Athena SWAN Bronze and Silver Department award application Name of institution: University of York Date of application: 30th November 2011 Department: Computer Science Contact for application: Professor John Clark Email: jac@cs.york.ac.uk Telephone: 01904 325354 Departmental website address: www.cs.york.ac.uk Date of university Bronze and/or Silver SWAN award: Level of award applied for: Bronze Athena SWAN Bronze and Silver Department awards recognise that in addition to university-wide policies the department is working to promote gender equality and to address challenges particular to the discipline. Not all institutions use the term „department‟ and there are many equivalent academic groupings with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition of a „department‟ for SWAN purposes can be found on the Athena SWAN website. If in doubt, contact the Athena SWAN Charter Coordinator well in advance to check eligibility. It is essential that the contact person for the application is based in the department. At the end of each section state the number of words used. Click here for additional guidance on completing this template. 1. Letter of endorsement from the Head of Department – maximum 500 words An accompanying letter of endorsement from the Head of Department should explain how the SWAN action plan and activities in the department contribute to the overall department strategy and academic mission. The letter is an opportunity for the Head of Department to confirm their support for the application and to endorse and commend any women and SET activities that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission. Enclosed.

2. The self-assessment process – maximum 1000 words Describe the Self-Assessment Process. This should include:

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

Name Designation Biographical Data Professor John Clark Chair of working group Deputy Head of Department responsible for

Research (2009 – date). Married, no child responsibilities. Partner is Director of Centre for Medieval Studies (and a professor in the Department of English and Related Literature).

Maria Arinbjarnar Member of working group

PhD Student. CEO and Chair of WeEnrich, a computer games development company, spun-off from the University of York. Mature student, just submitted a PhD thesis. Two children at pre-school age and partner is a househusband. Participated in a similar workgroup at Reykjavik University in Iceland as an MSc student. Had elder child in 2002 while doing part-time BSc and younger child in 2004 whilst doing a full time BSc in Computer Science at Reykjavik University.

Dr Philippa Conmy Member of working group

Senior Post-Doctoral Research Associate. (1999 – date). Research Associate in York since 1999, and successfully finished a part-time PhD whilst working in that role. Two young children, partner shares childcare. Has had flexible working patterns to further help with childcare (supported by multiple line managers) Member of the BCS Women's group, and helped organise the Lovelace Colloquium in 2009.

Louise Earnshaw Member of working group

Student Recruitment & External Programmes Manager (2005 – date). Administrator in Higher Education since 2000, having studied Engineering as a first degree. Two young children at pre-school age. Partner works full time, along with extended family share the childcare.

Dr Steve King Member of working group

Senior Lecturer. Deputy Head of Department responsible for Teaching (2006 - 2011) Member of Senate; Member of University Teaching Committee. QAA auditor 2011-, parent rep on University Nursery Management Committee 2003-5 Married with 2 children (9, 12). Partner is Senior Lab Technician in Department of Biology.

Becky Polson Working Group Administrator

Research Support Administrator (01/2011 – date). Married and expecting first child in December. Partner is a scientist at the University.

Working was collaborative, with staff taking responsibility for production of content for specific sections. All reviewed everthing. Prof Helen Petrie (leader HCI group) and Julie Oldfield (HR) also assisted.

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

Our Athena SWAN project began in March 2011, with the full support of the Head of Department, and was led by Deputy Head of Department (Research) Professor John Clark. After an open call for expressions of interest, individuals were invited to become members of the self-assessment team, with each of the three major staff groups included: academic and teaching; research; support and administration. Our submission is part of a wider programme to improve the working environment for all our staff. A series of meetings was held to:

1. Identify and discuss the objectives of the Athena SWAN initiative and establish the data required to formulate a working plan leading up to and following our submission;

2. To establish what practices, if any, are already in place to break down barriers for women in the department and put together a plan for raising awareness of Athena SWAN internally.

3. Put together a plan of action leading up to the submission, and a subsequent plan for implementation over the subsequent years.

To raise awareness of the initiative, Paul Walton (former Head of Department, Chemistry, a Gold Athena SWAN Award holder) delivered a talk on the importance of women in SET and the positive impact Athena SWAN has had in Chemistry. Paul‟s talk helped us to launch the project to the department and generate interest in our activities and consultations. We have benchmarked ourselves against submissions by other York Departments committed to Athena SWAN and successfully delivering on its goals (Chemistry, Biology and Psychology).This has informed our actions and plans. Our meetings were highly collegial, and often consisted of brainstorming and discussion of identified issues. Becky provided administrative support, obtaining data from various sources and organising talks/presentations delivered by external speakers. Maria consulted with PhD students and arranged central talks to them, and Phillipa leveraged contacts to arrange speakers. The whole group participated in agreeing a plan for mentoring. Louise and Becky produced, issued and collated results from an on-line questionnaire. Steve (who for 5 years was responsible for negotiating administrative and teaching duties with staff) provided input on flexible working and University policies and practices generally. John facilitated meetings and proposed and amended research policy in response to our investigations. Staff perspectives were gained through two key internal consultation forums. Maria held a forum with research students to discuss mentoring. We also ran an online staff survey on flexible working in the department (with 70 out of 119 staff taking part). Many provided valuable additional comments helping us to formulate our action plan. Computer Science‟s participation in the bi-annual (externally managed) University staff survey also provided additional input.

Becky and John met with Sarah Hawkes from the Equality Challenge Unit in April to discuss the Athena SWAN process; Sarah held a group session to include other representatives from other departments. The meeting and subsequent group discussion gave a clearer insight into what Athena SWAN could mean for our department and assisted identifying key areas for analysis and improvement.

c. Plans for the future of the self assessment team, such as how often the team will continue to meet, any reporting mechanisms and in particular how the self assessment team intends to monitor implementation of the action plan.

The self-assessment team will meet quarterly to discuss and review progress against our action plan. Our internal webpage, created in April to communicate all aspects of Athena SWAN including events, a meeting schedule and minutes, and to provide useful links, will be used to report progress to staff and students. We will use departmental meetings, monthly bulletins and student forums to report progress and maintain momentum. The Research Policy Office will further advise on making progress. We will contribute to and benefit from the University‟s Athena Swan Working Group. We will consult regularly with staff and students, via focus groups and online surveys, to monitor implementation and the success of the action plan. Electronics and Computer Science are now engaged in collaboration on research organisational matters, and this will include collaboration on Athena SWAN. We have excellent relations with the University‟s Research Training Unit, and will work with them to develop modules relevant to Athena SWAN goals. (Word Count: 992)

3. A picture of the department – maximum 2000 words

a) Provide a pen-picture of the department to set the context for the application, outlining in particular any significant and relevant features.

The Department of Computer Science at the University of York is one of the UK‟s leading computer science departments. Founded in 1977 from a support department, it now comprises 42 academic & 39 research staff, as well as 38 support staff. There are currently 94 registered doctoral level students in the department undertaking PhD and Engineering Doctorate qualifications.

b) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

Student data (i) Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses – comment on

the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract women to the courses.

The department does not currently offer any access or foundation courses. (ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers – full and part-time – comment on the

female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the impact to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

The department offers a range of full-time undergraduate computer science courses, including single subject computer science; computer science with a specialism (artificial intelligence, embedded systems and business enterprise systems); and computer science with mathematics (and, from 2012 entry, with philosophy).

Undergraduate – Registered Students (period 1st August – 31st July)

National Average (HESA)

Year Female Male Total Female Male

2008/09 20 8% 259 92% 279 - -

2009/10 22 8% 270 92% 292 18% 82%

2010/11 26 8% 283 92% 309 - -

Undergraduate Enrolment (year 1 only)

Intake Female Male Total

2011/12 22 18% 101 82% 123

Over recent years the Department has maintained at 8% females, but we have seen a significant increase in the 2011 intake with females constituting 18% of year 1, which is a notable increase on previous intakes. It is worth commenting that the sector has seen a decrease in the absolute number of students studying computer science since 2003/04, at a decline of 25.5%– in 2009/10 100,785 students were registered on computer science undergraduate degree courses in UK HEI‟s (UUK, Patterns & Trends in UK Higher Education, 2011). The department‟s undergraduate programmes are comprehensive in nature; teaching core principles of computer science, with study of hardware compulsory, at least in year 1. The HESA data quoted above includes courses such as web design and multimedia. These may be more appealing to women than our programmes. There is a clear need to communicate the value of the sorts of programmes we offer; we may be perceived to be very much operating in “traditional computer science”, and traditional computer science may well be treated with suspicion by women. As the accompanying letter from our HoD says, CS can be perceived as a „toys for the boys‟ subject. There is a pressing need to commicate what a CS/CS-realted degree from York can do for women, the intellectual challenges it can bring, and the economic and other career rewards that can follow. We decided recently to feature female staff and students in marketing and publicity materials; not only do we positively reflect our female student population but we also include featured research by our academic and research staff. Female students act as Student Ambassadors on interview and open days, ensuring that their presence in the department is visible to potential applicants. Our message is that women do computer science and they do it at York. The department acknowledges that further work can be undertaken to positively reflect females in computer science by targeting recruitment activities and taking part in initiatives organised by UKRC & National HE STEM initiatives. The department has recently participated in a National HE STEM Programme scheme to collect information about our undergraduate‟s motivations and career intentions. The investigation will explore how career intentions differ between male and female students throughout their course. We anticipate receiving the results of this research in Spring 2012. A recent in-house study of female year 1 undergraduates has identified that female students chose York as their place of study because of its impressive employability record (including the opportunity of a placement) as well as the approachability of staff at interview and open days. Their aspirations are generally to pursue careers in industry and not necessarily to pursue a career in academia, and (very encouragingly) they did not perceive being female as a barrier to undertaking a role in IT or Computing. They indicated that computer science is perceived as being a highly academic, difficult and „geeky‟ subject to study and not a subject traditionally seen as „fashionable‟ for females. We will continue to review this information and follow up on issues identified. The department‟s recruitment & outreach activities to schools and colleges, whilst gender neutral, are inclusive; we ensure that wherever possible female staff and students are involved, providing visible female involvement within the discipline. We will continue to explore the motivations for females to undertake the subject and ensure that we capitalise

on the positive perceptions that are influencing females to undertake the subject as well as address any negative aspects.

(iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught courses – full and part-time – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

National data taken from HESA The department offers a range of full time and part time taught postgraduate courses. The full time course provision includes MScs in Computing, Human-Centred Interactive Technologies, Information Technology, Natural Computation and Software Engineering. As with undergraduate student numbers the department has seen a small rise in its female student population in the last year. This is in part due to the introduction of the MSc in Human Centred Interactive Technologies; this MSc was introduced in 2007 and has proven a popular course with female students, with 50% of the 18 students enrolled on the 2011/12 cohort being female. The department offers a range of part time provision at postgraduate level, comprising MScs, Postgraduate Diplomas and Postgraduate Certificates in Safety Critical Systems Engineering & Gas Turbine Control. These part time courses are aimed at individuals working in the systems engineering industry with students usually being sponsored by their employer. The part time courses have a significantly lower female population (8%), but females constitute a very low proportion of those working in the science, engineering & technology sector (12.3% of the 5.53million working in SET jobs are female). Overall the department‟s taught postgraduate female population has fallen short of the national average by subject (20.7% of postgraduates being female in 2007/08 (HESA,2009). From October 2012, we will launch a Cyberseurity MSc with a part-time

Postgraduate Taught Enrolment

Intake Female Male Total

2011/12 18 19% 78 81% 96

Postgraduate Taught Completion National Data (HESA)

Completed Female Male Total Female Male

2008/09 10 16% 54 84% 64 1515 21% 5595 79%

2009/10 12 14% 76 86% 88 1810 20% 7080 80%

2010/11 16 15% 93 85% 109 *Data not yet available*

option. We hope that this will prove popular with HMG and its agencies, who are keen to promote inclusivity within their organisations. The department continues to ensure that females are featured in promotional activities which are focused to postgraduate taught applicants. (iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees – full and part-time

– comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

Postgraduate research enrolment by gender has remained relatively static over the past 3 years and is reasonably in line with the national data. However we hope our modernisation of promotional literature will have a longer-term positive effect. It is also likely that the growth of interdisciplinary research within York, drawing as it does on wider skills sets, will attract more women to do research here. We are fortunate to have female role models with whom very different types of prospective female student may identify. Their research excellence ranges from the highly interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary (e.g. the work of YCCSA), through the socially engaging (e.g. our work on inclusivity of the web), through to highly formal methods (one of the best established and patently core fields of computer science).

Postgraduate Research – Registered Students (period 1st August - 31July)

National Average (HESA)

Year Female Male Total Female Male

2008/09 41 22% 144 78% 185 - -

2009/10 40 21% 155 79% 195 23% 77%

2010/11 39 22% 140 78% 179 - -

(v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees – comment on the differences between male and female application and success rates and describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and their effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.

The absolute number of female applicants has increased for all three groups over the past three years, whilst in percentage terms the ratio has remained the same. It is worth noting that, for taught programmes, the proportion (by gender) of offers made is in line with the proportion of applications received. For research programmes, the figures are more variable, but the numbers are smaller. We will continue to monitor these figures to determine any anomalies in the admissions „pipelines‟, showing where female applicants may be unfavourably treated.

Application Statistics – Undergraduate Degrees

Applications Offers Acceptances

Intake Female Male Female Male Female Male

2009/10 79 (12%) 587 46 (12%) 337 18 (17%) 91

2010/11 64 (11%) 531 40 (11%) 339 10 (9%) 106

2011/12 103 (13%) 662 58 (15%) 336 21 (16%) 112

Application Statistics – Postgraduate Research

Applications Offers Acceptances

Intake Female Male Female Male Female Male

2009/10 12 (23%) 41 4 (18%) 18 3 (23%) 10

2010/11 12 (15%) 69 6 (32%) 13 5 (33%) 10

2011/12 19 (24%) 60 3 (14%) 18 3 (21%) 11

Application Statistics – Postgraduate Taught

Applications Offers Acceptances

Intake Female Male Female Male Female Male

2009/10 99 (16%) 503 60 (16%) 310 9 (14%) 55

2010/11 86 (14%) 490 61 (15%) 340 12 (16%) 63

2011/12 112 (16%) 579 79 (16%) 404 18 (19%) 78

The department continues to market and promote its course to all sectors and will endeavour to continually portray its female staff and students positively in an effort to ensure that we continue to attract female students; in particular we promote research study opportunities to our registered MSc and undergraduate students within the department. In November 2011 Dr Ana Cavalcanti will be assuming the role of Chair of Research Studies Committee, and we hope that the appointment of a female member of academic staff to this role will further encourage potential female research students to undertake research study opportunities within the department. Degree classification by gender – comment on any differences in degree attainment between males and females and describe what actions are being taken to address any imbalance. Undergraduate Degree Completion Classification

Year of Completion Female Male Total

Female Male

1 2:1 2:2 3 1 2:1 2:2 3 Ord

2008 3 4% 71 96% 74 1 2 - - 22 26 15 8 -

2009 6 8% 66 92% 72 - 3 3 - 25 15 20 5 1

2010 5 8% 59 92% 64 - 3 - 2 19 21 13 4 2

It is apparent that whilst we have seen an increase in numbers of females attaining a degree, we have identified that in 2010 we saw a decrease overall in the standard, with 33% of 3rd class degrees being awarded to females. With such a small sample it is not easy to ascertain if this is an issue related to gender. The department will continue to monitor attainment by gender and introduce support mechanisms specifically for female students if appropriate.

Staff data (vi) Female:male ratio of academic staff and research staff – researcher, lecturer,

senior lecturer, reader, professor (or equivalent). comment on any differences in numbers between males and females and say what action is being taken to address any underrepresentation at particular grades/levels

ACADEMIC STAFF

Proportion of female academic staff by type of post Female/Total (% Female)

Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Reader Professor TOTAL

2007 0/13 (0%) 2/14 (14%) 0/1 (0%) 2/11 (18%) 4/39 (10%)

2008 0/16 (0%) 2/12 (17%) 0/3 (0%) 2/12(17%) 4/39 (10%)

2009 0/20 (0%) 2/13 (15%) 0/2 (0%) 2/12 (17%) 4/39 (10%)

2010 0/21 (0%) 1/13 (8%) 1/2 (50%) 2/13 (15%) 4/42 (10%)

RESEARCH STAFF

Proportion of female research staff by grade Female/Total (% Female)

Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 TOTAL

2007 5/27 (19%) 1/12 (8%) 0/3 (0%) 6/42 (14%)

2008 5/31 (16%) 2/15 (13%) 0/3 (0%) 7/49 (14%)

2009 3/28 (11%) 2/14 (14%) 0/3 (0%) 5/45 (11%)

2010 3/26 (12%) 1/10 (10%) 0/3 (0%) 4/39 (10%)

The data indicate that we have only senior female academic staff (two external appointments to professor, two via internal promotions). The lack of lecturer and Grade 8 females across both areas may discourage female applicants for advertised lectureships. Overall, the data show that we have a significant and persistent under-representation of females in research grades overall. As part of our action plan we will be considering possible ways to encourage promotion success in our existing female staff and attract new talent. We aim to improve our performance review and mentoring organisation, aiming to ensure that staff move in the right direction for promotion. We already do this with some success, but improvements

need to be made. We have observed that commitment to career development activities is not uniform. Some staff really engage with the process (and feel they get a good deal out of it), whilst others are less enthusiastic. We are conscious we need to improve the message to the reviewers as well as the reviewees that review, and consideration of career development, is a key issue for our department. John has reviewed all RA performance reviews for the Department for the past two years. Our performance review process was modernised in response to concerns by RAs that inadequate attention was given career development. Working with them, and drawing inspiration form the Concordat, we developed an RA training framework and overhauled our reviewing processes for all staff. We also now run a “Development Forum”, a series of seminars/discussions on a wide range of topics, aimed at helping younger members of staff adapt to the demands of their roles, addressing issues such a promotions. We are aware that staff may be naïve with respect to how the promotions processes work, and have resolved to issue the annual call for promotions earlier, to allow staff to be better advised on how to present their case well. Further dedicated sessions on promotion and how criteria may be satisfied will be held. With such low numbers the percentages do not allow robust conclusions to be formed. This is in itself is telling. The major conclusion is that there are low levels of women across the board. Turnover by grade and gender – comment on any differences between men and women in turnover and say what is being done to address this. Where the number of staff leaving is small, comment on the reasons why particular individuals left.

Leavers by Grade and Gender

Academic

Research Teaching

7 8 6 7 6 7

F M F M F M F M F M F M

2008 2 2 1 1

2009 1 1 3

2010 8 1 2 1 2

The table above illustrates leavers in academic, research and teaching roles over the last three years. Twenty-five staff have left during this time frame, of which three were female. Generally speaking we have a very low staff turnover. Whilst our female:male staff ratio is low, we have experienced equally minimal female departures in recent years.

In 2008 one female member of teaching staff left the department to take up a position in industry (and is now in a leading engineering position in Australia) and another female reseacher also embarked upon a career in industry in 2009. Finally in 2010 one of our female researchers went to work in one of the department‟s spin-off companies. All three female members of staff have remained within SET careers within the areas of their previous work here at York. (Word Count: 1841) Supporting and advancing women’s careers – maximum 5000 words 4. Key career transition points

a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

(i) Job application and success rates by gender and grade – comment on any

differences in recruitment between men and women at any level and say what action is being taken to address this.

Recruitment to Academic & Research Roles

Applications Interviewees Appointments

Female Male Female Male Female Male

2009 Academic Grade 7 7 30 - 6 - 2

Grade 8 17 37 - 8 - 1 Research Grade 6 17 73 - 9 - 6

2010 Research Grade 6 12 75 - 7 - 6

2011 Academic Grade 7 3 18 - 2 - 1 Research Grade 6 2 10 1 4 1 1

Grade 7 11 58 - 9 - 2

Figure 1. Recruitment data

These data show a worrying lack of female candidates being shortlisted for interview over the last 3 years, though the one female shortlisted was actually appointed. Panels contain female members where possible (i.e. without overloading the small number of female academics). There is a pressing need to investigate this situation closely. We have already passed this information on to the academics within the Department (who lead the recruitment panels).

Action: The chair of our assessment group, John, will monitor all applications for research staff posts within the Department.

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

on whether these differ for men and women and if they do explain what action may be taken. Where the number of women is small applicants may comment on specific examples of where women have been through the promotion process. Explain how potential candidates are identified.

Promotions – Applications and Successes

Applied Successful

Female Male Female % Success

Rate Male

% Success Rate

2007/08 2 2 100%

2008/09 3 2 67%

2009/10 1 2 1 100% 2 100%

2010/11 4 1 25%

Figure 2. Promotion data Since the total number of female academic staff is very small, we would only expect a small number of promotion applications, and two of the 4 female academics are already at professorial level. Promotion across professorial “bands” is also possible. Professorial bands are not usually readily available, but we would observe that staff reaching professorial level generally have the skills needed to further promote their careers appropriately. More worrying is the lack of female academics at lower levels in the department (see above). The department has recently issued a revised publications policy, the key message of which is that we will value quality over quantity of publications and conference presentations. The policy is clear and transparent for all. We would observe that REF‟s obvious support for equality will have a positive effect. This is reflected not only in statements of commitment, but actually in the requirement to supply only four publications per staff member. There is a clear message of quality over quantity. There are clear financial and reputational benefits to be had from adopting a quality-first policy and the department has done so. In addition to the centrally offered professional and development courses relating to career planning, the department has offered a series of workshops and seminars on grant and publication writing to encourage our less experienced researchers and academics to progress and put themselves forward for promotion. This was specifically requested by our early career researchers. This course will run again from January to May 2012.

Figure 2 provides numbers of staff applying for promotion in the last four years, we recognise that only one female member of staff has applied (successfully) for promotion. Key areas identified for improvement:

Increase applications from women to academic and research roles, and increase the proportion of interviewees.

Encourage promotion applications from both men and women, and provide the right tools for success.

b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Recruitment of staff – comment on how the department’s recruitment processes

ensure that female candidates are attracted to apply, and how the department ensures its short listing, selection processes and criteria comply with the university’s equal opportunities policies

Following an investigation of our recruitment process, the self-assessment team have identified a key area for potential improvement and change. Whilst the department ensures its advertising, short listing and criteria adhere to the university‟s equal opportunity policies we believe we could take a more pro-active approach to attracting the right female candidates. Action: Consider ways in which we could advertise future vacancies to attract a greater number of strong female candidates to vacancies within our department. The Department has a dedicated person, the Executive Officer, who deals with the appropriate documentation for the recruitment process, in line with the University Recruitment Policy. The short listing and interview panel composition for academic, research and teaching posts comply with University regulations and where possible, include a female member of staff, whether from another department or internally. The short listing and interview panel have an understanding of diversity and adhere to the University's Equal Opportunities Employment Policy. During short listing, the preferred candidates are selected by how they meet the essential and desirable criteria for the post. All academic staff attend recruitment training, both to enhance their own personal development and understanding, and as a pre-requisite for involvement with the recruitment process within the Department.

(ii) Support for staff at key career transition points – having identified key areas of attrition of female staff in the department, comment on any interventions, programmes and activities that support women at the crucial stages, such as personal development training, opportunities for networking, mentoring programmes and leadership training. Identify which have been found to work best at the different career stages.

We have sought to improve the management function within the Department. Eight members of CS staff have attended or are attending a seven-module course on “Leadership in Action”. Three of the eight are women. Successive cohorts graduate and enter into a University-wide support network. The course covers many issues, and seeks to develop general management skills, some of which are particularly relevant to Athena Swan, e.g. mentoring and coaching. These skills will inevitably prove useful over the coming years. Consultations in 2009 with RAs identified naivety with respect to promotion as a significant weakness in the Department. We have created a “Development Forum” for RAs and newer staff, addressing issues that affect them as part of a series of lunchtime seminars/work-ins. The series has included a session hosted by the Department‟s representative on the University‟s Promotions Committee. The sessions are highly participatory with topics suggested by attendees in advance. We also overhauled our performance review system. The DHoD Research now reviews all performance review forms for RAs to determine opportunities/suggestions for promotion, and also to comment on training. This has been a long-term weakness in the Department, and we are aware that career advice and support is needed to ensure that staff progress to promotions or other career transitions. Our PhD students run the annual York Doctoral Symposium (which attracts papers from the UK and abroad) but also acts as a very useful collaborative and bonding activity, as well as technical training regarding paper preparation and conference management. The conference is significantly subsidised by the Department. (word count: 898)

5. Career development

a) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Promotion and career development – comment on the appraisal and career

development process, and promotion criteria and whether these take into consideration responsibilities for teaching, research, administration, pastoral work and outreach work; is quality of work emphasised over quantity of work?

All members of the department undertake a yearly performance review with their line manager. This allows staff a chance to undertake a personal review of their achievements over the last year and form plans for the coming year, including looking at meeting the criteria needed for promotion and putting together career objectives. The performance review form is to be improved by adding a section on training. Again, this is to assess whether training goals for the current year have been met, and to set targets for the next. By making this explicit in the review form, it is intended that both managers and reviewee‟s will have to consider the issue. The HoD oversees the whole process. In terms of training, the University offers a wide range of courses as part of its Professional and Organisational Development (POD) scheme. These include courses on very specific issues, such as presentation skills and email managements, but also more general courses such as Leadership and Management in Action. Future aims are to encourage all members of staff to attend more POD courses, particularly those which can help with their careers. Explicit mentoring schemes are not currently offered in the department, however informal mentoring does take place. As part of the Athena SWAN initiative, an official mentoring scheme is to be implemented, offering both female and male staff the opportunity to talk to a mentor who has reached the next stage in their career. The aim is to encourage and offer advice. The option of having a mentor from another science department is being examined, thus providing the option of independent opinions and advice if preferred. When a member of staff decides it is time to apply from promotion they have to follow the university‟s official promotion process. The promotion criteria are provided on the University‟s main website, although they are not easy to find. This department will provide its own portal and links to the criteria to help staff in the future. The process involves submitting a factual report which clearly states how the candidate believes they have met the promotion criteria. In addition, they must provide a CV in a standard format, including information on research publications, research funding successfully brought in, teaching (both locally and promotion of learning in the wider community, including outreach and professional development), and administrative activities. The application should be supported by supplementary information as necessary. Quality is emphasised by the promotion panel, particularly in terms of our own criteria. The need to explicitly recognise the importance of mentoring and pastoral care has been identified.

We have had only one female applicant only, but she was successful. Two out of the three recent external recruitments of new professors were women. The department actively undertakes outreach in local schools and the community. This is of great importance in a competitive market for undergraduate students, and to get students from diverse backgrounds. Over the last few years we have seen year-on-year increases in the absolute numbers of female undergraduates in the department, and we hope this is, in part, a result of these activities. (ii) Induction and training – describe the support provided to new staff at all levels, as

well as details of any gender equality training. To what extent are good employment practices in the institution, such as opportunities for networking, the flexible working policy, and professional and personal development opportunities promoted to staff from the outset?

The University has well defined induction and training guidelines, again these are available to view on the main website. There is a checklist of general material that staff are expected to know, from practical information on health and safety and locations, to diversity in the workplace. Locally, other career related training, such as EPSRC study days, are offered. For staff formal participation in on-line equality training is mandatory. Compliance with the checklist is recorded within the department. RSs have an intensive introduction week where they get to meet other students, learn about the PhD process and various technical skills, and also what resources are available for self improvement. There is a formal flexible working policy, although many more informal arrangements are allowed at the discretion of staff and their managers. The Athena SWAN team put out a flexible working survey, asking staff about their current arrangements, how these helped them cope day–to-day, and what improvements could be made. Results of the survey can be seen in the answers to Question 6. Recently our staff have started informal cakes meetings with the aim of removing barriers between staff, RAs, and research students and promoting a sense of social cohesion within the Department. Essentially, research groups take turns to bake cakes for whoever turns up to eat. These have been very successful, e.g. with upwards of 50 people coming along some weeks. We feel we can learn from this; it clearly fills a need and was an idea spawned by some of our RAs. In addition the RSs run their own forum (and their own RS symposium each year). As indicated previously we have a Development Forum for early career researchers. This now runs each year, and includes a session on career development and how to get on in academia generally. The series of seminars covers some staples (e.g. issues faced when supervising a project for the first time) but is also a forum for discussing whatever topics are causing concern or interest for our early career researchers. Appropriate senior staff may be found to help.

We have identified a need for a more hands-on approach to training in particular, and our latest lecturing appointee has been asked to promote training to RSs. Previously, in response to RA concerns, the previous newest appointee (who had previously been the RA forum convenor) worked with RAs, DHoD-R and the University centre to create our RA training programme. The DHoD-R overhauled the performance review criteria to ensure that career development issues were addressed as part of this process. (iii) Support for female students – describe the support (formal and informal) provided

for female students to enable them to make the transition to a sustainable academic career, particularly from postgraduate to researcher, such as mentoring, seminars and pastoral support and the right to request a female personal tutor. Comment on whether these activities are run by female staff and how this work is formally recognised by the department.

There are POD training courses available for all research students, such as “Preparing Future Academics”, which students are encouraged to take, and can help them make the transition to an academic career. These can be booked and browsed on a local “skills forge” web area. At present there is no formal policy or guideline to help female (or male) students make the transition to an academic career. It depends on both the student and supervisor. As noted above, the need for an official mentoring scheme has been identified and will be implemented. One area of concern is that there are few female staff at present, therefore they will not be able to mentor many students without impacting on their own time and career. Again, as noted, we will explore the possibility of using mentors from other departments, and may be able to provide female mentors from those with a better gender balance. (word count for Q5: 1090)

6. Organisation and culture

a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

(i) Male and female representation on committees – provide a breakdown by

committee and explain any differences between male and female representation. Explain how potential members are identified.

Male & Female Representation on Committees 2010/11

Female Male

Board of Studies (incl student reps) 5 61

Departmental Teaching Committee 4 6

Masters Teaching Committee 1 13

Research Studies Committee 1 5

Board of Examiners

Executive Committee of the Board of Studies in CS/Maths 1 4

MRes Computational Biology Combined Board of Studies & Executive

Committee 1 5

Departmental Research Committee 1 9

Computing and IT Infrastructure Committee 2 10

Safety, Health, Environment and Fire Committee 1 7

Heads Advisory Group (ex-officio, professors and group leaders) 2 15

Industrial Advisory Board (in attendance from CS) 0 4

Operations Committee 6 5

Departmental Management Team 1 6

Mitigating Circumstances Committee Single Subject 1 2

Combined CS/Maths 0 4

HR Committee 3 5

There are currently 4 influential and highly research active female academic staff from 42 in total. These small numbers mean that it is essential to identify with these staff important tasks where they can make a particularly effective contribution consistent with Departmental needs and individual career goals. Our female academic staff have performed the following roles:

Susan Stepney: Associate Head of Department for the purposes of managing £40M CS elements of our new campus. She sits on YCCSA Hub management committee. YCCSA is an inter-disciplinary collaboration comprising around 80 researchers. Susan established a research group in natural computation with a long-term goal of engaging in transformational trans-disciplinary research. On return form sabbatical, in January 2012, she will assume the position of Director of YCCSA. YCCSA has become the largest cross-disciplinary initiative in the University and is regarded as a model for other initiatives. As co-founder of YCCSA Susan is a natural choice for this post.

Helen Petrie has previously undertaken the role of Chair of our Sciences Ethics Committee and Chair University Physical Sciences Committee. She is a recent ACM Social Impact Award winner. As Head of the HCI group at York and previously a professor in a psychology department, she has the greatest experience of ethical issues within scientific work and their resolution.

Ana Cavalcanti (a reader) is the newly appointed Chair of the Research Studies Committee (which deals with all matters concerning the management of our PhD and related research degrees). She is a high profile researcher in formal techniques. Her immediately previous work on our Seminar Series was received very well by the whole Department. Chairing RSC (and sitting ex officio on DRC) will broaden research management experience.

Fiona Polack has previously been Chair of Board of Studies, and recently chaired the committee responsible for implementing modularisation across all our programmes. This is the biggest strategic change in our teaching programmes ever. Fiona‟s detailed knowledge of the Department and University made her ideally suited to take on this role.

Roles are discussed by the HoD and Deputy Heads annually, preceded by a performance review process where staff identify what contributions they would like to make (both short term and longer term). We have recently established a workload model, which also informs decisions. We place emphasis on personal career goals. For some of our female staff this may mean discouraging further administrative duties to concentrate on their personal research. Two of our female academic staff are on sabbatical this year. Another was on sabbatical last year. The fourth is likely to be seconded for 9 months as visiting professor to a European university in the near future. We keen to support the research careers of our female staff in this way and will encourage further sabbatical and related applications from them. Our primary aim is to encouarge ambition, and assist our staff achieve their personal career goals. We believe representation issues can only be solved in a sustainable and fair fashion by increasing the number of women in the department capable of contributing.

(ii) Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and open-ended (permanent) contracts – comment on any differences between male and female staff representation on fixed-term contracts and say what is being done to address them.

Fixed Term Contract Female Male Academic 0 1 Research 0 24

All of our female academic and research staff are currently on open contracts. This is largely due to a combination of a low turnover rate and the university‟s policy whereby staff are moved from fixed to open after 5 years of continuous employment.

b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Representation on decision-making committees – comment on evidence of

gender equality in the mechanism for selecting representatives. What evidence is there that women are encouraged to sit on a range of influential committees inside and outside the department? How is the issue of ‘committee overload’ addressed where there are small numbers of female staff?

Women have made a major contribution to decision making committees. Ultimately, all responsibility for duties lies with the Head of Department, who takes advice from Deputy and Associate Heads. The Head of Department examines all staff performance review documentation. Susan and Helen sit (ex officio) on a professorial advisory group, which assists the Head of Department in discussing important strategic issues. A post of Associate Head was created for Susan to promote and manage CS interests in the development of our new campus facilities. Susan also sits on the YCCSA Hub Management committee. Polack has chaired the Board of Studies (responsible for all aspects of teaching), the projects standards committee, and modularisation (perhaps the most important strategic exercise in teaching we have carried out). She currently sits on University Special Cases Committee. Helen has chaired the University Physical Sciences Ethics Committee. Ana is the new chair of Research Student Committee. We fully appreciate the issue of “committee overload”. Our female staff participate by negotiation on various committees and we accept that some committees may have little or indeed no female representation. We aim to achieve a balance across the department that is fair to all individuals. Staff inclined to contribute to the University level committees are encouraged to do so.

Open Contract Female Male Academic 4 37 Research 4 11

Also we are conscious that committee representation is one axis on which contribution may be measured. Each of our female staff has made significant contributions to committee work. All four female academic staff are highly research active. Their careers are arguably helped best right now by demonstration of research activity. It is quite conceivable that the level of female academic representation will decrease, as staff move to bolster their research activity. (ii) Workload model – describe the systems in place to ensure that workload

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

We have recently introduced a workload model for academic staff that seeks to model various research, teaching, and administrative loads. The model is gender-blind, recording contributions to the department and university in different areas. The interpretation of the resulting loading figures is then at the discretion of HoD and Departmental Management Team, where gender issues may be considered, if relevant. The promotions pro-forma asks HoD to comment on an applicant‟s load, in comparison to the departmental norm. At present, all 4 female academics appear in the top half of the loading table, which is not unreasonable given that they are all influential and research active.

(iii) Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings – provide evidence of

consideration for those with family responsibilities, for example what the department considers to be core hours and whether there is a more flexible system in place.

The Department operates a general policy of flexible working. Staff meetings are generally held at lunch times. UG examiners meetings usually take place between 10am and 1pm, post-graduate examiners meetings start at either 1000 or 1400 and generally last around an hour and a half. Departmental Research Committee meetings start at 1000 (approx 2 hours). Professorial advice to HoD is held as a lunchtime meeting. The exception is our Board of Studies meetings. These are Wednesday afternoons at 1530. The timing of this meeting has been identified as an area for planning improvement. All research group meetings are at lunchtime. Each year academic staff are asked to submit their requirements for scheduling of teaching. Staff are asked to supply constraints to the DHoD (Teaching) with justification. Staff with family responsibilities may indicate, for example, that very early or very late lectures would be inappropriate. The department supports applications for constraints on timetabling due to family commitments, but ultimately timetabling is a University matter, and we cannot

make guarantees: each staff constraint accepted has an effect on others and complicates the process. Staff are expected to fulfil their administration, supervision (research and teaching) and other responsibilities effectively. However, the department takes a flexible approach as to how this is achieved. Staff can make one-off or short-term accommodations to personal needs by negotiating with those they need to work with and by making convenient arrangements. For example, more recently staff have been able to conduct and/or participate in meetings (where appropriate) via skype or conference call. (iv) Culture –demonstrate how the department is female-friendly and inclusive. ‘Culture’

refers to the language, behaviours and other informal interactions that characterise the atmosphere of the department, and includes all staff and students.

The department has recently moved to a new building which is especially designed to create a collegial atmosphere. Offices of RSs, RAs, lecturers and professors are in close proximity. Corridors have evenly distributed break-out spaces that encourage researchers to interact, have lunch or coffee together and stop for friendly chats. The overall atmosphere is very collegial and all examinations and reviews are blind where possible, ensuring fair evaluation based strictly on merits. Performance feedback is high allowing staff to appreciate what they can do to improve. Meetings are typically collegial in tone and well managed. There is a long-standing ethos of personal respect within the department. We are international in outlook, both in terms of academic collaborative research engagement, and in terms of the students who come here to study and research. Our continued success depends on us being able to respect individuals and acknowledge what they have to offer. We just “don‟t do” disparaging and out-dated views on equality matters. Personal lifestyle choices, for example, have been respected for a long time within the department. We believe there is an underlying mindset within the department that leads to a strong social pressure to refrain from aggressive or demeaning behaviours. The University regards inclusivity as a key objective and is committed to it. We always have recourse to policy and disciplinary action if this is needed, but believe a pervasive commitment to personal respect is extremely powerful. We are aware a common public view still exists that men are somehow by nature better at some technical fields (e.g. programming). This view is in no way shared by the department. The department will continue to battle such outdated views by encouraging Girl Geek events and attracting prominent female speakers to enlighten and inform on gender equality.

(v) Outreach activities – comment on the level of participation by female and male staff in outreach activities with schools and colleges and other centres. Describe who the programmes are aimed at, and how this activity is formally recognised as part of the workload model and in appraisal and promotion processes.

DATE ACTIVITY MALE STAFF

FEMALE STAFF

MALE STUDENTS

FEMALE STUDENTS

March 2009 Aim Higher 1 April 2009 Local schools

partnership 1 1

April 2009 York Science Trail 1 1 1

June 2009 Barnsley school visit 1 1 2

July 2009 Headstart 7 2 2 July 2009 York Summer

School 1 1

November 2009

Bridlington school visit

1 1 1

March 2010 Science taster 1 April 2010 York Science Trail 1 1 May 2010 Morley school visit 1 May 2010 Bridlington school

visit 1 1 1

June 2010 Pakistan school visit 1 July 2010 Headstart 7 2 1 1 July 2010 STEM Residential 1 2 July 2010 Visit to Thirsk

School 2

July 2010 Farnborough Air Show

2 1

March 2011 Maths Taster 1 March 2011 York Science Trail 2 5 2

April 2011 Visit by Ripon Grammar

1

June 2011 Visit by Pocklington School

1

July 2011 Headstart 7 3 2 1 July 2011 York College 6th

Form 1

The majority of outreach activities are undertaken by a small team of academic staff, who are responsible for admissions and schools liaison. It so happens that these roles are currently filled by male staff. However, collection of these data has led us to consider whether it would be appropriate to make more use of female staff in outreach activities. The exception is the annual HeadStart summer school, run for the Engineering

Development Trust: this has involved our senior female academics giving talks on research topics. (word count for Q6: 1572) 7. Flexibility and managing career breaks

a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning.

Maternity & Paternity Leave 2008 to Date

Grade 2008 2009 2010 2011

Statutory Paternity (Birth)

Professorial 1

8 1

7 1 1 1

6 1

5 2

4 1

Maternity

7 1 5 1 4 1 1

(i) Maternity return rate – comment on whether maternity return rate in the department

has improved or deteriorated and any plans for further improvement. If the department is unable to provide a maternity return rate, please explain why.

Since 2008 our department has experienced a 100% return rate following maternity leave. Whilst the number of female staff taking maternity is relatively small, all are supported to return to work under conditions suited to their family commitments and in line with our flexible working policy. (ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake – comment on the uptake of

paternity leave by grade and parental and adoption leave by gender and grade. Has this improved or deteriorated and what plans are there to improve further.

We understand that every male member of staff has taken at least one week of their two week paternity leave entitlement following the birth of their child. Our recent staff survey revealed that some chose to return to work following one week‟s leave due to the financial

constraints associated with taking a second week at reduced pay. In these instances the department is always happy to allow staff to take holiday directly or shortly after the period of paternity leave to extend their time at home. The department adopts a very informal and supportive approach to offering flexibility around family commitments. This approach enables academic and research members of staff returning to work following paternity leave to work hours to fit in with their new domestic demands, whilst support and administrative members of staff are able to utilise the flexi-time system to achieve a work-life balance. We have not received any applications for parental or adoption leave in the last three years, however, we would fully support those in the future. (iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and

grade – comment on any disparities. Where the number of women in the department is small applicants may wish to comment on specific examples.

Due to our largely informal and flexible approach to working arrangements we do not hold a record of applications and success rates for flexible working. It is very much our ethos to encourage all employees to discuss any requirements/constraints directly with their manager and agree a solution to best suit all within the team. Recent results of our staff survey confirm this arrangement is both appreciated and implemented to great success across all grades and roles in the department.

b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what

steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed.

(i) Flexible working – comment on the numbers of staff working flexibly and their

grades and gender, whether there is a formal or informal system, the support and training provided for managers in promoting and managing flexible working arrangements, and how the department raises awareness of the options available.

We do not have any staff on a formal flexible working arrangement. This is mostly due to the informal way in which the department approaches working hours and enables flexibility. However, some staff have negotiated to work less than 100% FTE. All academic and teaching staff are required to fulfil their teaching timetable, as agreed at the beginning of each term, and attend departmental and supervisory meetings. However, out with these times, they are able to work, within reasonable hours, to best suit their commitments both in and outside of work. Similarly researchers, by mutual agreement with the group head, are able to work very flexibly in terms of hours of work, to suit their working style and achieve a work-life balance. We believe enabling this kind of flexibility and individuality not only allows people to achieve a healthy balance, but also to work to their best ability.

Our administrative and support staff work to a flexi-time system. This system ensures all staff are working core hours (10am-12noon and 2pm-4pm) whilst offering flexibility on start and end times. Feedback from our survey suggests this scheme is successful and offers a great deal of flexibility without the need for continuous consultation with management. The system also allows staff to work extra hours during busy spells and take back the time at a later date. Staff are able to take up three days flexi-time per quarter under the scheme.

(ii) Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return – explain what the

department does, beyond the university maternity policy package, to support female staff before they go on maternity leave, arrangements for covering work during absence, and to help them achieve a suitable work-life balance on their return.

Prior to taking maternity leave the line manager and member of staff will meet regularly, initially to discuss start and return dates, but also to book in any holidays to be taken prior to the period of leave. Subsequent meetings take place to monitor workload, discuss cover, and offer general support to the member of staff. The department has also allowed home working in the later stages of pregnancy to ease the pressure and discomfort of travelling to and from the workplace, especially during spells of bad weather. In another case annual leave has been used to reduce the working week from five days to four in the last two months of work to ease the strain of full- time working. To aid the transition of returning to work one member of staff worked from home one day a week, which fitted in with their childcare arrangements. This greatly helped them in achieving a suitable work-life balance and easing themselves back into their role after a year out of the workplace. Whilst the department does not have a uniform approach to supporting female staff prior, during and after maternity leave that goes beyond university policy, we have always, and will continue to strive to offer flexibility and support tailored to the individuals needs.

Flexible Working Survey – Overview of Results 70 participants:

31 academic/research staff

16 Support Staff

8 Research Students

75% Male vs. 25% Female Q1. Do you currently have a formal or informal flexible working arrangement? 68% - Yes 32% - No Q2. Have you taken a period of leave in the last four years? Maternity leave – 3

Paternity leave – 7 Prolonged Sick leave – 3 Several of those who have taken paternity leave only took one week at full pay and opted to take a second as holiday. Q3. Do you know the policy and your entitlements with regard to maternity, paternity and adoption? 37% - Yes 43% - No 20% - unsure Q4. Are you aware of the University’s flexible working policy and how it works? 39% - Yes 35% - No 26% - Unsure Some of the overarching comments regarding the department‟s flexible approach to working included:

The departmental flexi scheme helps me to manage my workload as well as any demands outside work;

Appreciate the improvement in my work/life balance, also a good form of recognition that some times are busier than others;

Helps in achieving a better work and home balance;

The informal approach helps to maintain goodwill and makes the academic job more pleasant;

The ability to work from home for considerable periods is vastly more effective and efficient;

Helps to manage the school run and see children before bedtime;

The informal flexi system allows us to accommodate things during the day e.g. children‟s medical appointments, school meetings that would otherwise be impossible.

Support on return (from maternity leave) was excellent...I was allowed to come back part time for a couple of months to ease back in.

Would like the flexible working policy clearly signposted on our intranet for easy navigation.

(Q7 word count: 1052) (Total word count for Supporting and Advancing Women’s Careers: 4612)

8. Any other comments – maximum 500 words Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other SET-specific initiatives of special interest that have not been covered in the previous sections. Include any other relevant data (e.g. results from staff surveys), provide a commentary on it and indicate how it is planned to address any gender disparities identified. Looking Outside the Department In preparing our application we have clearly focussed on what the Department can do. However, there is scope for collaboration outside the Department. We noted earlier that we are not „going it alone‟, and that colleagues and friends are prepared to invest time to help us. Science City York (SCY) is an organisation formed in partnership between the University of York and City of York Council to develop a strong knowledge-based local economy. They have offices in the Ron Cooke Hub, which houses many of CS‟s researchers who engage in interdisciplinary work. SCY have very many contacts with local businesses and wider networks as well as great familiarity with the two founding organisations. They have substantial experience with local and wider development organisations. To date we have not sought to leverage this expertise on our doorstep. However, it seems entirely appropriate for us to determine how SCY can help the Athena SWAN programme here. We shall explore what York City Council does, or could do, to help us with our Athena SWAN goals and what we can do in return. We will also benefit from the understanding and experience of early Athena SWAN adopters within the University. They can provide, not only further ideas for improvement, but also advise on potential obstacles and strategies to overcome them, with all benefiting from coordinated actions and efforts. Gillian Arnold (with experience both with a giant organisation – IBM – and setting up and running her own business) has already spoken at York and is happy to come back again, particularly for our undergraduates. Sue Black has agreed to deliver a public lecture in the New Year on “Building Bletchley Park”. We will leverage our extensive contacts in academia, commerce and industry to ensure further role models are visible to our female staff and students. We also hope to host a Hopper Colloquium here. (word count: 313)

9. Action plan

Acti

on

Description of action

Action taken already and outcome at Nov 2011

Further action planned (Insert Date)

Progress Log

Responsibility Timescale Start date

Success Measure

1 Baseline Data and Supporting Evidence

1.1 Monitor UG & PG student & applicant data by gender Annual report to

- Board of Studies/Research Studies Committee

- Annual Programme Reviews

- Athena SWAN Working Group

Data collected for entry and for cohorts; local systems fit for purpose; data moving towards national figures Focus groups of female students

Monitoring of student attrition rates & attainment (by gender)

CS Academic Support Office

SPT2012

onwards Attain or

increase above national figures/ previous year‟s figures.

1.2 Monitor national data for all student groups

Data collected, annual continuation required

CS Recruitment Team

SPT2012

onwards Closer

Attendance

1.3 Monitor staff appointments Annual report to

- HR Committee

- Athena SWAN working group

Equal opportunity forms; short list and decision grids collected for most appointments. No evidence of discrimination

Encourage uptake of EO training and increase return of forms

HoD Office SPT2012

onwards

1.4 Monitor the promotion rates by gender to be reviewed by HR Committee

Data already produced, ongoing monitoring required.

Departmental Executive Officer, HoD‟s

SPT2012

onwards Obtain a

gender balance in applications and success rates.

3 Key Career Transition Points, Appointments and Promotions

3.1 Remind all recruiting panels of recruitment and selection training

One-off circular to all academic staff, and update to procedure for admin when circulating CVs

HoD‟s Office SPT2012 1/12/11

All shortlisting staff aware of issue.

3.2 Consider ways to encourage promotion of our existing female staff and attract new talent.

-

HR 01/01/12 -31/12/14

01/01/12

Promotion success rates and recruitment of female staff.

4 Career Advice and Support

4.1 Begin consultation plan for implementation of a Mentoring Scheme

RS‟s consulted on their thoughts.

Athena SWAN Working Group

SPT2012

onwards

Plan in place by August 2012

5 Culture, Communications and Departmental Organization

5.1 Organise sessions with interesting/influential female speakers to help networking and to provide both academic and non-academic input.

Personnel Committee

01/01/12 – 01/12/14 (12 meetings over 3 years)

Increase awareness and inclusion among female computer scientists and too attract new members

5.2 Monitor committee membership

Committee membership reviewed annually – gender balance achieved

Continue HoD Office SPT2012

onwards Maintain

gender balance on committees whilst being mindful of workloads.

6 Career breaks/flexible working

6.1 Ensure managers and staff are aware of parental leave, return to work and flexible working policies widely.

HR policies highlighted on intranet.

HR Committee SPT2012

onwards Advertise

and update web-site regularly.

6.2 Promote career success stories of women in the Department widely and on the web to staff and applicants.

Maintain posters and publicity materials

Marketing Co-ordinator, Executive Officer

SPT2012

onwards 2-3 Case

Studies by Autumn term 2012

7 Outreach Activities

7.1 Visit schools/colleges and do talks on what it is like to be a computer scientist. Use video flyers and literature which addresses barriers to entry and makes CS sound achievable and exciting.

Videos and literature available

est. 10 sessions over 3 years

SPT2012 onwards

Monitor undergraduate intake, compare against previous years.

Notes and Key to Action Plan:

1. HoD = Head of Department

2. HoG = Head of Research Group

3. RA = Research Associate

4. RSC = Research Studies Committee

Start Date Code Already embedded/completed Spring Term 2012 SPT2012 Summer Term 2012 ST2012 Autumn Term 2012 AT2012 Spring Term 2013 SPT2013 Summer Term 2013 ST2013 Academic Year 2012-2013 AY2012-2013 Completed since November 2011 Completed