics by gender and grade

2014 2015 2016


STEMM

Level A 5 5 50% 5 1 83% 6 0 100%

Level B 75 54 58% 68 52 57% 63 45 58%

Level C 25 49 34% 24 47 34% 19 58 25%

Level D 9 18 33% 8 16 33% 8 15 35%

Level E 3 12 20% 1 14 7% 3 10 23%

TOTAL 117 138 46% 106 130 45% 99 128 44%

Non‐STEMM

Level A 8 2 80% 9 1 90% 7 1 88%

Level B 85 72 54% 75 64 54% 71 55 56%

Level C 23 22 51% 28 20 58% 26 22 54%

Level D 6 9 40% 5 6 45% 7 10 41%

Level E 9 15 38% 8 11 42% 9 10 47%

TOTAL 131 120 52% 125 102 55% 120 98 55%

34

Table 14 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching‐only academics by gender and grade

2014 2015 2016


STEMM

Level A 5 1 83% 9 2 82% 14 3 82%

Level B 11 14 44% 11 21 34% 29 24 55%

Level C 1 3 25% 3 6 33% 1 7 13%

Level D 0 2 0 0 2 0% 0 2 0%

Level E 0 1 0 0 2 0% 0 1 0%

TOTAL 265 140 65% 248 161 61% 272 166 62%

Non‐STEMM

Level A 8 10 44% 4 7 36% 9 6 60%

Level B 11 15 42% 11 17 39% 25 26 49%

Level C 0 0 ‐ 2 2 50% 4 2 67%

Level D 0 1 0% 0 1 0% 0 0 ‐

Level E 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐

TOTAL 502 236 68% 473 239 66% 577 262 69%

Table 15 Number and proportion of STEMM and non‐STEMM teaching/professional academics by gender and grade

2014 2015 2016


STEMM

Level A 3 1 75% 3 1 75% 2 1 67%

Level B 9 3 75% 9 2 82% 7 2 78%

Level C 0 4 0% 0 2 0% 1 3 25%

Level D 0 1 0% 1 1 50% 2 1 67%

Level E 0 1 0% 0 1 0% 0 1 0%

TOTAL 12 10 55% 13 7 65% 12 8 60%

Non‐STEMM

Level A 3 0 100% 3 0 100% 2 0 100%

Level B 16 8 67% 14 7 67% 11 5 69%

Level C 3 3 50% 4 1 80% 6 2 75%

Level D 2 1 67% 1 1 50% 1 0 100%

Level E 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐

TOTAL 24 12 67% 22 9 71% 20 7 74%

35

iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender

Comment on the reasons academic staff leave the institution. Comment on and explain any

differences between men and women, and any differences in schools or departments.

The two main reasons both STEMM and non‐STEMM academic staff leave CSU are contract expiry

and resignation (Table 16). The turnover rate for STEMM staff was consistent from 2014‐2016, whilst

the turnover rate for non‐STEMM staff decreased slightly.

Table 16 Academic leavers by STEMM/non‐STEMM and reasons for leaving 2014‐2016

2014 2015 2016

Reason for leaving

STEMM Non‐STEMM

STEMM Non‐STEMM

STEMM Non‐STEMM

Contract expiry 16 34 25 22 15 16

Redundancy 0 1 0 0 0 1

Resignation 20 42 25 23 26 18

Retirement 2 6 4 9 4 7

Other 0 0 1 1 1 1

TOTAL leavers 38 83 55 55 46 43

Total academic staff

316 283 316 257 324 273

Turnover rate 12% 29% 17% 21% 14% 16%

Note: sessional staff are not included in Table 16

Table 17 investigates academic leavers through sub‐grouping by gender, full‐ or part‐time status,

and level. These data support the ‘leaky pipeline’: large numbers of academics, both full‐ and part‐

time, leave at Level A, B or C, across STEMM and non‐STEMM.

Actions

Rationale: more women are appointed in fixed‐term, teaching‐only and

teaching/professional roles, while more men are appointed to research‐only

roles.

Action: The SAT will conduct focus groups with staff employed in each role to

clarify equity issues [Action 1.5]. The SAT will work with the Gender Equity

Strategy team to ensure this issue is raised with the Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership

Team, and specific actions are included within the Gender Equity Strategy [Action

1.6].

36

Table 17 Academic leavers by gender, grade and STEMM/non‐STEMM 2014‐2016

2014 2015 2016

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

staff

STEMM

FULL TIME 15 12 56% 19 23 45% 14 23 38% 106

Level A 5 1 83% 4 3 57% 6 5 55% 24

Level B 8 5 62% 11 13 46% 6 7 46% 50

Level C 6 0% 1 3 25% 2 6 25% 18

Level D 2 100% 2 1 67% 1 0% 6

Level E ‐ 1 3 25% 4 0% 8

PART TIME 5 6 45% 8 5 62% 5 4 56% 33

Level A 2 1 67% 2 2 50% 1 1 50% 9

Level B 2 4 33% 3 2 60% 4 1 80% 16

Level C ‐ 1 100% 1 0% 2

Level D 1 100% 1 0% ‐ 2

Level E 1 0% 2 100% 1 0% 4

TOTAL STEMM 20 18 53% 27 28 49% 19 27 41% 139

Non‐STEMM

FULL TIME 23 27 46% 17 20 46% 11 13 46% 111

Level A 5 6 45% 3 4 43% 2 2 50% 22

Level B 15 13 54% 11 10 52% 5 5 50% 59

Level C 3 4 43% 3 5 38% 2 100% 17

Level D 2 0% ‐ 2 1 67% 5

Level E 2 0% 1 0% 5 0% 8

PART TIME 17 16 52% 9 9 50% 10 9 53% 70

Level A 4 2 67% 2 1 67% 2 1 67% 12

Level B 10 9 53% 6 3 67% 4 5 44% 37

Level C 2 1 67% 1 1 50% 3 1 75% 9

Level D 1 0% ‐ 1 1 50% 3

Level E 1 3 25% 4 0% 1 0% 9

TOTAL non‐STEMM 40 43 48% 28 29 49% 21 22 49% 183

Grand total 60 61 50% 55 57 49% 40 49 45% 322

Table 18 investigates academic leavers in STEMM schools and shows that, taking into account the

low numbers of leavers, there is consistency in terms of percent leavers by gender and gender

proportion of staff in school. The only school with consistently higher proportions of female leavers

compared with female staff is the school of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, but the number of

leavers in this school is very low. In contrast, the Schools of Dentistry and Health Sciences and

Exercise Science, Sport and Health have consistently lower percent female leavers compared with

proportion of female staff within these schools.

37

Table 18 Academic leavers (fixed‐term and continuing) by STEMM Schools, (n=total staff), 2014‐2016

v) Equal pay audits/reviews

Comment on the findings from the most recent equal pay audit and identify the institution’s top

three priorities to address any disparities and enable equality in pay.

The gender pay gap is an enduring, complex and multifaceted issue in Australia. CSU’s gender pay

gap, calculated in the 2017 Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) report, is 14.6% (Table 19).

WGEA measures and compares average wages of women to men across the institution as a basic

measurement of the gender pay gap.

2014 2015 2016

%F

leavers %F staff

%F

leavers %F staff

%F

leavers %F staff

Computing & Mathematics 0% (4) 19% (81) 0% (7) 19% (72) 50% (2) 21% (63)

CSU Engineering ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0% (1) 25% (12)

Agricultural & Wine Sciences

50% (2) 36% (72) 50% (2) 35% (72) 50% (2) 27% (62)

Animal & Veterinary Sciences

25% (8) 53% (75) 50% (8) 50% (74) 80% (5) 55% (80)

Biomedical Sciences 100% (1) 46% (109) 40% (5) 45% (115) 25% (8) 46% (120)

Community Health 66% (3) 75% (107) 80% (5) 75% (84) 0% (1) 74% (89)

Dentistry & Health Sciences 17% (6) 49% (90) 44% (9) 52% (100) 40% (5) 57% (104)

Environmental Sciences 66% (3) 49% (37) 33% (3) 44% (43) 50% (2) 45% (49)

Exercise Science, Sport & Health

50% (2) 67% (27) 60% (5) 64% (22) 0% (2) 60% (25)

Nursing, Midwifery & Indigenous Health

50% (4) 90% (131) 100% (5) 84% (129) 71% (7) 89% (117)

38

Table 19 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 all sub‐groups by employment type

Female Male

Heads Av. Basic Av. Total Heads Av. Basic Av. Total

FT 980 90,498.03 107,334.03 718 104,638.25 123,272.57

Contract 203 105,160.35 123,516.86 168 119,830.81 141,513.51

Permanent 777 86,667.34 103,106.09 550 99,997.61 117,700.79

Casual 587 76,950.61 85,392.02 241 77,370.24 85,243.48

PT 370 79,414.62 93,216.27 87 106,415.88 126,080.14

Contract 122 84,827.53 98,083.69 48 109,679.63 128,458.42

Permanent 248 76,751.82 90,821.81 39 102,398.96 123,153.03

Grand Total 1937 84,275.42 97,987.86 1046 98,503.51 114,744.12

Pay gap 14.44% 14.60%

Note: WGEA uses pre‐set categories of workers that do not easily fit CSU’s higher education

categories as outlined in

Table 20. Language used in tables in this section relate to WGEA categories.

Table 20 Comparison of WGEA and CSU staffing categories

WGEA category Equivalent CSU staff category

Clerical Professional (mostly levels 1‐5), student and other miscellaneous employees

Professional Academic and Professional (levels 5 and above)

Contract Fixed‐term

Permanent Continuing

Casual Casual and sessional

Examining average wages within WGEA categories helps us better understand the gap and uncover

where issues need to be addressed (Table 21).Eg, women earn more on average (7.54%) than men in

the clerical category, while at the other end of the pay‐scale, women in the executive sub‐group are

paid 4.71% more than men. Men in the professional sub‐group are paid 7.54% more than women. If

the sub‐groups ‘Key Management Personnel’, ‘Other Managers’ and ‘Senior Staff’ are combined,

there is a gender pay gap of 14.4% which is approaching that of the institution.

Table 21 CSU gender pay gap 2016‐2017 by sub‐group

Female Male Av. Basic pay gap

Av. total

pay gap Heads Av.

Basic Av.

TotalHeads Av. Basic Av.

Total

Clerical 848 67,012 76,759 208 63,627 71,374 ‐5.32% ‐7.54%

Executive 10 246,588 301,165 3 244,098 287,619 ‐1.02% ‐4.71%

Professional 862 98,528 115,284 663 106,983 124,680 7.90% 7.54%

KMP/Othm/Snr 112 115,139 136,197 99 132,577 159,116 13.15% 14.40%

39

The ‘Clerical’ and ‘Professional’ sub‐groups contain the largest numbers and the two extremes of pay

inequity: 7.54%, the greatest difference, favours women (Clerical) and men (Professional)

respectively. A direct comparison of these two sub‐groups reveals a significant number of women

working in lower paid jobs, mostly in the Clerical sub‐group, causing a 14.09% average total pay gap.

Re‐examining the pay gap across CSU, and excluding the clerical sub‐group, there is a significant

narrowing of that gap to 8.76%.

A much larger number of women in part‐time and casual work contributes to the gap, especially in

the Professional sub‐group (Table 22 and Table 23).

Table 22 Full‐time Professional sub‐group

Female Male


FT 492 101,363 120,705 488 107,929 126,631

Contract 126 95,398 111,108 104 100,776 117,517

Permanent 366 103,416 124,009 384 109,866 129,100

Grand Total 492 101,363 120,705 488 107,929 126,631

Pay gap 6.08% 4.68%

Table 23 Casual and part‐time Professional sub‐group

Female Male


Casual 205 94,815 106,158 103 97,499 107,919

PT 165 94,688 110,458 72 114,134 135,434

Contract 70 92,557 107,248 44 111,208 130,259

Permanent 95 96,259 112,824 28 118,732 143,566

Grand Total 370 94,758 108,076 175 104,343 119,239

Pay gap 9.19% 9.36%

However being able to work part‐time is a value that is not quantified in such raw numerical data. It

is important to neither over‐ or under‐state the value of working part‐time. This is a contentious

issue and needs to be analysed with academic rigour as part of the Action Plan. CSU’s Vice‐

Chancellor became a WGEA Pay Equity Ambassador in February 2018, pledging to take action to

reduce the gender pay gap.

40

Actions

Rationale: Reducing the pay gap across the institution is a fundamental

component of the Gender Equity Strategy, which will be implemented by the end

of 2018.

Actions: The SAT has been tasked with investigating specific issues that

contribute to the gender pay gap, including School and organisation unit‐level

gender remuneration analysis, and understanding the personal value of the

availability of part‐time work [Action 3.1]. In addition, new recruitment guides

and inclusivity training for managers and interview panels will also address the

effect of starting step for new appointments [Action 6.4]. Other actions listed in

the Action Plan (Section 10) are also expected to contribute to reducing the pay

gap, and the Gender Equity Strategy will examine ways to increase the wages of

lower paid staff.

41

5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERSRecommended word count: 5000 words


5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff

i) Recruitment

Break down data by gender and grade for applications, long‐ and shortlisted candidates, offer and

acceptance rates. Comment on how recruitment processes ensure that women (and men in

underrepresented disciplines) are encouraged to apply.

CSU’s externally advertised vacancies encourage inclusivity and applications from women, by

including the following statement:

“Charles Sturt University is an equal opportunity employer committed to diversity and

inclusion. Applications are encouraged from Indigenous Australians; people with a disability;

women (particularly for senior and non‐traditional roles); people who identify as LGBTIQ; and

those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.”

Applicants voluntarily disclose gender when applying. Between 2014 and 2016 approximately 10%

withheld gender information. Of these ‘gender unknown’ applications, 64% (n=203) were for

STEMM positions, with 36% (n=114) for non‐STEMM.

Of the approximately 90% of applications for academic positions in 2014‐2016 for which gender was

provided, gender ratios for STEMM and non‐STEMM application rates (Figure 12), interviews granted

(Figure 13) and appointments (Figure 14) are presented. For STEMM positions, females constituted

30‐40% of applicants, 40‐50% of interviews, and about 50% of appointments. For non‐STEMM

positions, 40‐50% of applicants were females, 40‐60% were granted interviews, and 55‐70%

appointed. These data indicate there is no gender bias against female applicants progressing to

interview and appointment to positions, for both STEMM and non‐STEMM roles. Data have not been

broken down by grade, due to the small numbers in some grades.

42

Figure 12 Applicants for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016

Figure 13 Interviews granted for STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016

STEMMNon‐

STEMMSTEMM

Non‐STEMM

STEMMNon‐

STEMM

Male 240 204 495 218 503 218

Female 181 186 223 140 274 227

0% 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of applicants

2014 2015 2016

STEMMNon‐

STEMMSTEMM

Non‐STEMM

STEMMNon‐

STEMM

Male 36 17 48 28 64 33

Female 36 31 53 19 55 57

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of interviews

2014 2015 2016

43

Figure 14 Appointments to STEMM and non‐STEMM academic positions, by gender, 2014‐2016

The PageUp recruitment and onboarding system, implemented in February 2018, will capture more

data than previously, providing greater scope to query and evaluate recruitment data in the future.

ii) Induction

Describe the induction and support provided to new staff at all levels. Comment on the uptake of this

and how its effectiveness is reviewed.

All new staff complete a formal Induction and Development Program. The Managing@CSU Toolkit

contains a range of resources for supervisors to plan and implement induction. During the first week,

staff are made aware of the structures and leadership of their division, CSU’s policies and

procedures and are allocated quiet time to catch up with their new situation and process

information. At the 6‐week point, managers are prompted by HR to meet with the new employee to

review the mentorship and supervision offered, and the opportunity for the inductee to feedback on

the process.

A three‐hour compulsory online training for new staff covers workplace health and safety, equal

employment opportunity (EEO), IT fundamentals and security, fire and emergency for staff and

managers. EEO training is mandatory and designed so staff understand their ‘legal rights and

responsibilities to achieve discrimination and harassment‐free campuses’. EEO Online training is

organised into two modules:

1. All staff members must complete Module 1 (EEO for all staff). 2. Employees responsible for managing or supervising staff must complete Module 2 (EEO for

Managers and Supervisors).

STEMMNon‐

STEMMSTEMM

Non‐STEMM

STEMMNon‐

STEMM

Male 12 6 24 13 18 9

Female 12 12 30 16 16 24

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of appointm

ents

2014 2015 2016

44

There is an Equity and Diversity component within Module 2, providing links to CSU’s Equity and Diversity webpage, information, resources, policy and procedure (Table 24), however this module is not mandatory.

Table 24 Overview of information from CSU's Equity & Diversity webpage

CSU’s commitment to EEO

Merit based recruitment, selection and promotion processes

Flexible work practices, a range of leave options that support work/life balance and family responsibilities

Affirmative action programs such as CSU's Australian Indigenous Employment Strategy

Workplace adjustments that enable people with disability to work effectively

Targeted training and development opportunities to support career progression

Policies and procedures to prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment and bullying

Responsive management of concerns and complaints

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 any evidence of a gender pay gap in

promotions at any grade.

Academic staff make an expression of interest in applying for promotion and receive four‐months

training and mentoring to prepare applications. Remuneration as a result of academic promotion is

standardised; successful promotion applicants are placed on Step 1 at the level of

promotion. Supervisors support unsuccessful applicants in addressing identified gaps and working

towards building a stronger case for promotion. Academic promotion objectives are integrated into

employees’ annual Employee Development and Review Scheme (EDRS) plans, enabling supervisors

and employees to monitor and discuss progress.

Recognising the need to place greater value on teaching and engagement, as well as research, a new

academic promotion process was implemented in 2015. The revised process recognises potential

barriers to promotion including career breaks, EEO considerations, and contributions to areas other

than research. The application form asks applicants to identify EEO‐related issues they believe have

impacted their career progress (family responsibilities, career breaks, ethnicity/cultural factors). In

considering issues of equity, the Promotions Committee assesses an applicant’s achievement

relative to opportunity; applicants are held to the same pre‐determined standards of quality,

however quantum of output may be less.

The new process has been reviewed annually since inception, evaluating stakeholder feedback and

implementing improvements, including developing guidelines for expectations in relation to EEO

claims. The revised process has positively impacted on outcomes for women (Table 25), with success

45

rates improving consistently since 2015, particularly for STEMM applicants. In addition, more people

are declaring EEO issues, and success rates for these applicants have improved steadily since 2015.

Table 25 Evidence of the impact of the new academic promotion process

Indicator 2014 2015 2016 2017

F M F M F M F M

Applications 58% 42% 56% 44% 61% 39% 54% 44%

Success rate 60% 64% 61% 72% 80% 53% 83% 74%

STEMM applicants’ success rate 60% 78% 55% 90% 86% 50% 100% 71%

Applicants declaring EEO‐related issues (non‐gendered data)

NA 22% 39% 32%

Applicants identifying EEO issues success rate

NA 44% 68% 87%

Note: EEO data not collected prior to 2015.

Table 26 details academic promotions for 2014‐2016, by grade and STEMM/non‐STEMM. This sub‐

division of data results in very small numbers in some categories, making it difficult to note specific

trends, particularly by grade. Conversion from expressions of interest to applications increased for

both STEMM and non‐STEMM in 2015, further highlighting the positive impact of the revised

promotion process implemented in 2015.

Table 26 Overview of academic promotions at CSU 2014‐2016

Year Promotion

to level

Expressed Interest Applied Promoted % Success (of

applicants)

F M %F F M %F F M %F F M

2014

STEMM

B 0 2 0% 0 1 0% 0 1 0% ‐ 100%

C 11 4 73% 4 2 67% 2 1 67% 50% 50%

D 4 5 44% 1 3 25% 1 2 33% 100% 67%

E 0 3 0% 0 3 0% 0 3 0% ‐ 100%

2015

STEMM

B 1 1 50% 1 1 50% 0 1 0% 0% 100%

C 5 8 38% 5 8 38% 2 8 20% 40% 100%

D 4 1 80% 4 1 80% 3 0 100% 75% 0%

E 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐

2016

STEMM

B 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ 0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐

C 12 9 57% 10 4 71% 8 2 80% 80% 50%

D 6 7 46% 4 7 36% 4 4 50% 100% 57%

E 2 1 67% 0 1 0% 0 0 ‐ ‐ 0%

2014

NON‐

STEMM

B 2 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐

C 13 6 68% 7 1 88% 5 0 100% 71% 0%

D 3 2 60% 1 1 50% 0 0 ‐ 0% 0%

E 1 1 50% 1 0 100% 0 0 ‐ 0% ‐

2015

NON‐

STEMM

B 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐

C 7 5 58% 7 5 58% 6 3 67% 86% 60%

D 2 2 50% 2 2 50% 0 1 0% 0% 50%

46

E 2 1 67% 2 1 67% 1 0 100% 50% 0%

2016

NON‐

STEMM

B 2 0 100% 1 0 100% 1 0 100% 100% ‐

C 11 7 61% 8 4 67% 7 2 78% 88% 50%

D 8 2 80% 6 1 86% 3 1 75% 50% 100%

E 2 2 50% 1 2 33% 1 1 50% 100% 50%

Part‐time staff applied for promotion at a lower rate than full‐time (Table 27); only 1‐3% of part‐time

staff submitted applications, compared to 5‐10% of full‐time staff, over 2014‐2016. It is difficult to

ascertain whether a trend exists around promotion of part‐time staff, due to the small numbers.

Table 27 Promotion applications and successes for part‐time staff in comparison to full‐time staff, 2014‐2016

Year

Total applicants (% of full/part‐time staff)

Total applicants promoted (% of full/part‐time

applicants)

Full‐time Part‐time Full‐time Part‐time

2014 26 (5%) 2 (2%) 16 (62%) 2 (100%)

2015 41 (8%) 1 (1%) 27 (66%) 0 (0%)

2016 49 (10%) 3 (3%) 34 (69%) 1 (33%)

Actions

Rationale: Compared to full‐time academic staff, fewer part‐time academics

apply for promotion, perhaps due to lack of encouragement and support from

managers or because of historical perceptions of bias within the promotion

process.

Action: Through a range of communication activities we will increase applications

for promotion from part‐time academic staff across CSU to 10% by 2022 [Action

2.4]. The Faculty of Science will set targets for each School to identify and support

at least one part‐time staff member to apply for promotion each year [Action

2.5].

Rationale: Since 2015, there has been a wide range of responses to the EEO

questions in the promotion application form. Some staff report misperceptions

about how such responses may influence promotion decisions. Feedback from

managers participating in promotion panels suggests there is much discussion

around assessing adequacy of achievements and outputs for part‐time staff, and

that panel members require additional guidance on assessing achievement

relative to opportunity.

Action: Guidelines and examples will be produced to help guide panels’ decision‐

making, and success stories will be developed and communicated to academic

staff [Action 2.6].

47

iv) Staff submitted to the Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC) by gender

Provide data on staff, by gender, submitted to Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC)

for the past five years. Comment on any gender imbalances identified.

A gender difference exists in the proportions of research grants secured (Figure 15); STEMM females

were awarded 30‐40% of grants over 2014‐2016, whilst non‐STEMM females were awarded around

60‐70% of grants.

Figure 15 Research grants secured in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016

Proportions of grants secured are reflected in the research income (Figure 16). There is a noticeable

gender difference in research income; STEMM females secured about 30‐40% of STEMM income,

whilst non‐STEMM females secured 60‐70% of non‐STEMM income over the 3‐years. STEMM

projects brought in 3‐4 times more total income than non‐STEMM projects (Figure 16).

Percent of successful applications

STEMMNon‐

STEMMSTEMM

Non‐STEMM

STEMMNon‐

STEMM

Male 43 8 51 12 41 11

Female 25 22 20 24 21 18

0% 10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014 2015 2016

48

Figure 16 Research income in STEMM and non‐STEMM, by gender, 2014‐2016

A similar gender effect is seen with research publications (Figure 17); female STEMM researchers

authored about 40% of all STEMM publications, whilst female non‐STEMM researchers authored 50‐

60% of non‐STEMM publications over the period.

Figure 17 Research publications by gender and STEMM/non‐STEMM, 2014‐2016

STEMMNon‐

STEMMSTEMM

Non‐STEMM

STEMMNon‐

STEMM

Male $6,171,417 $596,981 $5,178,757 $794,961 $4,914,629 $884,951

Female $2,760,384 $1,425,303 $3,357,424 $2,192,623 $2,188,166 $1,282,177

Percent of research income

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2014 2015 2016

Percent of research publications

0%

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

STEMMNon‐

STEMMSTEMM

Non‐STEMM

STEMMNon‐

STEMM

Male 305 190 270 174 320 147

Female 206 208 174 203 202 209

2014 2015 2016

49

Actions

Rationale: There is a gender imbalance in numbers of research grants acquired,

amount of research funding secured, and numbers of publications, especially for

STEMM women.

Action: Women researchers will be supported by CSU through a research

mentoring program, and encouraged to participate in external roles, such as

grant assessors and reviewers, through enhanced work arrangements [Action 4.1

and 4.2]. The Faculty of Science will sponsor two women STEMM academics to

attend the annual Early‐Mid Career Researcher Forum conference each year to

build the research capacity of STEMM women at CSU and ensure pipeline

progression [Action 4.3].

50

5.2 Career development: academic staff

i) Training

Describe the training available to staff at all levels. 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?

Strategic workforce capability is a core component of CSU’s Strategic Plan and training is addressed

at three levels: strategic; team; and individual. Teams may organise their own training, coaching and

support, depending on requirements. Individual needs are addressed wihtin the annual EDRS, which

provides a formal mechanism for staff to discuss training requirements with managers and create

individual development plans. The Division of Human Resources offers a range of training courses

and online information for all staff, including content addressing sexuality, sex and gender identity,

disability and employment, domestic violence, indigenous employment, women’s leadership, and

work/life balance.

CSU offers a wide range of professional learning programs to academics to address specific teaching

and research needs. These include formal learning programs focussing on teaching and learning, eg

Graduate Certificate in University Leadership and Teaching in Higher Education, and Graduate

Certificate in University Leadership and Management. Professional development is offered through

the Division of Learning and Teaching (teaching‐focussed content) or the Research Office (research‐

focussed content) both at university‐level and Faculty/School‐level. Academic staff choose relevant

sessions, with reference to their EDRS goals or current needs, with support from their Head of

School. Programs include: updates in course changes and design, pedagogical development,

technologies such as e‐learning, research application and administration, and research

methodologies. The Faculty of Science launched its own peer‐review of teaching program in 2017

with over 60 academic staff engaged in the program.

A number of leadership and management skills programs exist, open to academic and professional

staff, including the Emerging Leaders Program and the Manager Success Workshop Series.

Specifically for women, the Leadership Development for Women Program (LDW) provides an

opportunity for learning about leadership, self‐awareness, organisational structures and support,

and collaborative problem‐solving. Conducted annually since 2006, LDW is for female academic and

professional staff Level 6 and above. To date, 163 women completed the program, 24% of these are

STEMM academics, 26% non‐STEMM academics and 50% professional staff. Each participant has a

mentor to assist with career planning. Following reviews in 2013 and 2014, the program is now

conducted biennially, with a conference for LDW alumni in the alternate year.

Opportunities to participate in training are promoted widely, including online, through the staff

intranet (summary emailed daily), expressions of interest, and formal networks eg LDW, mentoring

and coaching programs. The effectiveness of training is monitored on conclusion via

surveys/participant feedback to drive continuous improvement, however training records are not

held centrally. As an example, reflections from 2017 LDW graduates indicate its effectiveness: four

academic women were promoted to Levels C and D over the 2015‐2017 programs, all commented

51

that LDW gave them confidence to apply for promotion. One academic (2015) and one professional

graduate (2017) attained much higher‐level managerial positions outside CSU.

Staff perceptions of learning and development are monitored via the biennial Your Voice survey

(Table 28). Across 2015‐2017, there was a small increase in the overall view of learning and

development. Aggregated responses to questions remained consistent at about 50% both for the

institution overall and females. 2017 results reveal 30% of academic staff agree new staff are given

‘enough guidance and training’ yet this drops to 27% for STEMM staff.

Table 28 Staff perceptions of learning and development (L&D) at CSU

2015 2017

Your Voice survey question Fa

vourable

overall CSU

Favourable

Academic

Female

Male

Favourable

overall CSU

Favourable

Academic

Female

Male

Prefer not to

say

STEM

M

L&D overall (3 questions aggregated)

49% 43% 50% 51% 52% 43% 54% 56% 38% 42%

People starting new jobs are given enough guidance/training

44% 36% 43% 47% 43% 30% 43% 48% 30% 27%

Actions

Rationale: Less than half of all staff responded favourably in response to the Your

Voice survey question: “When people start in new jobs here they are given

enough guidance and training”. Induction is conducted by line managers,

supported by HR through online resources, with additional HR support provided

as needed. The University is focussing on other priority areas arising from the

Your Voice findings (leadership; respect and recognition; and cross‐unit

cooperation). These areas of strategic focus will positively influence induction

procedures although do not address them directly.

Action: The Faculty of Science will take action to ensure that within the Faculty,

induction processes are completed as intended by HR [Action 1.7].

52

ii) Appraisal/development review

Describe current appraisal/development review for academic staff at all levels across the whole

institution. Provide details of any appraisal/development review training offered and the uptake of

this, as well as staff feedback about the process.

CSU’s annual Employee Development and Review Scheme (EDRS) encourages meaningful

conversation between staff and supervisors to ensure a shared understanding of goals and

opportunities in‐line with University Strategy, and that staff are equipped to perform their role

effectively, by:

Setting and reviewing work objectives;

Identifying appropriate support and development to achieve staff members’ objectives;

and

Ensuring support from CSU to achieve work and professional development goals.

An online EDRS system was introduced in 2016, which provided opportunity to refresh EDRS

concepts for academic staff and focus on both the new tool and the EDRS conversation. Extensive

online training and resources for staff and supervisors supported the new process; training was

compulsory for eligible academic staff but not professional staff. Qualitative and quantitative data

were gathered from participants to inform future planning and improvements. A new EDRS toolkit

was launched in early 2018, which specifically prompts managers to consider gender and work‐life

balance issues.

CSU’s “Your Voice” survey asks questions relating to EDRS; the 2017 survey found overall staff feel

favourable about development and review processes (57%), but academic staff value it slightly less

(47%), with minimal difference between genders (Table 29). Only 42% of STEMM academics were

favourable about these processes.

Table 29 Staff perceptions of the EDRS process

2015 2017


vourable

overall CSU

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Favourable

overall CSU

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Prefer not to

say

STEM

M

acad

emics

EDRS overall (3 questions aggregated)

63% 57% 64% 64% 57% 47% 60% 59% 39% 42%

53

iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression

Comment and reflect on support given to academic staff including postdoctoral researchers to assist

in their career progression.

In addition to teaching and research training detailed above, other formal support schemes are

outlined in Table 30.

Table 30 Formal support schemes that assist with academic career progression

Scheme Details

Postgraduate Study Support Encourages staff to undertake part‐time postgraduate study in a field directly related to their current position

Academic Staff Higher Degree by Research Workload Support

Provides eligible academic staff with 30% workload to undertake HDR studies; tuition fee support; supervision funding to the principal supervisor’s Faculty; and access to HDR student funding to support project‐related expenses

Coursework Master Study Support

For staff undertaking a full‐fee paying coursework Masters course

Special Studies Program Facilitates staff to undertake approved professional, scholarly or research activity uninterrupted by teaching and other normal duties

Indigenous Staff Study Support

Supports career development of Indigenous staff through financial assistance to undertake part‐time study

Indigenous Academic Leadership

Financial support for Indigenous academic staff undertaking activities to develop leadership skills

The Division of Student Services has a dedicated program to support post‐doctoral staff, which

includes training, workshops, individual support and networking.

Actions

Rationale: Your Voice survey shows differences between academic and overall

staff satisfaction with EDRS processes, especially for STEMM academics.

Action: The Faculty of Science will work to ensure Heads of School value and

complete EDRS processes appropriately [Action 2.7].

54

5.3 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.

Processes prior to maternity/adoption leave are left up to Schools and business units to manage and

are not directly covered by University policy or guidelines. In the Faculty of Science, cover before

leave is managed by each Head of School, in consultation with the academic and their line manager.

Over the last few years, the Executive Dean of Science has met with women returning from

maternity leave to discuss their experiences with the University and identify possible improvements.

At School‐level, practice and attitudes vary widely and the Faculty will ensure line managers and

Heads of School are better informed of best practice as well as legislation and university policy.

ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave

Explain what support the department offers to staff during maternity and adoption leave.

CSU has schemes to support parents taking leave and returning to work (Sections 5.3.v‐vi), and

offers parental, primary carer, maternity and adoption leave at a rate significantly in advance of

national legislation and we have. Leave terms are included in the Enterprise Agreement negotiated

between the university, staff and union representatives. The Enterprise Agreement makes specific

provisions for both fixed‐term and continuing staff. As with arrangements prior to leave, any

practices on top of these are decided at School level.

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.

Staff consultations within the Faculty of Science show practices vary greatly across Schools, ranging

from personal meetings with Heads of School prior to and upon returning from leave, to School

coffee mornings to welcome returning staff, and silent returns without acknowledgement. Other

feedback indicates that returning staff are most worried about their drop in research activity.

CSU’s Breastfeeding Policy recognises the flexibility needed for mothers returning to work through

the provision of flexible work or study hours, inclusion of breastfeeding breaks in work schedules

and opportunity to reduce hours or job share during the period of breastfeeding.

55

iv) Maternity return rate

Provide data and comment on the maternity return rate in the institution. Data and commentary on

staff whose contracts are not renewed while on maternity leave should be included in this section.

Table 31 shows maternity return rates for the last three years, with comparable rates for STEMM

and non‐STEMM staff. Twelve fixed‐term staff did not return to their roles in 2014‐2016 because

their contracts expired, however nine of these women returned to work under new contracts.

Actions

Rationale: Feedback from Faculty of Science staff returning from maternity leave

suggests legislation and CSU’s obligations to staff are not well understood.

Additionally, lack of knowledge of best practice processes to support staff before,

during or after parental leave leads to inconsistent support for staff and this

impacts on women’s experiences at CSU.

Actions: An introductory webinar outlining staff rights relating to equity (and

parental leave) was held in March 2018 as a first step towards addressing this

issue. Additional face‐to‐face training, supported by resources such as guidelines,

will be developed to ensure managers are aware of CSU policy and legislation

[Action 6.1]. The Faculty of Science is trialling a parental leave support scheme,

where a Senior Manager in the Faculty will consult with staff prior to and after

returning from leave to ensure their needs are identified and supported wherever

possible [Action 5.3].

Rationale: Women returning from maternity leave report struggling to pick up

their research.

Action: The Faculty of Science is piloting a “return to research” scheme, launched

in March 2018, to support research activities for staff returning from leave

[Action 4.4].

56

Table 31 Women taking maternity leave, 2014‐2016

2014 2015 2016 Total

Return Left CSU

Total mat leave Return

Left CSU

Total mat leave Return

Left CSU

Total mat leave

Continuing 83 10 93 48 2 50 64 2 66 209

Non‐STEMM 40 7 47 36 1 37 45 45 129

Academic 7 1 8 2 2 3 3 13

Professional 33 6 39 34 1 35 42 42 116

STEMM 43 3 46 12 1 13 19 2 21 80

Academic 7 7 6 6 9 9 22

Professional 36 3 39 6 1 7 10 2 12 58

Fixed 8 9 17 7 7 16 3 19 43

Non‐STEMM 6 7 13 7 7 15 2 17 37

Academic 1 5 6 2 2 5 5 13

Professional 5 2 7 5 5 10 2 12 24

STEMM 2 2 4 1 1 2 6

Academic 1 2 3 1 1 4

Executive 1 1 1

Professional 1 1 1

Grand Total 91 19 110 55 2 57 80 5 85 252

Note: “Left CSU” column shows women who ceased employment within 3 months of the end of their

maternity leave.

Of interest is the difference in length of leave taken for women in STEMM compared to non‐STEMM

(Table 32), and women in professional roles compared to academics.

Table 32 Average days on maternity leave per person

2014 2015 2016

STEMM Non‐STEMM

STEMM Non‐STEMM

STEMM Non‐STEMM

Continuing 80 166 214 185 161 203

Academic 121 182 214 274 202 156

Professional 72 162 215 180 131 207

Fixed 100 111 0 101 77 139

Academic 106 68 0 113 91 125

Professional 0 148 0 96 62 145

57

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 for the whole

institution. Provide details on the institution’s paternity package and arrangements.

All continuing and fixed‐term employees can access parental leave. An employee who has more than

40 weeks’ continuous service immediately prior to the expected date of birth is entitled to paid

parental leave. Up to 26 weeks’ paid leave is available as follows:

6 weeks’ paid maternity leave (or 12 weeks at ½ pay) available only to an employee who

gives birth to a child.

20 weeks’ paid primary carer leave (or 40 weeks at ½ pay) available to an employee who

takes on the role of primary carer following the birth or adoption of a child. This leave is

available to all primary carers no matter their gender.

8 weeks paid concurrent paternity leave is provided to the non‐primary carer parent no

matter their gender.

Staff are also entitled to government‐funded maternity leave of 18 weeks paid at the minimum

wage.

During the 2016‐17 WGEA reporting period 61 women and three men took primary carer’s leave and

18 men took secondary carer’s leave. Of these, five women and eight men ceased their employment

whilst on leave. The number of men taking primary carer’s leave is low and the number of men

leaving employment whilst on primary or secondary carer’s leave is high.

These figures have remained relatively stable over the last three years (Table 33), however the

number of STEMM staff taking primary and secondary carers leave is lower proportionally than for

Actions

Rationale: CSU provides up to 182 days of paid maternity leave for eligible staff,

with additional paid parental leave provided by the government, yet many

women are taking less leave than they are entitled to. The decision about the

length of maternity leave taken is an individual and complex decision that takes

into account family needs and availability of care, as well as the academic

timetable, among others.

Action: To better understand this decision‐making process, the SAT will conduct

focus groups with continuing academic and professional staff returning from

parental leave, as well as fixed‐term staff who return in new roles. This

investigation will examine if any institutional barriers are compelling STEMM

women to return to work earlier than their non‐STEMM colleagues, and

professional staff to return earlier than academic staff [Action 5.2].

58

the rest of CSU. Also of note is the gendering of type of leave taken, with more women taking

primary carer’s leave and men taking secondary carer’s leave.

Table 33 Parental leave by STEMM/non‐STEMM, gender and employment type, 2014‐2016

2014 2015 2016 Grand Total F M Total F M Total F M Total

Primary carers leave 84 3 87 56 1 57 78 2 80 224

STEMM 25

25 14 14 17

17 56

Academic 11 11 7 7 8

8 26

Continuing 9 7 7 7

7 23

Fixed 2 1 1 3

Executive 1 1

Fixed 1 1

Professional 13 13 7 7 9 9 29

Continuing 13 13 7 7 9 9 29

Non‐STEMM 59 3 62 42 1 43 61 2 63 168

Academic 15 2 17 6 1 7 8 8 32

Continuing 8 2 10 4 1 5 4 4 19

Fixed 7 2 2 4 4 13

Professional 44 1 45 36 36 53 2 55 136

Continuing 36 1 37 32 32 41 1 42 111

Fixed 8 4 4 12 1 13 25

Secondary carers leave 3 28 31 1 22 23 1 17 18 72

STEMM 2 6 8 6 6 2 2 16

Academic 2 4 6 4 4 1 1 11

Continuing 1 2 3 4 4 1 1 8

Fixed 1 2 3

3

Professional 2 2 2 2 1 1 4

Continuing 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Fixed 1 1 1 1 2

Non‐STEMM 1 22 23 1 16 17 1 15 16 56

Academic 7 7 5 5 1 3 4 16

Continuing 4 4 2 2 2 2 8

Fixed 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 8

Professional 1 15 16 1 11 12 12 12 40

Continuing 9 9 1 10 11 8 8 28

Fixed 1 6 7 1 1 4 4 12

Grand Total 87 31 118 57 23 80 79 19 98 296

Note: data has not been broken down by grade, due to the small numbers in some grades.

The number of male staff taking additional statutory paternity/shared parental leave is low

compared to females (Table 34).

59

Table 34 Staff taking additional government paid parental leave

Year Male Female Total

2014 1 46 47

2015 0 41 41

2016 1 58 59

vi) Flexible working

Provide information on the flexible working arrangements available.

CSU provides a flexible work environment to assist staff in balancing work‐life commitments, while

meeting CSU’s operational needs. A range of flexible options are available (Table 35), significantly in

advance of requirements under the Fair Work Act, and a host of informal arrangements exist

between managers and staff.

Table 35 Flexible work arrangements

FLEXIBLE WORK OPTIONS DETAILS

Flexible Working Hours Scheme

Professional/general staff Levels 1‐8, with the approval of their supervisor, may accumulate and carry forward sixteen (16) hours credit/debit

Purchased Leave Staff may purchase additional leave of 1‐4 weeks, funded through salary deductions over 12 months

Special Leave Covers various circumstances relating to immediate family and other responsibilities, up to 10 days/year (pro‐rata for part‐time and new staff)

Personal Leave For personal illness or caring/supporting an unwell immediate family or household member

Actions

Rationale: Men are underrepresented in the uptake of primary carer’s leave.

Action: A communication campaign has been planned to encourage men to

increase their uptake of primary carers leave [Action 5.1].

Rationale: Number of STEMM staff taking primary and secondary carer’s leave is

lower proportionally than for the rest of CSU.

Action: The Faculty of Science parental leave support scheme, as outlined in

Section 5.3.iii, will investigate the reasons for this [Action 5.3].

60

Leave Without Pay May be utilised for various reasons including family/parental responsibilities

Change of Work Fraction Staff may apply to reduce their work fraction for a period of time, then resume their substantive full‐time position

Informal discussions between SAT members suggest low awareness of the definition and availability

of types of leave. There is an increasing number of academic staff who regularly work remotely eg

due to distance from campus. More needs to be done to ensure all staff, including managers, are

aware of these opportunities and that they are inclusive.

CSU’s HR systems record approved leave only, data on rejected leave applications is unavailable. See

5.3.ix for ‘Your Voice’ results for workplace flexibility.

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 to transition

back to full‐time roles when childcare/dependent or caring responsibilities reduce.

Staff can return‐to‐work in their former position at a reduced fraction up to their child’s second

birthday or two years from the date of adoption, and then apply for conversion to part‐time

employment on a temporary or permanent basis. Informally, practices are negotiated individually

between employees and line managers. Sensitivity around this is variable. All CSU policies are

accessible online. Policy changes, including revisions and new policies, are communicated regularly

to staff via the intranet.

The Children on Campus Policy and procedure document outlines considerations when bringing a

child under 15 onto campus. Academics, professional staff and students are able to bring children on

campus provided there is no other option, and WHS issues are considered. Additionally, the Travel

Policy includes provision for up to $40 in extra care expenses when travelling on university business;

CSU staff are often required to travel between campuses. The policy does not specify children,

indicating this also covers employees who care for aged‐parents or disabled family members.

Actions

Rationale: Not all managers are aware of the various flexible work options

available to staff.

Action: As outlined in Section 5.3.iii a range of communication and training

activities will address this issue [Action 6.1].

61

viii) Childcare

Describe the institution’s childcare provision and how the support available is communicated to staff.

Comment on uptake and how any shortfalls in provision will be addressed.

CSU has child care facilities at its three major campuses (Table 36). CSU’s childcare centres are

accredited under the National Quality Standard (NQS) and adhere to the Priority of Access

requirements to allocate places; CSU staff/students are prioritised after priority places are filled.

Eligible parents may claim the childcare benefit from the Government through the Family Assistance

Office.

Table 36 Overview of CSU's childcare centres

CSU campus

Centre opening hours

Number of places

Other initiatives

Albury 8am‐6pm 72 children Salary packaging and payroll deductions for CSU employees

Bathurst 8am‐6pm 58 children Centre has its own time‐restricted carpark

Wagga 8am‐6pm 58 children Salary packaging and payroll deductions for CSU employees

ix) Caring responsibilities

Describe the policies and practice in place to support staff with caring responsibilities and how the

support available is proactively communicated to all staff.

CSU provides a flexible work environment; staff are able to take personal leave to care for family

members, and the definition of ‘family’ is broad and inclusive. Working from home is supported for

academics and is negotiated with the Head of School. Such decisions are supported by

documentation and HR guidance.

The 2017 “Your Voice” survey found that 72% of all academic staff (71% STEMM) believe “CSU has

enough flexible working arrangements to meet my needs”, and 54% (53% in STEMM) believe they

“have a say about [their] work conditions” (Table 37). Professional staff are slightly more positive

about working conditions: 82% believe the flexible working arrangements meet their needs, and

66% believe they have a say about their work conditions. Overall, women are more positive about

flexible work arrangements (74%) than men (70%).

62

Table 37 Staff perceptions of CSU's flexible work conditions

2015 2017


vourable overall

CSU

Favourable

Professional Staff

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Favourable overall

CSU

Favourable

Professional Staff

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

STEM

M

Flexibility overall (3 questions aggregated)

70% 75% 64% 71% 73% 70% 74% 65% 74% 70% 59% 64%

Enough flexible working arrangements to meet my needs

78% 83% 70% 79% 80% 78% 82% 72% 82% 76% 69% 71%

I have a say about my work conditions

61% 68% 53% 63% 64% 61% 66% 54% 65% 63% 47% 53%

63

5.4 Organisation and culture

i) Culture

Demonstrate how the institution actively considers gender equality and inclusivity. Provide details of

how the charter principles have been, and will continue to be, embedded into the culture and

workings of the institution and how good practice is identified and shared across the institution.

CSU’s first Gender Equity Strategy, which is integral to the University’s business strategy, is currently

under development. The Strategy will embed the charter principles in core practice through a range

of actions, including addressing the gender pay gap, issues faced by transgender people, and

intersectionality considerations, wherever these are barriers to career progression. The Gender

Equity Strategy, the action plan developed under this application and their endorsement by the Vice

Chancellor’s Leadership Team demonstrates CSU’s commitment to embedding Athena SWAN

principles into normal business. In addition, the Vice‐Chancellor has committed to be a SAGE Male

Champion of Change (MCC), and is currently undertaking the Leadership Shadow program.

CSU actively considered gender equality and inclusivity in expanding the 2017 Your Voice Survey.

Aggregate results (Table 38) show staff perceive CSU performs well on gender equality issues with

over 75% responding favourably. Responses relating to respect and equity were at least 50%

favourable. Of note is the difference between professional and academic staff perceptions, eg 71%

of professional staff responded favourably to the statement about promoting respectful workplace

culture, compared to 54% of academic staff (51% of STEMM). Perceptions around tolerance of

bullying/abusive behaviours showed the biggest gender difference: 59% females agreed compared

to 69% males.

Table 38 Staff perceptions of equity and gender equality at CSU

2015 2017 Your Voice survey question Fa

vourable overall

CSU

Favourable

Professional Staff

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Favourable overall

CSU

Favourable

Professional Staff

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

STEM

M

Gender Equality overall (5 questions aggregated)

NA NA NA NA NA 81% 84% 76% 82% 84% 68% 74%

Respect & Equity overall (6 questions aggregated)

71% 76% 65% 72% 75% 62% 67% 54% 63% 69% 59% 52%

Positive, respectful workplace culture is valued and promoted

68% 74% 61% 69% 72% 65% 71% 54% 66% 72% 46% 51%

Bullying/abusive behaviours are discouraged/not tolerated

61% 66% 54% 60% 67% 59% 63% 54% 59% 69% 36% 53%

64

ii) HR policies

Describe how the institution monitors the consistency in application of its 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. Include a description of the steps

taken to ensure staff with management responsibilities are up to date with their HR knowledge.

Generally, CSU monitors implementation of HR policies such as Harassment and Bullying Prevention

(covering staff, students and the wider community); Equal Opportunity; Anti‐Racism; and Domestic

Violence Policy and Procedure, through acknowledging and addressing complaints. CSU works hard

to manage complaints maintain effective communication with complainants and respondents during

the process.

CSU ensures both staff and students are informed of these policies, and managers and other

supervisors are aware of their responsibilities through ad‐hoc training attached to programs

designed to reinforce policies. For example, CSU designed a four‐module ‘Developing Workplace

Culture’ training program for staff, focusing on organisational culture, bullying, and team building.

To date, over 1,000 staff have completed one or more modules. CSU works in partnership with the

NTEU to resolve interpersonal issues, mainly through the use of Straight Talk (a tool developed by

NSW Ambulance) and runs major programs to deal with difficult behaviours, such as ‘Dealing with

Difficult Behaviours’ and ‘Conversational Leadership’.

iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender

Comment on the main concerns and achievements across the whole institution and any differences

between STEMM departments.

Currently, two of the three Faculty Executive Deans are female, however of the 25 Heads of School

four (16%) are female, and only one of these is in a STEMM school (4% of all Heads at CSU, 13% of

STEMM heads). Table 39 lists historical data, when CSU had four Faculties, and includes staff acting

Actions

Rationale: Ongoing focus is needed to ensure the Athena SWAN principles

continue to be embedded within our culture.

Actions: The Action Plan will be monitored and revised annually to ensure it

remains up‐to‐date and achievable, including considering the broader context of

the Gender Equity Strategy [Actions 7.5 and 7.6]. The Vice‐Chancellor has

committed to being an MCC, and this will be extended to include senior leaders

across the university [Action 7.7].

65

in leadership roles on annual Census dates. Extracting these data has identified issues with

categorisation of roles where, for example, fewer Heads of Schools are listed than exist in reality.

This issue has been flagged with the Manager of HR Systems.

Table 39 Proportion of females in university leadership roles

Job titles 2014 2015 2016

M F %F M F %F M F %F

University level

VC, DVCs, PVCs 3 4 57% 3 4 57% 2 5 71%

Faculty level

Executive Deans 1 4 80% 1 3 75% 2 3 60%

Deputy Deans ‐ - - - - ‐ 1 1 50%

Associate Deans 1 8 89% 7 100% 3 6 67%

Sub Deans 5 3 38% 4 5 56% 3 5 63%

Centre Directors 3 5 63% 3 3 50% 3 3 50%

School level

Heads of Schools 15 4 21% 15 5 25% 14 4 22%

Associate Heads of School 15 15 50% 16 10 38% 19 11 37%

Note: Deputy Dean role was newly created in 2016.

iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees

Provide data by gender, staff type and grade and comment on what the institution is doing to

address any gender imbalance.

Table 40 lists the gender breakdown of CSU’s senior management, and most influential, committees.

Membership is defined by the Terms of Reference for each body and is linked to job‐roles within

CSU.

Actions

Rationale: The low number of women employed as Heads of School, especially in

STEMM, is a concern. The Head of School is usually a staff member at level C or

higher. Given the gendering of the staff profile (Section 4.1.i) this means fewer

females are available for these roles. CSU’s revised promotion system now

recognises service better, and is already positively influencing women’s career

progression, yet more is needed. Action: The Faculty of Science is strengthening

the School leadership teams through a range of initiatives for women Associate

Heads of School, including a networking group, and increased support for training

[Action 2.8].

66

Table 40 Overview of membership of CSU's most influential committees (2017)

Committee Female Male Academic Professional

University Council 8 6 2 1

Academic Senate 18 10 26 4

Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team 5 5 4 6

The University Council and Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team are relatively balanced by gender,

whilst there are more females than males on Academic Senate.

v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees

Provide data by gender, staff type and grade and comment on how committee members are

identified, whether any consideration is given to gender equality in the selection of representatives

and what the institution is doing to address any gender imbalances.

Please refer to section 5.4.iv.

vi) Committee workload

Comment on how the issue of ‘committee overload’ is addressed where there are small numbers of

men or women and how role rotation is considered.

Committee membership is often stipulated by job title/role within the Terms of Reference for each

committee. Where issues are identified, eg a committee of all males, this is investigated and

committee‐specific resolutions put in place.

For academics, workload on committees is included in the Enterprise Agreement, however

implementation varies. For professional staff Level 1‐8, hours are recorded and any work on a

committee is part of that record. For professional staff Level 9 and above, committee work is an

expected part of their role.

vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures

Describe how gender equality is considered in development, implementation and review. How is

positive and/or negative impact of existing and future policies determined and acted upon?

CSU’s Equity and Diversity Committee is a gender balanced committee that commissions, receives,

advises and approves policy through a lens of equality. The Committee meets three times a year and

works to determine how best to promote equity and diversity at CSU. The Committee’s Terms of

Reference include guiding the Vice Chancellor on organisational priorities, goals and policy initiatives

in relation to equity and diversity. This is done by receiving reports on activities to support specific

groups for protected characteristics and also identifying where policy needs to be implemented or

revised and new initiatives enacted. University Council receives equity reports highlighting statutory

reporting elements.

67

viii) Workload model

Describe any workload allocation model in place and what it includes. Comment on whether 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.

The academic workload allocation model, embedded in the Enterprise Agreement, includes the

following principles:

workloads are equitable, transparent and manageable

CSU will not ask an employee to work excessive hours

workloads will be determined on a fair, transparent and consultative basis.

The workload model has three components:

(i) teaching and teaching related activities;

(ii) research and/or creative and/or professional activity;

(iii) contributions to academic administration and management, leadership and

professional activity.

The proportionate mix of components is agreed at School‐level between employees and managers

as part of the annual EDRS; the mix of components is taken into account in the promotions process.

Workload data for each School is reviewed annually by the Academic Workload Committee. The

remit and membership of this committee is stipulated within the Enterprise Agreement.

CSU’s recently introduced online Academic Workload Manager (AWM) tool enhances the visibility

and transparency of allocation of academic work and this will enhance our capacity to analyse

STEMM workload data by gender and School and develop appropriate responses.

Workload feedback is monitored via Your Voice (Table 41). From 2015‐2017, favourable responses to

workload questions for professional staff increased from 49% to 51%, however for academic staff

decreased from 33% (2015) to 29% (2017) (STEMM 31%). There was no difference between genders.

Table 41 Staff perceptions of workload

2015 2017


vourable overall

CSU

Favourable

Professional Staff

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Favourable overall

CSU

Favourable

Professional Staff

Favourable

Academic Staff

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

STEM

M

Workload overall (3 questions aggregated)

43% 49% 33% 43% 46% 44% 51% 29% 45% 46% 32% 31%

68

ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings

Describe the consideration given to those with caring responsibilities and part‐time staff around the

timing of meetings and social gatherings.

CSU’s core work hours are 9.30am to 3.00pm for non‐academic staff; academic staff have greater

autonomy in designating their work hours (in consultation with line managers) and are not expected

to adhere to core hours. However, Academic and Student Senates have designated 3‐5pm on

Wednesdays as the preferred ‘meeting period’.

In the Faculty of Science guidance exists around the need for people to schedule institutional

meetings within core hours and provide 6‐weeks’ notice of a meeting outside these hours to ensure

planning for caring responsibilities. This guidance is published on CSU’s Athena SWAN webpage for

all staff. Meetings and events planned at Faculty‐level adhere to these guidelines, however there is

variable implementation at School‐level. Some social events, such as those recognising International

Women’s Day or NAIDOC Week are held during core working hours. Where events cannot be

scheduled within core hours, any information circulated at the event needs to be shared with staff

who could not attend.

Actions

Rationale: Anecdotal feedback from SAT members with school‐aged children has

shown a need to schedule meetings within school hours to facilitate flexibility

around carer responsibilities.

Action: There is no formal University‐wide policy addressing this and it will be

reviewed as part of the Gender Equity Strategy in 2018 [Action 6.2].

Actions

Rationale: Prior to the implementation of the online Academic Workload

Manager system, there has been a historical lack of data available to identify

gender inequities within workload allocations. The new system provides the

ability to monitor and analyse such data.

Action: The SAT will review workload data for each STEMM School annually to

identify any workload inequities between genders [Action 2.9].

69

x) 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 institution’s website and images used.

Records of speakers in seminars and workshops are not held centrally at CSU, nor is there a

requirement for consideration of gender equity when organising such events, however, anecdotal

evidence suggests this awareness is in place. The 2016 Faculty of Science Interaction and Influence

Forum had 15 speakers, 8 of whom were female. In addition the keynote address was delivered by a

female, who presented her personal perspective on navigating through a career in science. The 2018

Faculty of Science Forum will also highlight the visibility of female role models, through the inclusion

of a day‐long stream for early‐ to mid‐career STEMM academics, with the keynote address to be

delivered by a high‐profile woman in science from our region.

There are no formal guidelines around building gender equity into the University’s marketing

materials or website, however capturing diversity is always a key consideration when preparing

these materials and platforms. Wherever possible we use actual CSU students and staff in our

photoshoots to ensure authenticity and diversity, and to promote visibility of ‘real’ role models.

To ensure continued and widespread diversity in the visibility of CSU’s role models, inclusivity

training will be developed for CSU’s leaders, as well as for staff responsible for seminars, training,

web, publicity, and outreach.

Actions

Rationale: There is no current requirement for consideration of gender equity of

presenters when organising events.

Action: The Faculty of Science will implement a requirement for all events, such

as conferences and forums, to have gender parity of presenters [Action 6.3].

Rationale: While central records of speakers are not available, raising awareness

of unconscious bias and the desirability of inclusive practices will embed equity

and Athena SWAN principles within business as usual practices.

Action: Inclusivity training will be developed and delivered face‐to‐face and

online to a range of staff groups across the University [Action 6.4]. Additionally,

there is an ongoing communication campaign designed to educate staff on the

benefits of equity and diversity practices for everyone, via a quarterly newsletter

and visible senior leadership within the University [Action 6.5].

70

xi) Outreach activities

Provide data on the staff involved in outreach and engagement activities by gender and grade. How

is staff contribution to outreach and engagement activities formally recognised? Comment on the

participant uptake of these activities by school type and gender.

The 2017‐2022 University Strategy identified community engagement, partnership and outreach as

core activities that allow CSU to act as an anchor institution in supporting regional growth and

sustainability. The new academic promotion process has struck a better balance in recognising the

value of outreach and engagement, and the Enterprise Agreement includes outreach activities

within workloads. To date, individual managers and work units monitor data on outreach activities

and it has not been recorded centrally, however this will change under the University Strategy.

Staff perception of how CSU values and supports such activities is measured in the Your Voice

survey. Responses varied little across the last two surveys and in 2017, 50% of academics on average

(48% STEMM) responded favourably to all questions relating to community engagement, compared

to 65% professional staff. There was a small gender difference: 63% females responding favourably

compared to 56% males.

xii) Leadership

Describe the steps that will be taken by the institution to encourage departments to apply for the

Athena SWAN awards.

CSU has provided much support for this application in terms of staff participation and data support,

and will continue to do so for future School‐level Athena SWAN awards. The Executive Dean of the

Faculty of Science will review School‐specific data from the application process with the Heads of

each STEMM School in 2018. Heads of School will identify priority areas for improvement. Progress

against these actions will be monitored annually by the Executive Dean. Those Schools who engage

in this process and deliver improvements will be supported and mentored by the SAT, and CSU

through provision of data, to apply for a Departmental Athena SWAN Award.

Actions

Rationale: Awareness data findings within this application are not yet understood

by STEMM Schools.

Action: The Executive Dean will meet individually with STEMM Schools to review

the data, reiterate the need for inclusive practices, and identify at least 3 priority

areas the School will address [Action 7.4]. Heads of Schools are responsible for

taking action to address priority areas, reporting annually to the Dean via EDRS.

By 2020, once the SAGE pilot has been completed and confirmation of ongoing

national support for the Athena SWAN Awards is received, the Executive Dean

will invite expressions of interest from Schools wishing to apply for a School‐level

award, based on their participation and progress with this process.

71

6. SUPPORTING TRANSGENDER PEOPLERecommended word count: 500 words


i) Current policy and practice

Provide details of the policies and practices in place to ensure that staff are not discriminated against

on the basis of being transgender, including tackling inappropriate and/or negative attitudes.

Many CSU policies include statements to promote inclusivity and limit discrimination against

transgender people (Table 42). The document “Supporting Gender Transition at the University:

Information for Staff and Students” provides advice for supporting transgender members of our

community, especially during gender transition.

Table 42 CSU policies and procedures that address issues relating to transgender people

Policies Academic Staff Promotion

Balancing Work and Study with Family and Caring Responsibilities

Computing and Communications Facilities Use

Harassment and Bullying Prevention

Media

Leave Manual

Procedures Complaints – Students

Complaints – Workplace

Staff Recruitment and Selection

Guidelines Communicating Without Bias

Harassment and Bullying Prevention

Transitioning is deeply personal and when a staff member declares they are in or about to enter

transition, CSU discusses with them their plans and support needs and a gender transition plan is

developed to help guide the person and other staff members through the process of adjustment.

The transitioning staff member works closely with the Equity and Diversity Unit and their manager to

ensure that the transition plan is carried out with care and respect for all staff.

Prior to the transitioning person commencing duties as their transitioned‐self, groups of staff

working directly with the staff member are given training from an external expert to explore what

transition means, as well as being offered an opportunity to ask questions about the process and any

new arrangements that might apply to facilitate their colleague’s transition.

A gender diversity and transgender workshop was led by a SAT member in 2016, who shared her

lived experience as an academic, educator and transwoman. It highlighted gender diversity and

transgender in the workplace, knowledge and action for inclusion and respect, skills and practices to

respectfully work with gender diverse people. The same SAT member hosted a webinar around

gender diversity and transgender in February 2018, with 36 attendees.

72

ii) Monitoring

Provide details of how the institution monitors the positive and/or negative impact of these policies

and procedures, and acts on any findings.

CSU ensured representation of transgender staff on its Gender Equity Strategy steering committee.

This committee is drafting our Gender Equity Strategy which will contain specific reference to the

needs of transgender and transitioning staff.

iii) Further work

Provide details of further initiatives that have been identified as necessary to ensure transgender

people do not experience unfair treatment at the institution.

CSU’s support for transgender people means staff who have transitioned have generally remained at

CSU. The University will be inviting comment from staff in the institution who have transitioned, to

provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of support procedures, and how new initiatives may

be introduced. CSU recognises it must ensure transitioned individuals are not inadvertently ‘outed’

by any systems or practices in the institution.

While internal transitions are likely to be unavoidably ‘public’ to some extent, many transitioning

individuals reach a stage in their transition where they wish to live their lives free of the social

stigma of being identified by their ‘history’. For those individuals who can live unambiguously as

their affirmed gender post‐transition, the move to new selfhood and workplace recognition and

acceptance of that selfhood is rapid. CSU recognises that any practices and policies that force them

to reveal their former gender can be distressing and discriminatory and we are working with

transgender staff to make policy and cultural changes that will maintain CSU as a safe place to work.

Actions

Rationale: Ensure CSU remains a safe place for transgender people to work. An

initial review of existing policies by the SAT identified gaps for transgender people

and policies were amended as required, however this is an area of ongoing

change requiring continual improvement.

Action: We will continue to consult with transgender staff to make policy and

cultural changes that will maintain CSU as a safe place to work. This annual

consultation will be included within the Gender Equity Strategy [Action 6.6].

73

7. INTERSECTIONALITY Recommended word count: 500 words



Previous sections should have considered how intersectionality impacts on gender equity. That is,

reflecting an understanding of how gender outcomes are affected by interconnected issues such as

sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, disability discrimination, classism and ageism. Review

whether existing gender equity policies enable the institution to address intersectionality in STEMM,

or otherwise identify how policies and practices might better support gender diversity and inclusion

in STEMM with regards to intersectionality.

CSU embraces intersectionality and this needs to be formally reflected in policy. Leadership at CSU is

accessible to equity advocates, and the Vice‐Chancellor engages with groups to discuss and problem‐

solve to provide a better workplace for all staff members. Prior to Athena SWAN, intersectionality

was not formally included in University policy and the SAT has been identifying how policies and

practices might better support gender diversity and inclusion in STEMM with regards to

intersectionality.

While our goal is to have a holistic approach to acknowledging and supporting diversity, we must

ensure that the prongs of intersectionality are addressed and supported through policy and process.

Through addressing the challenges of gender, racism, sexism, cultural diversity, and ageism within

current and future policy and processes, we will be able to develop a clear, overarching policy for

intersectionality. Further staff consultation will be required to adequately understand the issues.

This will be fed back to the Equity and Diversity Committee for endorsement and action.

Actions

Rationale: Prior to the Athena SWAN process, there has been a lack of

understanding and awareness of issues of intersectionality throughout the

institution.

Action: The SAT will continue to consult with staff on issues of intersectionality,

through webinars and focus groups, and continue identifying policies and

practices to better support gender diversity and inclusion [Action 6.7].

74

ii) Monitoring

Consider how the institution will boost awareness of intersectionality within STEMM. Analyse how

the institution will ensure under‐represented groups with intersecting identities do not experience

unfair treatment at the institution. Assess how the educational, research and professional needs of

under‐represented STEMM faculty, staff and students will be met more effectively.

SAT members delivered and recorded a webinar on intersectionality, that was attended by 32 staff.

More remains to be done to raise awareness of intersectionality issues, including focus groups to

ascertain needs and appropriate strategies to address issues. Questions and comments from the

webinars will be used to develop the focus groups.

CSU will develop policy that highlights the needs of individuals with intersectional identities, and

aligns with other policies.

iii) Further work

Evaluate how the institution will create opportunities to raise the participation, recruitment,

promotion, retention, recognition and leadership potential of under‐represented groups within

STEMM over time.

From our work with Indigenous Cultural Competency, we know that staff who undergo training tend

to be more accepting of views previously found challenging (Section 8). Having established a first

resource for intersectionality, our Action Plan covers the development of inclusivity training to

increase awareness of protected characteristics and their intersectionality.

75

8. INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIANSRecommended word count: 500 words



Discuss how gender equity policy and programs are designed to lift the contributions of Indigenous

Australians in STEMM. Discuss initiatives to provide cultural training to STEMM staff and students to

increase awareness of intersectionality, unconscious gender bias, racism and other forms of

discrimination faced by Indigenous Australians within STEMM.

CSU's ethos is described by the Wiradjuri phrase: Yindyamarra Winhanganha ‐ 'the wisdom of

respectfully knowing how to live well in a world worth living in'. It’s a sentiment at the heart of our

approach to education. CSU gratefully continues a close relationship with our Indigenous

communities and has a range of policies and programs to lift participation of Indigenous Australians

in all spheres of the institution.

While CSU policies in general do not specifically address Indigenous Australians and gender or

STEMM, CSU has committed to implementing the Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy 2017‐

2020. This was evidenced in the 2017 academic promotions round, where the strategy was used to

inform the review of Indigenous academic promotions applications in line with a culturally‐inclusive

model that acknowledges the intersectionality of Indigenous academics working here.

76

Since 2005, the Indigenous Australian Employment Strategy has set targets for recruiting and

developing Indigenous Australians (Table 43), as well as outlining key programs to achieve these

targets (Table 44). As with many universities, CSU has significantly more female than male

Indigenous staff in both professional and academic appointments. As of January 2018, there were 48

Indigenous staff members at CSU: 40 female and 8 male. CSU’s Pro‐Vice Chancellor Indigenous, Head

of School for Indigenous Australian Studies, and Director for the Indigenous Mental Health Program

are female and almost all Indigenous staff in the Faculty of Science are female (numbers are too

small to report here without identification).

Table 43 Indigenous Australians employed as % of total staff

Staff Target Actual (2018)

Overall 3% 2.2%

Academic 2% 1.3%

Table 44 Key programs within CSU’s Indigenous Australian Employment Strategy

Program Details

Indigenous Academic Fellowship (IAF) Scheme

Provides a living salary to Indigenous staff with post‐graduate qualifications committed to undertaking a PhD. For four‐years, the IAF has a workload breakdown of 70% research/PhD, 25% teaching and 5% administrative. Negotiated salaries are paid at Level A‐B depending on experience and qualifications.

Indigenous Academic Cadetship Scheme

Enables Indigenous students to gain professional qualifications and experience in a range of jobs and move into a full‐time job after completing their studies.

Indigenous Traineeships Combines work and structured training, generally used for entry‐level qualifications

Indigenous staff networks Supported and facilitated by the Indigenous Employment Coordinator

Nguluway — biennual staff conference

Brings Indigenous staff together to network and provides a direct voice to VCLT. Workshops, cultural sessions and guest speakers support staff development and celebrate success.

Indigenous Academic Staff Leadership Development Scheme

Up to $2,000/year/applicant covering financial costs of opportunities to develop leadership skills, capability and potential

Indigenous Staff Study Support Scheme

Up to $500/term for resources for study or associated travel

Indigenous Employment Incentive Scheme

Encourages Faculties and Divisions to make opportunities available for Indigenous employment in mainstream positions by providing 50% of the first year’s salary for an Indigenous general staff member appointed to a continuing or fixed‐term position

Higher Degree Research / Research schemes

Indigenous Research/Researchers Seed Funding: Up to five grants/per year, totalling $25,000, to support seeding projects/small groups. Indigenous HDR Student Tuition Fee Support: Pays tuition fees for Indigenous HDR students (professional and academic staff).

77

Indigenous Staff HDR Pathways: $20,000/session paid to Schools for a full‐time academic as partial buy‐out from teaching/admin responsibilities (up to two sessions) to fast‐track completion of Graduate Certificate in Research Methods/Honours programs. Indigenous Staff PhD Release Scheme: Provides full‐time equivalent release from teaching to complete PhD. Up to two $50,000/year salary replacement paid to Schools

Indigenous Cultural Competence programs:

The CSU‐developed online Indigenous Cultural Competency Program (ICCP) provides a framework for staff to develop their own understanding of Indigenous issues and the challenges faced. Completion rates (Table 45) are higher for both female and male STEMM staff than the rest of the university. The Courageous Conversations about Race and Racism. It stops with me programs initiate specific dialogues about the relationship staff have with Indigenous peoples.

Table 45 CSU staff numbers who have completed the Indigenous Cultural Competency Program (all years)

F M %F Total

Non‐STEMM 128 53 71 181

Academic 91 48 65 139

Executive 4 2 67 6


STEMM 151 146 51 297

Academic 133 136 49 269

Executive 3 7 43 10


Grand Total 279 199 58 478

Note: Completion of ICCP compulsory for managers, voluntary for other staff

CSU runs a number of education programs to support Indigenous students and increase cultural

competence within the student community (Table 46).

78

Table 46 Indigenous‐focused education programs at CSU

Program Details

Mandatory Graduate Learning Outcome: Indigenous Cultural Competence

Embedded within all CSU courses and, provides students with knowledge to practise in ways that show a commitment to social justice and the processes of reconciliation based on understanding the culture, experiences, histories and contemporary issues of Indigenous Australians. Academic content is managed by CSU’s Indigenous Board of Studies (IBS)

Graduate Certificate in Wiradjuri Language, Culture and Heritage

Co‐created with local community elders, graduates develop skills in teaching and using Wiradjuri language in community and educational settings, capacity to work in Indigenous communities to support and develop those communities, and the ability to think critically about factors to promote Indigenous nation rebuilding

High school outreach programs

Danygamalanha for school students with potential for university success whose families have little/no experience of higher education. STEMM activities are core program components National Indigenous Science Education Programme (NISEP) involvement with science events to build the skills and confidence of Indigenous high‐school students

IAHA Scholarships For students to attend Indigenous Allied Health Australia conference/forums

Cadetship pathways With CSIRO and ANSTO, supports Indigenous students to secure employment

A core focus of the Three Rivers UDRH is to support rural health professionals to improve Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander Health. The Three Rivers UDRH works in partnership with Indigenous

stakeholders and consortia partners to coordinate, deliver and implement a suite of activities for

Indigenous people to enter and succeed at health‐professional education.

In the Faculty of Science, the above programs are supplemented by strong, visible commitment from

senior leaders. The Executive Dean was in the first cohort to graduate from the Graduate Certificate

in Wiradjuri Language, is a member of the Indigenous Education Strategy committee and conducts

the Acknowledgement of Country in Wiradjuri when on Wiradjuri land.

79

ii) Review

Provide details of how the institution measures the effectiveness of these policies and practices, and

acts on any findings, to ensure gender equity and diversity policies will raise the recruitment,

promotion, retention and contribution of Indigenous Australians within STEMM fields.

There is a dedicated Indigenous Employment Coordinator within the Diversity and Equity Unit in the

Division of Human Resources to support all Indigenous staff. Due to the small number of Indigenous

staff, any issues with Indigenous Staff Support Schemes are considered on a case‐by‐case basis.

Individual needs are addressed and guidelines updated by putting recommendations to the

Indigenous Employment Strategy Advisory Committee.

Actions

Rationale: CSU has not yet achieved its Indigenous staffing targets, both across

the University and for academic staff. While acknowledging that the loss of just

one Indigenous staff member can mean the target is not achieved, there is still

work to be done to increase recruitment of and career progression for our

Indigenous Australian staff. In addition, the much lower number of Indigenous

males needs to be addressed.

Actions: To increase the number of Indigenous academic staff, the Faculty of

Science will trial Indigenous Academic Cadetships that support Indigenous

Australians to gain postgraduate qualifications. High‐achieving Indigenous

students, male and female, will be identified and supported to enter further study

at CSU [Action 1.8]. Additional training will be provided to better support

Indigenous Australian researchers and their supervisors [Action 1.9]. Some CSU

Divisions do not have any Indigenous staff and targeted strategies will be

developed to fill available positions with more Indigenous Australians [Action

1.10].

Rationale: Academic staff have requested greater guidance in delivering

Indigenous content within their courses, yet there are no Indigenous Australian

educational designers.

Action: We will explore the possibility of recruiting three Indigenous Australians

as Educational Designers to support the delivery of Indigenous Australian content

[Action 1.11].

80

iii) Further work

Provide details of further initiatives that have been identified as necessary to ensure Indigenous

Australians do not experience unconscious gender bias, racism, and other forms of discrimination at

the institution. Also consider how the institution will elevate the knowledge and contributions of

Indigenous Australian faculty, staff and students within STEMM.

Indigenous programs for staff, students and the community are managed across a number of areas

without centralised oversight. CSU is developing a Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) and three

working groups have been formed, aligned with the CSU values: Insightful, Inclusive and Impactful.

The RAP includes consultations with staff and communities, both Indigenous and non‐Indigenous,

across CSU’s locations. The RAP is linked to the University Strategy and provides a framework and

practical actions to drive CSU’s reconciliation activities through developing respectful relationships

and creating meaningful opportunities for Indigenous Australians.

Actions

Rationale: Programs for Indigenous staff and students are managed across a

number of portfolios without central oversight.

Action: The RAP Steering Group will maintain an ongoing overview of all

Indigenous programs [Action 6.8].

81

9. FURTHER INFORMATIONRecommended word count: 500 words


Please comment here on any other elements that are relevant to the application; for example,

other gender‐specific initiatives that may not have been covered in the previous sections.

NA

82

10. 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.

Issue Actions Outcome/ measure

Responsibility Start/end date

1. Recruitment and induction

Inequity within appointment process where men without doctorates are appointed at higher levels more often than women in STEMM, and men appointed at higher steps within levels than women (Section 4.1.i)

1.1 Develop process for interview panels to check for bias prior to final decision on candidate and prior to confirming step/level of appointment

Process used by all interview panels

E&D Development: January 2019 Process implemented: June 2019 Review appointments data: June 2021

1.2 Deliver unconscious bias/inclusivity refresher resources to panel members prior to interview panel

All interview panels receive refresher resources

Development: January 2019 Resources available: June 2019

More women appointed as sessional academics than men (Section 4.1.ii)

1.3 Pockets of activity to support sessional academics exist across the University. The SAT will consult with these existing groups/roles

Report and recommendations

SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports /year)

83



across CSU who support sessional staff and aggregate the known issues/data

submitted to E&D Committee 1.4 Conduct focus groups with sessional staff to

clarify equity issues

More women appointed in fixed‐term, teaching‐only and teaching/professional roles, while more men are appointed to research‐only roles (Section 4.1.iii)

1.5 Conduct focus groups with staff employed in each role across CSU to clarify equity issues

Develop report and recommendations for E&D Committee

Report and recommendations submitted to E&D Committee

SAT April 2018 – March 2022 (2 reports/year)

1.6 The Gender Equity Strategy will develop actions that address continuity of employment issues for fixed‐term (and sessional) staff. The issues identified within this application will be raised with the Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team to gain their support for implementation of the GE Strategy.

Actions to address security of employment included within Gender Equity Strategy

E&D February – December 2018

Low positivity amongst staff in relation to induction/support when starting a new job, particularly in STEMM (Section 5.2.i)

1.7 FoS will ensure induction processes are completed as intended by HR:

Heads of School will reinforce the induction process with supervisors

Supervisors will interview staff members after the induction process (6‐weeks post‐commencement)

Supervisors will provide sign‐off to the ED after the induction process is completed

Increase Your Voice results from 27% in 2017 to 30% in 2019 and 35% in 2021

ED FoS FoS HoS

Talk to HoS: January 2019 Monitor EDRS completions 6 monthly, starting January 2020

CSU has not yet achieved its Indigenous staffing targets (Section 8.i)

1.8 To increase the number of Indigenous academic staff, the Faculty of Science will trial Indigenous Academic Cadetships that support Indigenous Australians to gain postgraduate qualifications. High‐achieving Indigenous

2 Indigenous Academic Cadets appointed annually

Scheme development: E&D Appointing cadets:

Planning: November 2017 Implementation: January 2019

84



students will be identified and supported to go into further study at CSU

ED FoS FoS HoS

1.9 Training workshops will be held to better support Indigenous Australian researchers and their supervisors

Workshop 1 caters for specific learning needs of Indigenous Academic Fellows, all CSU Indigenous PhD students in any subject area, and any CSU students whose PhD is focused on Indigenous topics or issues.

Workshop 2 caters for specific learning needs of CSU staff who either supervise Indigenous PhD students or students undertaking PhD on Indigenous topics, as well as researchers wishing to become more effective in engaging and working with Indigenous communities, staff and students.

2 workshops held IEC PVC‐IE DVC‐RDI

Planning: October 2017 – March 2018 Workshop 1: 10‐11 April 2018 Workshop 2: 8‐9 May 2018

1.10 Identify Divisions and Faculties not achieving Indigenous employment targets and work with them to implement actions from the Indigenous Employment Strategy

Gain endorsement from VCLT

Consult with and support relevant Divisions and Faculties

Achievement of Indigenous Employment targets by 2021

E&D Start discussion with VCLT: October 2017 Endorsement from VCLT: October 2018 Consulting: November 2018

Academic staff have requested greater guidance in delivering

1.11 We will explore the possibility of recruiting three Indigenous Australians Educational

3 Indigenous Australian

E&D HR Liaison Team

Start discussion: January 2019

85



Indigenous content within their courses, yet there are no Indigenous Australian educational designers (Section 8.i)

Designers (one per Faculty) to support the delivery of Indigenous Australian content

Educational Designers employed

Appointments made: January 2020

2. Career progression and promotion

Pipeline issue: Loss of female representation from Level A to E (Section 4.1.i)

2.1 Develop policy to:

Actively recruit women to academic positions

Ensure gender balance is considered when shortlisting for each academic role advertised

Policy implemented

E&D Committee Draft policy: March 2020 Policy implemented: September 2020

2.2 Faculty of Science Forum to include day‐long stream for EMCR STEMM academics

Level A and B academics will be specifically invited and provided additional assistance with travel and accommodation costs

Sessions will cover issues and successes of women in STEMM, eg entry and retention into research and setting up networks

Positive feedback/ evaluations from attendees

ED FoS Planning start: February 2018 Forum: November 2018

Gender imbalance of academic staff in some STEMM Schools: Engineering (25%F), Computing and Mathematics (21%F), Agriculture and Wine Sciences (27%F), Nursing Midwifery and Indigenous Health (89%F), and Community Health (74%F) (Section 4.1.i)

2.3 Discuss School‐specific results with relevant Schools and identify appropriate actions

SAT to partner with Schools to determine reasons behind the gender imbalance for each School and assist with implementing programs to redress these

Decrease gender gap by 5%

ED FoS FoS HoS SAT

Meet with Schools: May 2018 Programs implemented: January 2019 Review progress: January 2020

86



Low number and proportion of part‐time staff applying for promotion (Section 5.1.iii)

2.4 Work with HR to communicate information about promotion process to improve perceptions across CSU

Develop guidelines and examples for applicants and panel members to understand “merit relative to opportunity” principles

Inform line managers, through webinars and staff intranet, about merit principles to encourage support of applications from PT staff

Develop and share (de‐identified) profiles of success stories

Increase application rate for PT staff from 3% in 2016 to 6% in 2019 and 10% by 2022

E&D OCC

Preparation: January 2018 Resources delivered prior to 2019 promotions round

2.5 FoS to set School targets to identify and support part‐time staff to apply for promotion

ED FoS to ensure HoS are aware that part‐time staff are eligible to apply for promotion

Each School to identify and encourage at least 1 part‐time staff to apply for promotion each year

HoS/Supervisors to actively encourage part‐time staff to apply for promotion

Minimum of 4 applications for promotion submitted by PT academics in FoS each year

ED FoS FoS HoS

Communicate School targets: April 2018 Applications due: 31 August 2018 Review targets: annually

87



Historical inequity of the academic promotion process and the need to change remaining negative perceptions of the process (Section 5.1.iii)

2.6 The new promotion process was implemented in 2015 and has already shown positive results for academic women, however this needs to be communicated to all staff by:

Preparing guidelines for applicants and panel members eg explaining the information requirements for EEO considerations and how this information is used to evaluate applications

Developing and sharing (de‐identified) success stories

Increase number (and quality) of applicants

E&D Resource preparation: February 2018 Resources delivered: May 2018 Review: 2020

Your Voice survey shows noticeable differences between academic and overall staff satisfaction with EDRS processes, especially for STEMM academics (Section 5.2.ii)

2.7 ED FoS to ensure HoS value and complete EDRS processes appropriately

Your Voice results for STEMM to increase from 42% favourable in 2017 to 50% in 2019

ED FoS FoS HoS

Prior to 2018 academic EDRS round (October‐December)

Low number of women employed as Heads of Schools, especially in STEMM (Section 5.4.iii)

2.8 Build pipeline of potential female candidates through supporting School leadership teams (Associate Heads of School) in FoS

Establish a female AHoS group for these women to network

Encourage women AHoS to apply for LDW (if not already completed)

Partner with Organisational Culture and Capabilities, Division of HR, to organise appropriate training

Increase number of women HoS in FoS from 13% to 39% by 2022

ED FoS HoS FoS OCC

Establish network: August 2018 Promote LDW: February 2019 Training: 2020

Historical lack of data available to identify gender inequities within workload allocations (Section 5.4.viii)

2.9 Analyse AWM data on workload allocations by gender in STEMM schools annually



88



3. Gender pay gap

Pay gap between women and men (Section 4.1.v)

3.1 There are a range of complex causes for CSU’s current gender pay gap of 14.6%. To build upon existing WGEA reporting, we will further identify the reasons contributing to the pay gap, including:

Undertake gender remuneration analysis at the organisational unit/departmental level

Some of the pay gap is due to more women being employed part‐time. We will consult staff to understand the personal value placed on part‐time employment

Examine the effect of starting step on pay gap



4. Research

There is a gender imbalance in numbers of research grants acquired, amount of research funding secured, and numbers of publications, especially for STEMM women (Section 5.1.iv)

4.1 Support women researchers to redress imbalance in research funding and publication output for women through

A mentoring program, led by recognised female research leaders

Targeted invitations from the DVC‐RDI to individual female researchers to encourage increased participation of women in external research roles such as grant assessors and reviewers. Such participation will provide greater exposure to and hands‐on experience within the national research environment in which researchers

50% of female teaching/research staff involved in the mentoring program by 2021 25% of female teaching/research staff participating in external research roles by 2022

DVC‐RDI

Mentoring program launch: November 2018 Targeted invitations commence: March 2018

89



compete for research funding and reputation

4.2 The Faculty of Science will pilot a program to explore appropriate work arrangements to support women undertaking external research roles. While there is workload allocation for research, the travel and blocks of time required to participate in these roles do not always fit well in the academic calendar. The pilot will also recognise participating in these roles as professional development and not just a research activity.

The pilot will require consultation and discussions between the DVC‐RDI, FoS and HR

Outcomes of the pilot will inform academic EDRS at the end of 2019

Pilot is completed Outcomes of pilot inform next EDRS round

DVC‐RDI ED FoS

Discussions start: April 2018 Pilot: December 2018 – July 2019

4.3 FoS sponsor 2 women annually to attend EMCR Forum conference to build research capacity/succession planning and ensure pipeline progression

2 women attend annually

ED FoS April 2019 – April 2021

Women returning to work after taking maternity leave can struggle to pick up their research (Section 5.3.iii)

4.4 Pilot a “return to research” scheme in the Faculty of Science, where staff are given up to $7,000 to support research activities after a period of leave

Positive feedback from staff involved in scheme Volume of research outputs (no existing benchmark, will be established in 2020)

ED FoS Launch: March 2018 Review: January 2021

90



5. Leave and flexible work

Men are underrepresented in the uptake of primary carers leave (Section 5.3.v)

5.1 Encourage men to increase their uptake of primary carers leave, through

Event for Fathers Day 2018, endorsed by VC

Reminders to staff about primary carers leave using institutional communication tools such as staff intranet and equity newsletter (Action 1.15)

100% increase in the number of men taking primary carers leave from 2 in 2016 to 4 by 2019

E&D Event preparations: March 2018 Event: week before Fathers Day (2 Sep) Reminders: annually

HoS and line managers have a lack of knowledge of best practice processes to support staff before, during or after parental leave, leading to inconsistent support provided for staff (Section 5.3.iii). In addition, average length of maternity leave is shorter for staff in STEMM and in professional roles (Section 5.3.iv) and lower rates of parental leave in STEMM (Section 5.3.v)

5.2 Investigate reasons for shorter maternity leave to ascertain whether institutional barriers or personal decisions are causing this



5.3 Executive Dean of Science has consulted women returning from maternity leave over the past few years to understand their needs and how the Faculty can better meet those. This consultation will be formalised by piloting a parental leave support scheme

Senior Faculty staff member to meet with each person before and after taking parental leave to ensure they understand their rights and identify any support needed and to reassure them that their position is safe

Needs are documented and reported to ED FoS and, as required, individual or Faculty‐wide responses are developed

Report annually to E&D Committee

Positive feedback from staff indicating their needs were identified and responded to appropriately FoS HoS adopt these practices as developed/ demonstrated by the Senior leadership of FoS

ED FoS Launch scheme: January 2019 Review: 2021 Annual updates to ED FoS/E&D Committee: start January 2020

91



6. Promoting inclusivity

Heads of School and other managers need to understand our obligations with regards to parental leave, flexible leave, and other equity issues (Sections 5.3.iii and 5.3.vi)

6.1 Ensure managers are informed of best practice, CSU policy and legislation

University‐wide webinar hosted March 2018

Develop guidelines/handout outlining obligations

Deliver face‐to‐face training sessions

Develop online refresher training

At least 9 face‐to‐face training sessions delivered Webinar attended by 35 staff

E&D Webinar developed: February 2018 Resources available: January 2019 Face‐to‐face training sessions delivered: 2019 Refresher training: 2021

Staff report meetings/events are held at times when it is impossible for staff with carer’s responsibilities to attend (Section 5.4.ix)

6.2 Review institutional policy on timing of meetings and social gatherings as part of the GE Strategy

Issue will need to be raised at Academic Senate

Revised policy implemented by 2021

E&D Committee Start consultation: June 2018

There is no current requirement for consideration of gender parity of presenters when organising events (Section 5.4.x)

6.3 The Faculty of Science will implement a requirement for all events, such as conferences and forums, to have gender parity of presenters

Gender parity of presenters at all future events

ED FoS Communicate requirement: April 2018 First event measured: November 2018

92



Awareness of unconscious bias and the desirability of inclusive practices (Section 5.4.x)

6.4 To embed equity and Athena SWAN principles within standard practices we will develop and deliver inclusivity training for staff groups including VCLT; managers; HoS; interview panel members; promotion panel members; marketing and communication staff; others as needed

Develop training resources (online module and face‐to‐face)

Attend HoS Forum to introduce availability of online training and explain issue to all Schools

At least 9 face‐to‐face training sessions delivered 460 people completing online module by 2021 Endorsement of training from Vice‐Chancellor

E&D Preparation of resources and VC endorsement: June 2019 Launch online module: June 2019 Deliver face‐to‐face training: June‐September 2019

6.5 Ongoing communication about the benefits of equity and diversity practices for everyone through:

A quarterly newsletter distributed via the intranet. The newsletter will include case studies, research findings and updates on the progress of the AS action plan and GE Strategy

Promotion of principles by senior leaders, eg VC’s involvement with Male Champions of Change

Increase in Your Voice results for Respect & Equity (overall) from 62% in 2017 to 70% in 2019 80% in 2021

E&D First newsletter published: October 2018 Continue quarterly

Ensure CSU remains a safe place for transgender people to work (Section 6.iii)

6.6 An initial review of existing policies by the SAT identified gaps for transgender people and policies were amended as required. We will continue to consult with transgender staff to make policy and cultural changes that will maintain CSU as a safe place to work

Regular consultation to be included as part of the GE Strategy

Changes and progress reported annually to E&D Committee No complaints from transgender

E&D Formal consultation with transgender staff prior to Session 1 each year, starting 2019

93



staff relating to CSU policy

Lack of understanding and awareness of issues of intersectionality (Section 7.i)

6.7 Consult staff on issues of intersectionality (eg webinars and focus groups) and continue identifying policies and practices to better support gender diversity and inclusion



Programs for Indigenous staff and students are managed across a number of portfolios without central oversight (Section 8.iii)

6.8 Through the ‘Our CSU RAP’ project an updated overview of Indigenous programs will be achieved. ‘Our CSU RAP’ will articulate the University’s commitment and provide overarching guidance for the ongoing development of initiatives and activities across the University within the appropriate areas

‘Our CSU RAP’ project completed

RAP Steering Group

July 2019

7. Embedding the Athena SWAN principles

Ongoing role of the SAT (Section 3.iii)

7.1 Continue to investigate data and issues, reporting to the Equity & Diversity Committee on the findings and recommended actions.

SAT to meet bi‐monthly

Working groups formed to investigate and report on identified issues. Two reports/year will be submitted by the SAT to the E&D Committee

Decide upon the priority of issues to be addressed at the first meeting post‐application submission

Support Schools to identify School‐specific actions to redress academic gender imbalances

2 reports/year submitted to E&D Committee Priorities identified at first meeting post‐submission

SAT Next SAT meeting: April 2018 First 2 priorities to be agreed upon and working groups formed

94



Support ongoing Athena SWAN award submissions (post‐pilot)

Maintain appropriate balance of membership

Ensure findings are communicated to CSU senior leadership, including the Research Office, to ensure known issues are addressed and prevention of future issues is considered

7.2 Coordinate across the institution to achieve recognition of workload for academic members of the SAT

Workload provided by 2019

Faculty Deans Start consultation: July 2018 Workload allocated: January 2019

7.3 Continue communication of Athena SWAN (and equity) principles across CSU, via

Monthly webinars (4 held to date and were well attended)

Videos highlighting women in STEMM

Quarterly equity newsletter

Produce 12 videos (3/year); measure uptake of views by hosting on YouTube Host monthly webinars in 2018; increase attendees from 32 at initial webinar to at least 50 on average

SAT March 2017‐March 2022

95



Communicate data findings contained within the Athena SWAN application (Section 5.4.xii)

7.4 Executive Dean of Science to discuss findings with each STEMM HoS

HoS to develop priority list of at least 3 areas to focus on and actions

Throughout this process appropriate Schools to apply for School‐level Athena SWAN awards (at the end of the pilot) will be identified

Progress against School‐specific actions/issues – reviewed at EDRS annually Measurable changes delivered by end 2022

ED FoS STEMM HoS

Start discussions and planning: May 2018 Agree priorities/actions: December 2018 Progress reviewed annually as part of EDRS process

Ongoing focus is needed to ensure the Athena SWAN principles continue to be embedded within our culture (Section 5.4.i)

7.5 Ensure action plan remains up‐to‐date and achievable. Annual updates to be received from each role/section with responsibilities allocated within this plan, reporting on progress and timelines

E&D Committee to receive updates, consider progress and revise timelines and priorities as needed

Communicate summary of progress updates to all staff via quarterly newsletter

Targets achieved and within timelines indicated

All VCLT

Updates due April each year (from 2019) Action plan updated and revised July each year

7.6 Maintain connection with institutional Gender Equity Strategy through monthly meetings between the project managers for Athena SWAN and the GE Strategy

Shared resources and strategy; complimentary actions

E&D HR

March 2018‐March 2022

7.7 The Vice‐Chancellor has committed to being an MCC, and this will be extended to include senior leaders across the university

10 senior leaders to complete the ‘Leadership Shadow’ program

VC Share learnings from senior leaders at SAGE Symposium 2020

96

Glossary

Acronym Meaning

ADR Associate Dean Research AHoS Associate Head of School AWM Academic Workload Manager CRC Cooperative Research Centre CSU Charles Sturt University DVC Deputy Vice‐Chancellor DVC‐RDI Deputy Vice‐Chancellor (Research, Development and Industry) E&D Equity and Diversity Unit / Manager of Equity and Diversity ED FoS Executive Dean of the Faculty of Science EDRS Employee Development and Review Scheme EEO Equal Employment Opportunity EMCR Early‐mid career researchers FoAE Faculty of Arts and Education FoBJBS Faculty of Business, Justice and Behavioural Sciences FoS Faculty of Science FoS HoS Heads of School in the Faculty of Science FT Full‐time GE Strategy Gender Equity Strategy HDR Higher Degree by Research HoS Head of School HR Human Resources / Division of Human Resources IAHA Indigenous Allied Health Australia IBS Indigenous Board of Studies IEC Indigenous Employment Coordinator LDW Leadership Development for Women MCC Male Champions of Change NISEP National Indigenous Science Education Programme Non‐STEMM At CSU, all other Schools not included in the definition of STEMM NTEU National Tertiary Education Union OCC Organisational Culture and Capability PhD Doctor of Philosophy PT Part‐time PVC Pro Vice‐Chancellor PVC‐IE Pro Vice‐Chancellor (Indigenous Education) RAP Reconciliation Action Plan SAT Self‐Assessment Team STEMM AT CSU, this includes all Schools in the Faculty of Science, as well as

Engineering, and Computing & Mathematics UDRH University Department of Rural Health VC Vice‐Chancellor VCLT Vice‐Chancellor’s Leadership Team WGEA Workplace Gender Equity Agency WHS Workplace Health & Safety

Date post:	05-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

FINAL CSU Athena SWAN Bronze award application 29 Mar€¦ · 1 Date of application 28 March 2018...

Documents