athena swan bronze department award applicationathena swan bronze department award application ....

1

Athena SWAN Bronze department award application Name of university: Heriot Watt University

Department: Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society

Date of application: November 2015

Date of university Bronze award: University Bronze Award November 2013

Contact for application: Dr Gina Netto

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 0131 451 8027

Departmental website address:

http://www.hw.ac.uk/schools/energy-geoscience-infrastructure-society

Athena SWAN Bronze 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 Officer well in advance to check eligibility.

It is essential that the contact person for the application is based in the department.

2

Table 1: Glossary of terms used in the application Abbreviation Meaning ABP Architecture, Building & Planning AE Architectural Engineering CE Civil Engineering CESBD Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Building Design CMS Construction, Management & Surveying CPD Continuing Professional Development DoI Director of Institute EGIS School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure & Society E&T Engineering & Technology Geo Geology HoS Head of School HRD Human Resources & Development HWU Heriot-Watt University IDL Independent Distance Learning IIE Institute for Infrastructure & Environment IPE Institute of Petroleum Engineering I-SPHERE Institute for Social Policy, Housing, Environment & Real Estate PDR Performance & Development Review PE Petroleum Engineering PI Principal Investigator PGR Postgraduate Research PGT Postgraduate Taught RKEB Research & Knowledge Exchange Board (University committee) SAT Athena SWAN Self Assessment Team School School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure & Society Survey EGIS Athena SWAN Academic and Researcher Survey UG Undergraduate US Urban Studies WiP Women in Property

Table 2: Mapping HWU job titles to UK job titles Grade New HW job titles UK academic job titles

6 Research Assistant Research Assistant Teaching Assistant Teaching Assistant

7 Research Associate Research Associate Assistant Professor Lecturer A, Teaching Fellow A

8

Research Fellow Research Fellow Assistant Professor Lecturer B, Teaching Fellow B

9 Associate Professor Senior Lecturer, Reader 10 Professor Professor, Professorial Fellow

Important note: We have been given authorisation by ECU to apply as a School. The School is our management unit, across which we share process and practice, where management and budget decisions are made. Both staff and student recruitment is managed at School level, as are staff development & performance review as well as promotion planning. The constituent Institutes which make up the School act as de facto research groups.

3

HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF ENERGY, GEOSCIENCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOCIETY

ATHENA SWAN BRONZE DEPARTMENTAL APPLICATION

1. Letter of Endorsement

1st December 2015

Dear Athena SWAN Assessment Panel

I have been employed as a Head of School at Heriot-Watt University since 2008; first as Head of the School of the Built Environment (SBE) and, since August 2014, as Head of the School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society (EGIS), which was created by merging SBE with the Institute of Petroleum Engineering (IPE). Throughout, I have endeavoured to ensure that the school for which I am responsible provides a culture and working practices that enable all colleagues – including students, academics and non-academic staff – to reach their full potential. In addition, I seek to influence the broader university agenda, and to lead by example, through membership of both the university’s Equality and Diversity Group and Athena SWAN Strategy Committee.

My personal commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity for women predates the preparation of this submission and is founded on the conviction that the ambition, commitment and career aspirations of our female staff and students should be supported in full. This commitment arises not only from an inherent belief in the principles of gender equality but also from recognition that the success of our school requires the identification and nurturing of talent from as broad a pool as possible, through addressing inequality and ensuring best management practice.

I was delighted when Heriot-Watt University received its Bronze Award in 2013, as this added momentum to activities we were already undertaking at school-level including (1) ensuring visibility of strong female role models in research (two of our four Directors of Research Institutes are women) and (2) ensuring equality of representation on our most senior decision-making body, the School Management Group (50% of members are female, of whom 38% are academics). While these have been positive steps, the self-assessment presented in our application demonstrates that much remains to be done. The self-assessment has been an immensely helpful exercise in identifying and diagnosing problems, and in our action plan we have attempted to set out a series of coherent strategies to provide solutions to the issues identified. Key areas for action include: School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh EH14 4AS United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0) 131 449 5111 www.hw.ac.uk/egis Heriot-Watt University is a Charity registered in Scotland, SC000278

4

• Mentoring and advising on career development, including ensuring those who play amentoring role are appropriately trained;

• Enhancing personal development review quality through improved guidance and trainingto PDR reviewers;

• Supporting staff before, during and after career breaks;• Addressing specific cultural challenges relating to lack of career progression and

development for female staff in IPE.

Already we have taken action including (1) establishment of a school-level promotions panel; (2) clear guidelines to hold key meetings between 10am and 4pm; (3) staff sponsorship for the Aurora Women in Leadership programme; and (3) celebrations of Women in Engineering Day and Ada Lovelace Day. Budget and staff resource are set aside for all of these vital activities. I am confident that when our action plan is fully implemented as set out in our application we will have made solid progress towards addressing gender inequality issues within the school.

Yours sincerely

Gareth Pender

Professor Gareth Pender Head of School T: (0) 131 451 3312 E: [email protected]

[482 words]

5

2. The Self Assessment Process The initiation of our Athena SWAN activity precedes the creation of EGIS (Energy, Geosciences, Infrastructure and Society), through the merger of the School of the Built Environment (SBE) and the Institute of Petroleum Engineering (IPE). We originally started the process with two Self - Assessment Teams (SATs); one for SBE and one for IPE. Discussions following the merger resulted in merging of the SAT teams. At all times we have endeavoured to meet the requirements for an Athena SWAN SAT. Table 3 reflects the current EGIS SAT membership, in place since June 2015 (Appendix 1 shows the membership of the earlier two SATs). Membership consists of academic and research staff from the four research institutes of the School; all academic career stages (including PhD) and all disciplines are represented, and the group demonstrates a broad range of life experience (Table 4). Key Professional Services staff are members, and the University’s Athena SWAN Officer and the School’s HRD partner attend SAT meetings as observers.

The current EGIS SAT has benefited from focused work previously undertaken by the two earlier SAT teams (Appendix 1), one of which involved staff from three research institutes (CESBD; IIE, and I-SPHERE) and one from the fourth institute, IPE. These SATs were formed prior to the merger which created the new School. Figure 1 summarises the self-assessment activity carried out by the two SAT teams and demonstrates how their work has been brought together over time.

Monthly SAT meetings were held throughout the process. SAT leads participated in quarterly meetings of the University’s Athena SWAN Champions Group, a peer support group for all School SAT leads.

The SAT leads for the two original SATs communicated weekly to facilitate a smooth transition to the new joined-up approach, and ensured all SAT members were consulted and involved in decision-making during that period.

Throughout the process, progress reports have been made to EGIS Management Board and staff have been updated via regular School meetings. Equate Scotland, Athena SWAN and HWU training events and critical friends have helped to inform the self-assessment process. This includes participation in Unconscious Bias training and staff recruitment.

6

Table 3: Membership of EGIS SAT Name Job Title Institute SAT Role Dr Dan Arnold Assistant Professor IPE Member Dr Caroline Brown Assistant Professor I-SPHERE Member, SAT survey data analysis group. Dr Elma Charalampidou Assistant Professor IPE Member, SAT Data Focus Group member Alison Hamilton-Pryde Assistant Professor CESBD Member Dr Samantha Ilott Assistant Professor IPE Member, Career Progression & PDR focus groups member Dr Oscar Vazquez Assistant Professor/Research Fellow IPE Member, Role, Responsibility & Workload focus group member Dr Scott Arthur Associate Professor IIE Member, Involved with student data analysis group Dr Vasily Demyanov Associate Professor IPE Member, Data focus group member Dr Michael Gormley Associate Professor CESBD Member of the survey analysis group on SAT. Dr Helen Lewis Associate Professor IPE Deputy SAT Lead, responsible for co-chairing SAT meetings; Academic Advancement and

Mentoring focus group member Dr Gabi Medero Associate Professor IIE Member, case study participant for career breaks Dr Gina Netto Associate Professor I-SPHERE Lead of SAT, responsible for co-chairing meetings of the SAT, leading the survey data analysis

group and the application process. Joy Jarvie PhD Student IIE Member, PhD representative on SAT. Mojtaba Moradi PhD Student IPE Member, PhD representative on SAT. Joanne Astbury Professional Services N/A SAT administrator / Project manager Anne Ormston Professional Services/Building

Superintendent N/A Member, Involved in the staff data analysis group on SAT and organising AS related events.

Rene OReilly Professional Services/CPD Manager N/A Member, Participant in all focus groups

Tom Hurst Professional Services/ Senior Administrative Assistant

N/A Member. Involved with the collation and analysis of student data.

Sarah Caldwell Professional Services/ Web Developer

N/A Member, Data focus group member

Professor Lynne Jack Professor/Deputy Head of School CESBD Member; Involved with the staff data analysis group on SAT.

Professor Omar Laghrouche Professor IIE Deputy SAT lead and involved with staff data analysis group on SAT.

Professor Fiona Grant Professor CESBD Member. Involved with the staff data analysis group on SAT.

Professor Sarah Johnsen Professorial Fellow I-SPHERE Involved with the survey data analysis group on SAT. Ailsa Strathie Research Associate IIE Member Dr Alexander Graham Research Associate IPE Member, Academic Advancement and Mentoring focus group lead

7

Table 4: Sample of Work Life Experiences of EGIS SAT, presented in an anonymised form due to its personal nature

Early career academic, combining part-time role with PhD studies Early career female academic with caring responsibilities for one child and combines part-time role with work for an external design practice. Early career researcher with open-ended contract. Recently married, a father of two who has begun to understand the impact of family life on careers of both parents Early-career academic on open-ended contract and first time mother Early-career researcher on fixed-term contract. Interested in retention and progression of women and care-givers at HWU, and how fixed-term contracts impact on this. Mid-career parent of two teenagers with experience of short term contract working and balancing family and work commitments Mid-career professional father of two and used to balancing work and family life Mid-career academic, father with family responsibilities, volunteering and community commitments Mid-career professional mother of two with part-time role. Mid-career female academic with focus on teaching responsibilities. Senior academic with several experiences of part-time working, sequential short-term contracts, flexible working hours and used to balancing work and family life. Dyslexic parent of disabled child in two academic career family. Parental caring role Senior academic. Father of three children, combines full-time role with shared caring responsibilities Senior career researcher responsible for his group’s consultancy and an active researcher. Parent of two children within two career family. Senior female academic with experience of mentoring female students and combines an active role in the professional body RICS. Senior academic. Mother with caring responsibilities for two children and a full-time role

Figure 1: Timeline of Self-Assessment Activities within EGIS

Jan-Mar 2014

Apr-Jun 2014

Jul-Sep 2014

Oct-Dec 2014

Jan-Mar 2015

Apr-Jun 2015

Jul-Sep 2015

Oct-Dec 2015

IPE Kick off mtgSchool wide briefingCall for SAT members and finalisedSAT away day/first meetingSAT meetingsGood practice checklist

Jan-Mar 2014

Apr-Jun 2014

Jul-Sep 2014

Oct-Dec 2014

Jan-Mar 2015

Apr-Jun 2015

Jul-Sep 2015

Oct-Dec 2015

SBE Kick off mtg(includes CESBD, Management group briefingIIE, I-SPHERE) School wide briefing

Call for SAT members and finalisedSAT away day/first meetingSAT meetingsGood practice checklist

Jan-Mar 2014

Apr-Jun 2014

Jul-Sep 2014

Oct-Dec 2014

Jan-Mar 2015

Apr-Jun 2015

Jul-Sep 2015

Oct-Dec 2015

Working Joint-SAT Team Building sessiontogether Staff/student data collection & reviewas EGIS Survey development/delivery

'New' SAT meetingsCross checking Good Practice ChecklistsAnalysis staff, student and survey dataFocus group development/deliverySelf-reflection & action planningApplication draftingSubmission

8

Design and analysis of the EGIS Athena SWAN Academic and Researcher Staff Survey (henceforth referred to as the Survey) forms an important component of the EGIS SAT joint work and action plan. Overall, a total of 110 out of 164 academic staff participated in the survey in July 2015, producing an overall response rate of 67%. Table 5 shows the participation in the staff survey by gender (50% male, 25% female; 25% gender not disclosed) and research institute.

Table 5: Gender and Institute of EGIS staff survey respondents

Gender CESBD IPE I-SPHERE IIE Prefer not to answer

Unknown Total

Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %

Male 17 61 33 73 8 57 17 74 7 32 0 0 82 50

Female 11 39 11 25 6 43 5 22 8 36 0 0 41 25

Prefer not to answer

0 0 1 2 0 0 1 4 7 32 0 0 9 5

Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 100 32 20

Total 28 100 45 100 14 100 23 100 22 100 32 100 164 100

Analysis of issues emerging from the staff survey revealed a number of issues which were common across research institutes as well as a few institute specific ones.

Plans for the future of the SAT

The SAT will continue to meet on a monthly basis for the first three months post-submission to clarify project governance e.g. ensuring that actions are clearly assigned and delivery initiated. It will then meet on a quarterly basis over the course of the next three years to monitor implementation of the plan and to adjust actions or their implementation where needed. The SAT will also seek to raise student and staff awareness of HWU wide Athena SWAN initiatives. Issues will be reported to both EGIS management and to HWU Athena SWAN management team.

The SAT will also prepare for the next Athena SWAN submission e.g. ensuring that School aspirations are understood early and that any new data requirements are met.

Action 16a: Establish annual collection of all data required by Athena SWAN, including benchmarks, with trends to be annually reviewed by the SAT, and a report presented to SMG with recommendations for action as required.

Action 16b: Undertake additional benchmarking activities to establish our progress including a staff survey and review of the Good Practice Checklist.

[577 words]

9

3. A PICTURE OF THE DEPARTMENT

The School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society (EGIS) is a multi-disciplinary school which undertakes a broad spectrum of research and teaching activities, spanning engineering oriented disciplines to the social sciences.

EGIS was created by the merger of the Institute of Petroleum Engineering (IPE) with three other institutes; (1) the Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Building Design (CESBD), (2) the Institute for Infrastructure and Environment (IIE) and (3) the Institute of Social Policy, Housing, Environment and Real Estate (I-SPHERE), which were formerly known as the School of the Built Environment. Together the four institutes now form one school (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Research institutes within EGIS

The Head of School, Professor Gareth Pender, has led the School in its previous and current guise since 2008. The School is made up of 123 academics, 42 research staff and 86 professional services staff (including technical services staff) and 316 PGR students (Table 6).

CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE IN SUSTAINABLE BUILDING

DESIGN (CESBD)

INSTITUTE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND

ENVIRONMENT (IIE)

INSTITUTE FOR PETROLEUM ENGINEERING (IPE)

INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL POLICY, HOUSING, ENVIRONMENT AND

REAL ESTATE (I-SPHERE)

SCHOOL OF ENERGY, GEOSCIENCE,

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SOCIETY (EGIS)

10

Table 6: The EGIS institutes - staff complement by gender Institute Director of

Institute Ac/Res

staff (F) Ac/Res

staff (%F) Ac/ Res

staff (M)

Ac/Res staff

(%M)

Total

Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Building Design (CESBD)

Professor Lynne Jack 16 38% 26 62% 42

Institute for Infrastructure & Environment (IIE)

Professor Peter Woodward

8 20% 32 80% 40

Institute of Petroleum Engineering (IPE)

Professor Dorrik Stow 11 17% 53 83% 64

Institute of Social Policy, Housing, Environment & Real Estate (I-SPHERE)

Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick

7 37% 12 63% 19

Research and teaching are managed, planned and delivered through the four institutes. The teaching disciplines covered by each institute are shown in Figure 3. All institutes deliver undergraduate degree programmes with the exception of IPE. All four institutes deliver postgraduate degree programmes.

11

Figure 3: Research Institutes (top line of diagram) aligned with teaching disciplines (in smaller boxes)

Responsibility for the management and executive decision-making in the School rests with the School’s Management Group, chaired by the Head of School. Membership, which is ex officio, is as follows:

• Head of School • Director of Teaching and Learning • Director of Research • Directors of the four research institutes • Director of Professional Services & School Registrar • School Financial Controller • HR partner

The School prides itself on its international reach, having a strong presence in the University’s two international campuses in Dubai, UAE and Putrajaya, Malaysia. Whilst our Athena SWAN application focuses on students and staff based in Scotland, the longer term goal being considered at HWU level is for good practice to be rolled out to Malaysia and Dubai campuses.

Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses The School is in the initial stages of implementing foundation courses, with one student in Civil Engineering and another in Architectural Engineering (AE)

CESBD

Construction Management and Quantity

Surveying

IIEArchitectural Engineering Civil

Engineering

IPE

Petroleum Engineering and

Geoscience

I-SPHERE

Urban Studies

12

Undergraduate male and female numbers

The number of full-time students in UG programmes from 2012/2013 for all disciplines is compared against national averages for each discipline (Figure 4).1 We do not currently offer a part-time UG mode of study.

Figure 4: UG male and female numbers full-time by academic year

The proportion of AE students who are female rose from 29% in 2012/13 to 47% in 2014/15, a figure significantly above the 2012/13 national value, 34%. The current proportion of women on the programme is pleasing and efforts will be made to ensure that this is maintained.

In Civil Engineering (CE), the proportion of students who are female show some variation albeit the value has been around 20% for the last three years. The percentage of 18% in 2013/14 is slightly above the national average of 15%.

The proportion of students who are female in Construction Management and Surveying (CMS) has fallen from 17% in 2012/13 to 11% in 2014/15. This figure is significantly below the national average of 34% and is of concern

In Urban Studies (US), the proportion of students who are female has risen over the last three years and at 48% in the last year, is now significantly above the national average, 34%.

1 National averages (for students) are calculated from the Athena SWAN benchmarking data 2012/13 file provided by ECU. AE, CMS and US are compared with Architecture, Building & Planning (ABP); CE is compared with Engineering & Technology (E&T); PE (shown in charts for postgraduate students) is compared with both Engineering & Technology (E&T) and Geology (Geo).

9,95531

4155

14,225728372

9,955282016

9,95536

4551

19,28075

5462

82,130288296322

19,280133108119

19,28062

5255

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

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (E&T) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

Arch

itect

ural

Engi

neer

ing

Civ

il En

gine

erin

g

Con

stru

ctio

nM

gt. a

ndSu

rvey

ing

Urb

anSt

udie

s

Female Male

13

Action to increase UG female applications, especially in CMS will be explained more fully under Applications, Offers and Acceptances.

Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught courses

Table 7 indicates the number of full and part-time students enrolled in each discipline.

Table 7 – Numbers of full time and part-time PGT students, including female students

Discipline 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Architectural Engineering

18(9) 25(10) 13(4) 7(1) 3(1) 5(2) 50% 40% 31% 14% 33% 40%

Civil Engineering 65(12) 61(7) 51(15) 9(1) 3(2) 3(1) 18% 11% 29% 11% 67% 33%

Construction Mgt. and Surveying

46(14) 51(13) 46(12) 11(2) 9(4) 13(6) 30% 25% 26% 18% 44% 46%

Petroleum Engineering

174(34) 227(59) 155(31) 0(0) 1(1) 1(1) 20% 26% 20% N/A 100% 100%

Urban Studies 60(23) 44(17) 46(21) 27(14) 10(3) 12(8) 38% 39% 46% 52% 30% 67%

Total 363(92) 408(106) 311(83) 54(18) 26(11) 34(18) 25% 26% 27% 33% 42% 53%

Full-Time PGT students enrolled: Total number (F

number)

Part-Time PGT students enrolled: Total number (F

number)

% of enrolled Full-Time PGT students who are female

% of enrolled Part-Time PGT students who are female

14

Figure 5: PGT male and female qualifiers in all disciplines

Figure 5 shows that the percentage of female PGT qualifiers compares favourably with the national average for US and CE, with slight variations.

In US, the percentage of female students completing PGT courses varies between 41% and 48% which is comparable with the national figure of 42%.

In CE, the proportion of qualifiers who are female varies between 12% and 22%. The national average was 23%.

In AE, over the last three years, the average proportion of qualifiers who are female was 29% compared to the national average of 42%. In CMS, the average percentage of qualifiers who are female was 26% over the three years, which is below the benchmark of 42%.

In PE, the percentage of qualifiers who are female is steadier varying between 20% and 26%. The chosen benchmarks of General Engineering and Geology show proportions of qualifiers who are female of 31% and 40%, respectively.

Action 10a: Investigate the reasons for the low completion rates of PGT students prioritising CMS and PE.

Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees Table 8 shows the number of full time and part-time PGR students. Numbers of part-time students are small relative to full-time ones in CE and US and larger relative to those in CMS and PE.

3,1654

68

3,58010

410

3,1651613

15

3,580270

505851

3,1653628

28

4,37519

1510

11,79036

3045

4,3755043

35

11,790400

174167176

4,3754141

32100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (E&T) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (E&T) 2012/13National Avg (Geo) 2012/13

2012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

Arch

itect

ural

Engi

neer

ing

Civ

ilEn

gine

erin

g

Con

stru

ctio

nM

gt. a

ndSu

rvey

ing

Petro

leum

Engi

neer

ing

Urb

anSt

udie

s

Female Male

15

Table 8: Numbers of full and part time PGR students in all disciplines

Discipline 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2012/13

Civil Engineering 24(10) 29(9) 32(11) 2(2) 4(3) 1(1) 42% 31% 34% 100%

Construction Mgt. and Surveying

41(8) 53(11) 38(10) 8(3) 11(2) 18(4) 20% 21% 26% 38%


76(17) 81(15) 79(14) 11(2) 14(3) 11(1) 22% 19% 18% N/A

Urban Studies 24(10) 36(15) 35(14) 4(1) 6(2) 5(1) 42% 42% 40% 25%

Total 165(45) 199(50) 184(49) 25(8) 35(10) 35(7) 27% 25% 27% 32%

Full-Time PGR students enrolled: Total number (F number)

Part-Time PGR students enrolled: Total number (F number)

% of enrolled Full-Time PGR students who are female

% of enrolled Pa who

16

Figure 6: Percentage of full-time PGR students in each discipline split by gender (The numbers of students are shown in the bars)

Figure 6 shows that the percentage of female students enrolled on PG research programmes in US, CE and PE compares favourably with the national average across the study period.

In CE, the percentage of female students enrolled is consistently above the national average of 24% (at 42%, 31% and 31%, beginning from 2012/13).

The percentage of female students in US is identical to the national average of 42% in 2012/13 and 2013/14, dropping slightly below to 40% in the last year.

The percentage of female students enrolled in PE research programmes was almost identical to the national average of 24% for E&T at 22% in 2012/13 but fell slightly to 19% in 2013/14 and 18% in 2014/15. Benchmarking these against the national average for Geology at 43% shows a larger shortfall ranging from 21% to 25%.

The percentage of PGR students enrolled in CMS is consistently below the national average of 42% ranging from 23% in 2013/14 to 30% in 2014/15, a difference ranging from 12 to 19%.

The data for AE is not presented here as this discipline’s PGR students are normally registered with US or CMS. This problem has been identified and registrations for this discipline will be addressed in the future.

Action to increase the number of female students enrolling on PGR courses is discussed under 'Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender'.

2,82010

911

5808

1110

2,820390

171514

580101514

9,07514

2021

8153342

28

9,075520

596665

815142121

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

National Avg (E&T) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (E&T) 2012/13National Avg (Geo) 2012/13

2012/132013/142014/15

National Avg (ABP) 2012/132012/132013/142014/15

Civ

ilEn

gine

erin

g

Con

stru

ctio

nM

gt. a

ndSu

rvey

ing

Petro

leum

Engi

neer

ing

Urb

anSt

udie

s

Female Male

17

Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees

Table 9 shows data related to female and male applications, offers and acceptances, at UG level. Data is provided for the last three years for all UG disciplines within EGIS. Percentages provided describe (1) the gender balance of the applicants, (2) for each gender, of those who applied, the percentage to receive an offer and (3) for each gender, of those who received an offer the percentage that accepted the offer.

Whilst, for CE, the percentage of applicants who are female has remained fairly constant, at about 16%, the percentage of AE applicants who are female has risen slightly from 32.3% to 35.7%, and in CMS, we see a general positive trend from 12.2% to 17.1%. Similarly, in US, the percentage of female applicants has increased from a higher baseline of around 28.4% to 44%.

In order to increase the numbers of female applicants the School has set targets for each discipline. By 2018, we will aim to raise the percentage of female applicants within AE to 45% and US to 50% of total applications. By the same year, we will aim to increase the percentage of female applicants for CE to 20% and CMS to 25%.

Action 10b: To achieve these targets, a gender equality impact assessment of UG recruitment strategies will be carried out, prioritising CMS and CE.

Table 9: UG applications, offers and acceptances (percentages describe (1) the gender balance of the applicants, (2) for each gender, of those who applied, the percentage to receive an offer and (3) for each gender, of those who received an offer the percentage that accepted the offer.)

UG UGArchitectural Engineering

F M F MCivil Engineering

F M F M2012/13 Accept 14 31 31.1% 32.6% 2012/13 Accept 29 106 34.9% 32.6%

Offer 45 95 73.8% 74.2% Offer 83 325 86.5% 72.5%Applicants 61 128 32.3% 67.7% Applicants 96 448 17.6% 82.4%

2013/14 Accept 19 19 34.5% 24.4% 2013/14 Accept 17 87 27.9% 24.4%Offer 55 78 84.6% 66.1% Offer 61 357 65.6% 71.3%Applicants 65 118 35.5% 64.5% Applicants 93 501 15.7% 84.3%


UG UG

F M F M F M F M2012/13 Accept 9 29 39.1% 19.3% 2012/13 Accept 6 19 35.3% 46.3%




Urban StudiesConstruction Mgt & Surveying

numbers % numbers %

numbers % numbers %

18

The table also shows that in all disciplines the percentage of offers made to female applicants, in comparison to the total number of female applicants, is in general high and compares well to the percentage of offers made to male applicants. In AE, 65% of female applicants were offered a place in the last year compared to just under 72% of male applicants. Similarly for CE, the percentage of offers made to female applicants is comparable to that made to male applicants, more than 65%, in the last two years. The percentage of offers made to female applicants to CMS is particularly high across the three years ranging from 85 to 95%. In US too, the percentage of offers to female applicants was very high ranging from about 80% to just under 90% of offers in 2013/14. Apart from AE, the percentages of offers made to female applicants are in general higher than the percentages of offers made to male applicants, but the small differences here do not cause concern.

With regards to acceptances overall, it can be seen that about a third of the applicants who were given an offer accepted in AE, CE and US. This observation is valid for both female and male applicants. There is no clear trend as sometimes a higher percentage of females accept offers than males and vice versa. In CMS, it is worth noting a much lower percentage of acceptances by female students compared to males.

Action 10d: To increase the percentage of acceptances in all disciplines, we will improve contact with individuals to whom offers have been made, prioritising CMS students.

Action 10c: We will undertake market research to understand why women may not take up an offer at HWU in these discipline, prioritising female CMS students.

Postgraduate Taught Courses

In a similar way, Table 10 below shows data related to female and male applications, offers and acceptances, at PGT level. This is shown for the last three years and for all PGT programmes within EGIS and includes full time and part-time students. Percentages provided describe (1) the gender balance of the applicants, (2) for each gender, of those who applied, the percentage to receive an offer and (3) for each gender, of those who received an offer the percentage that accepted the offer.

It is evident that the percentages of female applicants in AE and US are relatively stable, approaching 35% for AE and 45% for US. In CE there has been an encouraging rise in the percentage of female applications in the last year to just over 20% of total applications, whilst it was around 15% or below previously. For PE, the percentage increased slightly over the last three years to reach about 20%. In CMS, it is not possible to discern any trend in the last three years, with applications varying from just under 20% to slightly above 25%.

There is a clear trend showing that in all PGT programmes significantly more males are applying than females. The percentage of male applicants in comparison to the female applicants’ percentage varies from about double in AE, to more than 3 times in CE and CMS, to consistently more than four times in PE. In US, while the percentage of female applicants is below that of male applicants, the difference is smaller, about 20% in 2012/13 and 10% in the last two years.

By 2018 will aim to raise female applications in AE to 45% and female applications to 50% of the total number of applications. The target in CMS for female PGT applications is 30%. By the same

19

year, we will aim to raise the percentage of female applications in CE to 30% and in PE to 25% of the total number of applications.

Action 10b: To achieve these targets, a gender equality impact assessment of PG recruitment strategies will be carried out, prioritising CMS and PE.

Table 10: PGT applications, offers and acceptances (percentages describe (1) the gender balance of the applicants, (2) for each gender, of those who applied, the percentage to receive an offer and (3) for each gender, of those who received an offer the percentage that accepted the offer.)

In terms of offers, the percentage of offers to female applicants out of the total number of female applicants in all PGT programmes is around 80% for both females and males, except in PE where the percentage is roughly about a third for females and a quarter for males over the past three years.

Action 10d: To increase the percentage of female acceptances in all PGT courses, we will improve contact with individuals to whom offers have been made, prioritising CMS students.

PGT PGT





PGT PGT





PGT

F M F M2012/13 Accept 42 180 43.8% 53.4%

Offer 96 337 31.0% 24.0%Applicants 310 1407 18.1% 81.9%

2013/14 Accept 101 283 61.2% 57.2%Offer 165 495 40.6% 30.1%Applicants 406 1643 19.8% 80.2%

2014/15 Accept 48 90 41.0% 23.1%Offer 117 390 28.9% 25.5%Applicants 405 1527 21.0% 79.0%


Construction Mgt & Surveying

Urban Studies

Architectural Engineeringnumbers % numbers

numbers %

%

numbers % numbers %

Civil Engineering

20

Action 10c: We will undertake market research to understand why women may not take up an offer for a course HWU in these disciplines, prioritising female CMS students.

Postgraduate IDL

Table 11 below shows data averaged over 2010-15 and related to female and male applications, offers and acceptances, for IDL mode of study involving AE, CE, CMS and US. Currently, the numbers of students taking IDL courses in PE are not monitored.

Action 16c: Include IDL courses in PE to the data monitoring plan for Athena SWAN data.

The pattern of female applicants applying for these programmes out of the total number of applicants mirrors that of the on-campus PGT programmes. A higher percentage of males apply for all PGT programmes and the ratio of male to female applicants ranges roughly between a quarter for CE, a third for AE, less than half for CMS and just above half for US.

However, the percentage of offers to female applicants out of the total number of female applicants is high at consistently above 75%, which is comparable to the male offers. The conversion rate from offers to acceptances by female students out of the total number of female applicants is also high, more than 80% for AE, 70% for CE, just below 70% for US and just below 60% for CMS. Overall, the conversion rate is higher for females than for males except in CMS.

21

Table 11: IDL applications, offers and acceptances (percentages describe (1) the gender balance of the applicants, (2) for each gender, of those who applied, the percentage to receive an offer and (3) for each gender, of those who received an offer the percentage that accepted the offer.)

Architectural Engineering F M F M Accept 10 16 83% 52% Offer 12 31 86% 78% Applicants 14 40 26% 74%

Civil Engineering F M F M Accept 65 258 71% 65% Offer 92 398 75% 75% Applicants 123 529 19% 81%

Construction Mgt. and Surveying F M F M Accept 55 146 57% 61% Offer 96 240 80% 79% Applicants 120 304 28% 72%

Urban Studies F M F M

Accept 18 24 67% 51% Offer 27 47 87% 84%

Applicants 31 56 36% 64%

PGR applicants, offers and acceptance

Table 12 below shows data related to female and male applications, offers and acceptances, for PGR, over the last three years for CE, CMS, PE and US. It is important to note that PGR students within AE are affiliated to either CMS or US but we will address this. Action 10e: We will establish a system for monitoring students taking PGR courses in AE.

The data for applications for postgraduate research show a consistently high percentage of male applicants in comparison to female and is consistent with the trend apparent in PGT and IDL. For the last three years, on average, female applicants represent around a quarter of the total applicants for CE and CMS, about a third for US and less than a fifth for PE. Offers data show that in CE a higher percentage of females received offers than males. In the other disciplines, numbers vary and it is not possible to detect a trend. Comparison of female and male acceptances reveal variations, but it is not possible to detect a trend.

We have set targets to increase the percentage of female applications for PE to 25%, for CE to 30% and CMS to 30% and for US to 45% by 2018.

Action 10b: We will carry out a gender equality impact assessment of our recruitment strategies for PGR students, prioritising PE.

22

Table 12: PGR applications, offers and acceptances (percentages describe (1) the gender balance of the applicants, (2) for each gender, of those who applied, the percentage to receive an offer and (3) for each gender, of those who received an offer the percentage that accepted the offer.)

Degree classification by gender

In order to examine degree outcomes within each gender, we calculated the percentage of female students who graduated with a 2:1 degree and above out of the total number of female undergraduates who graduated in each year (Figure 7). We also calculated the percentage of male students who graduated with a 2:1 degree and above out of the total number of male students who graduated in each year.

PGR PGR





PGR PGR





Civil Engineering Construction Mgt & Surveying

Petroleum EngineeringUrban Studies

numbers % numbers %

numbers % numbers %

23

Figure 7: UG Degree classification by gender. Each bar shows the percentage and number of each gender obtaining a 1st class honours or 2:1

4420

5

11

6

1985

4

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

Nat Avg (ABP) 12/13

2012

2013

2014

Percentage of Architectural Engineering undergraduate with degree classification 2:1 or above (Numbers outside bars)

Male

Female

13220

6

6

20

2740

1

3

3

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

Nat Avg (E&T) 12/13

2012

2013

2014

Percentage of Civil Engineering undergraduate with degree classification 2:1 or above

Male

Female

4420

40

29

22

1985

8

4

9

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Nat Avg (ABP) 12/13

2012

2013

2014

Percentage of Construction Mgt. and Surveying undergraduate with degree classification 2:1 or above

Male

Female

24

In AE, CE and CS, the percentage of females who graduated with a 2:1 and above is higher than their male counterparts over the last three years and also equal to or above the national average (67%, 75% and 67% respectively) in those years. In CMS, the percentage of female students who graduate with a 2:1 and above is lower than the percentage of male students in 2012 and 2013, but is higher in 2014, when at 75% the rate surpassed the national average of 67%.

Female: male ratio of academic staff and research staff

The table below (Table 13) describes the current number and percentage of female academic and research staff in CESBD, IIE, IPE and I-SPHERE. The directors of CESBD and I-SPHERE are female. Comparison of percentage of female staff with the national average in CESBD and I-SPHERE reveals that this is above the national average (38% vs 31%, and 37% vs 31%). In IIE, the percentage of female staff is almost identical to the national average (20% vs 20.7%). In IPE, it is difficult to identify a single benchmark; the percentage of females (17%) is slightly below General Engineering (19.9%) and well below that of Earth, Marine and Environmental Sciences (33.9%).

4420

11

14

11

1985

6

7

8

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

Nat Avg (ABP) 12/13

2012

2013

2014

Percentage of Urban Studies undergraduate with degree classification 2:1 or above

Male

Female

25

Table 13: Female academic and research staff by Research Institute2 Institute Director of

Institute Academic

staff (F)

Research staff (F)

% Female Academic and Research Staff

in Institute

National average % F Academic/ Research staff

in Discipline CESBD Professor Lynne

Jack 37 (14) 5 (2) 38% Architecture, Built

Environment & Planning 31%

IIE Professor Peter Woodward

31 (6) 9 (2) 20% Civil Engineering 20.7%

IPE Professor Dorrik Stow

39 (7) 25 (4) 17% General Engineering 19.9% Earth, Marine and

Environmental Sciences 33.9%

I-SPHERE Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick

13 (4) 6 (3) 37% Architecture, Built Environment & Planning 31%

Figure 8: Academic and Research Staff from 2011 to 2014

Figure 8 above shows that the overall number of academic and research staff has increased only slightly (5 staff) over the period 2011-2014. We observe a 24% increase (6 staff) in female academics versus a 13% increase (10 staff) in male academics. We also observe percentage changes varying between 20% to 29% among female researchers which at least partially reflect a 24% drop (11 staff) in male research staff.

2 National averages (for staff) are calculated from the Athena SWAN benchmarking data 2012/13 file provided by ECU. CESBD and I-SPHERE are compared with Architecture, Built Environment & Planning; IIE is compared with Civil Engineering; IPE is compared with both General Engineering and Earth, Marine & Environmental Sciences.

2526

2931

11141411

36404342

79819089

45393534

124120125123

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

2011201220132014

2011201220132014

2011201220132014

Acad

emic

Rese

arch

Tota

l

Female Male

26

Table 14 shows the total number of academic and research staff and the percentage who are female by grade from 2012 to 2014 in EGIS. The table shows a persistent under-representation of female staff at grade 10 (10%, 11% and 13%) compared to the percentage of female staff (25%, 24% and 25%) in each year. Conversely, the percentage of female staff at Grade 7 (33%, 42% and 38%) is noticeably higher relative to the percentage of female staff in EGIS.

Table 14: Academic and research staff numbers and percentage of female staff by grade between 2012 to 2014 in EGIS

Grade Number of academic and research staff (number of females)

Percentage of female academic and research staff at each grade

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 6 7 (3) 7 (1) 4 (1) 43% 14% 25% 7 40 (13) 36 (15) 40 (15) 33% 42% 38% 8 50 (13) 56 (13) 56 (14) 26% 23% 25% 9 23 (6) 28 (7) 26 (7) 26% 25% 27%

10 39 (4) 38 (4) 39 (5) 10% 11% 13%

Total (total females) 159 (39) 165 (40) 165 (42) 25% 24% 25%

Table 15 shows the numbers and percentage of staff by grade in each of the four research institutes in 2015. The institutes with the highest percentage of women are CESBD and ISPHERE at 38% and 37% respectively.

In CESBD, the percentage of female staff is highest at Grade 7 at 71%. At grades 9 and 10, the percentages fall to 33% and 38%, respectively.

I-SPHERE is the smallest research institute with 19 members of staff, of which 7 are female. At grade 10, there are 2 female professors compared to 7 male professors (29% versus 71%).

The institute with the lowest percentage of female staff is IPE, where the majority of female staff is at Grades 7 and 8, with a single female at grade 9 and no females at Grade 10. In contrast, there are 7 males at Grade 9 (86%) and 15 at Grade 10 (100%).

In IIE, the numbers of female staff are highest at grade 9 (30%). At grade 10, 20% of staff is female.

27

Table 15: Academic and research staff numbers and percentage of female staff in 2014 by grade and institute

Grade Number of academic and research staff (number of females)

Percentage of academic and research staff at grade who are female

CESBD IIE IPE I-SPHERE CESBD IIE IPE I-SPHERE 6 1 (0) 1 (1) 2 (0) 0 (0) 0% 100% 0% 0% 7 7 (5) 7 (1) 22 (7) 4 (2) 71% 14% 32% 50% 8 20 (7) 11 (2) 18 (3) 7 (2) 35% 18% 16% 29% 9 8 (2) 10 (3) 7 (1) 1 (1) 25% 30% 14% 100%

10 6 (2) 11 (1) 15 (0) 7 (2) 33% 9% 0% 29% Total (total

females)

42 (16) 40 (8) 64 (11) 19 (7) 38% 20% 17% 37%

To increase the percentage of female staff at Grades 9 and 10 in all institutes we will:

Action 1a: Expand our mentoring offer to ALL research and academic staff

Action 1b: Ensure female IPE research and academic staff are prioritised for the mentoring offer.

Action 1c: Expand mentoring provision by providing a phased programme of training to senior staff and seek mentors from industry.

Action 1d: Design and launch EGIS ‘mentor of the year’ award to recognise exceptional mentoring experiences.

Turnover by grade and gender

Across all four research institutes, over the period 2012 – 2014, turnover among both male and female staff is low (see Table 16), with the highest rate of attrition at Grades 6 and 7. Table 17 shows a high proportion of female leavers (47%) compared to the proportion of female researchers and academics (24%, 26%). Currently, data is not collected by institute. Staff leavers are given the opportunity to attend an exit interview.

Action 9a: We will carry out robust analysis of exit interview data to understand reasons for leaving by gender, grade and institute.

28

Table 16: Academic and research staff turnover by Gender and Grade

Grade Number of academic and research staff leavers (number of females)

Percentage of academic and research staff leavers at grade who are females

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

6 3(2) 3(1) 3(2) 67% 33% 67%

7 8(1) 7(1) 7(4) 13% 14% 57%

8 2(0) 3(1) 2(0) 0% 33% 0%

9 2(0) 1(1) 1(0) 0% 100% 0%

10 1(0) 1(0) 2(1) 0% 0% 50%

Total 16(3) 15(4) 15(7) 19% 27% 47% Table 17: Staff turnover of male and female academics and researchers between 2012-2014 compared to staff population

Total M F M F Leavers 15 8 7 53% 47% Overall population

165 123 42 75% 25%

Researchers 45 34 11 76% 24% Academics 120 89 31 74% 26%

[2884 words]

4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 words

Key career transition points

Job application and success rates by gender and grade

The data show numbers and percentage of applicants and appointees for 2012-14. The percentage of female applicants appointed in the last three years increased from 6% in 2012 to 9% in 2014 (Table 18 below). This increase occurs at the same time as (1) the launch of a positive action statement in HWU job advertisements, encouraging women and ethnic minorities to apply, and (2) a policy of both genders on all recruitment panels. The percentage of male applicants appointed in 2012 and 2013 was higher at 8% and 9% respectively, but fell to 4% in 2014. Though small, the numbers suggest that female applicants may be more likely to be recruited than previously.

For 2012 and 2013, there was a 40% female to 60% male applicant ratio (Figure 9 below). Appointments show a 35% female to 65% male ratio, except in 2014 where it was 45% female to 55% male. Though inconclusive, the figures show that applicant gender broadly mirrors appointee gender. Data is currently not available by grade or by institute.

29

As addressed in our University Bronze award, recruitment data has not been available by grade or by institute and from 2015, our new corporate electronic recruitment system will support this.

Action 4e: From 2015 we will monitor applicants and appointments, by gender, grade and institute.

30

Table 18: Staff recruitment: Applicants and Appointments by Gender

Year Applicant numbers

(Percentage of total applicants)

Appointed numbers

(Percentage of total appointed)

% of Female

Applicants Appointed

% of Male Applicants Appointed

Female Male Unknown Total Female Male Total

2012 95(29%) 166(51%) 63(19%) 324(100%) 6(30%) 14(70%) 20(100%) 6% 8%

2013 63(27%) 145(62%) 25(11%) 233(100%) 4(24%) 13(76%) 17(100%) 6% 9%

2014 63 (20%) 185(58%) 69(22%) 317(100%) 6(43%) 8(57%) 14(100%) 9% 4%

Figure 9: Staff recruitment: Applicants and Appointments by Gender

The HWU Global Platform Recruitment for Research Leaders aims to create around 20 academic posts per year from 2011-16, across all disciplines, providing another route for EGIS to promote and recruit female academic staff at all grades. Between 2011 and 2014, 15 male staff were appointed compared with 7 female staff (Table 19 below). The breakdown of applications by females and males has not been monitored because recruitment was managed externally.

Action 4d: We will ensure that the external recruitment agencies monitor applications by gender, grade and institute.

5

2

95

6

63

4

63

6

34

9

166

14

145

13

185

8

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

ApplicantsAppointed

ApplicantsAppointed

ApplicantsAppointed

ApplicantsAppointed

2011

2012

2013

2014

Female Male

31

Table 19: ‘Global Platform’ academic staff job appointments in EGIS

Year Appointed numbers (Percentage of total

appointed)

Female Male Total

2011 2(100%) 0(0%) 2(100%)

2012 0(0%) 5(100%) 5(100%)

2013 3(27%) 8(73%) 11(100%)

2014 2(50%) 2(50%) 4(100%)

aii Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade

All academic and research staff who are currently Grade 6 or 7 are invited to submit a case for Academic Advancement (Grade 6 to 7 and Grade 7 to 8) to a panel. Each submission is supported by a case for advancement (2 sides of A4 and written to reference the criteria noted on the HR website) and a CV and publications list.

As HR procedures dictate that, as a School, we should consider all staff eligible for advancement, the panel also checks cases where an application might be expected. This means that there is a review of those staff who, for some reason, the panel might expect to progress but where an application was not received.

Applications are then reviewed by Hols (or Pls as appropriate) and a decision reached on which cases should be put forward to the University Board.

Action 3a: Review process and practice for academic advancement Grade 6 to 7 and Grade 7 to 8.

For senior promotions (grades 9 and 10), staff who wish to be considered for promotion must submit their case to EGIS Management Group. To improve the perceived fairness of the decision-making process, since 2015, all senior promotions are considered by a School panel, consisting of senior staff. The Panel identifies applicants for promotion who will be supported by the School at the University Promotions Board.

All unsuccessful applicants receive feedback from DoIs/PIs/representative of the School panel (normally the Head of School) providing the reasons for the decision and suggestions for improving their application.

It is worth noting that while the number of female applications is roughly proportional to the percentage of female academics and researchers in IPE, there were no female promotions during this time period. This is clearly of considerable concern and is addressed robustly in the highest ranked Action Plan items.

32

Table 20: Applicants considered and supported at School Level at Grades 7 and 8 in 2015 Applicants considered

Applications supported

% of Female Applicants Supported

% of Male Applicants Supported

Female Male Female Male 50% 80% <5 <5 <5 <5

Table 21: Applicants considered and supported at School Level at Grades 9 and 10 in 2015 Number of Applicants

considered Number of

Applications supported

% of Female Applicants Supported

% of Male Applicants Supported

Female Male Female Male 40% 63% 5 11 <5 7

Table 20 shows the numbers of female and male applicants considered and supported at School level. At Grades 7 and 8, the percentage of female applicants who are supported is lower than male applicants. The picture is similar for Grades 9 and 10 (Table 21). The available data is limited and inconclusive.

Comparison of the percentage of female applicants out of the total numbers of female staff who applied between 2012 to 2014 (16%, 15%, 24%) with the percentage of male applicants out of the total number of male staff (9%, 14% and 19%) shows that a slightly higher percentage of females applied for promotion than their male counterparts.

Table 22: EGIS Applications and Promotions at University Level for Grades 9 and 10

Applications Numbers of staff % of Femal

e App.

% of Mal

e App

Promotions % of Female Applications supported

% of Male Applications supported

Female applicants

Male applicants

Female Male Females promoted

Males promoted

2012 <5 5 19 54 16 9 <5 <5 100 80

2013 <5 9 20 64 15 14 <5 6 67 67

2014 5 12 21 62 24 19 <5 8 80 67

33

Figure 10: EGIS Applications and Promotions at University level by Gender

University level data for 2011 – 14 is shown in Table 22 and Figure 10, above. To ensure staff confidentiality, institute and grade is not shown. Table 22 shows that in most years, the percentage of successful female applications is higher than male. The small numbers do not allow firm conclusions to be drawn but this analysis indicates scope for positive action.

Action 16d: We will include monitoring of advancement and promotion applicants at School level in the Athena SWAN data monitoring plan.

Action 3b: We will request of HR that future University level promotions monitoring data is granular to the Institute level.

Additional insights into the promotions process is provided by the EGIS Athena SWAN staff survey data. Only 48% of respondents feel that the process for being considered for promotion is fair and transparent. Only 50% felt that the criteria for achieving academic promotion are clearly explained and effectively communicated.

Action 2a: We will actively promote the new University-wide promotions briefing sessions to staff.

Action 2b: We will create ‘PDR Career Pathways’ materials that outline potential promotion pathways for academic and research staff of all grades.

Staff survey data also revealed the need for improved feedback mechanisms following an application for promotion. Only 68% of respondents obtained feedback on the outcome of their applications, with the main sources of feedback being the Head of School (23%) or the line manager (26%). More than a fifth of respondents (22%) reported that they had not received any feedback.

<5<5

<5<5

<5<5

5<5

<5<5

<<5

5<5

96

128

95

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

ApplicationsPromotions





2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Female Male

34

Action 3d: We will implement a system for ensuring that all staff who make unsuccessful promotions applications at School as well as University level be offered feedback.

bi Recruitment of staff

The EGIS survey showed that only 47% of respondents agree that the School actively encourages women and men to apply for posts in areas where they are under-represented. In addition to including positive statements in job advertisements encouraging women and ethnic minorities to apply, to maintain and increase the trend of increased female applicants, we will:

Action 4a: Implement the use of a gender decoder to evaluate all future job advertisements for unintentional bias.

Action 4b: Ensure all job adverts include information on family-friendly policies and flexible working policies.

Action 4c: Widen the pool of applicants by publicising vacancies internally and proactively using networks to attract all suitably qualified external candidates.

The staff survey showed that only 41% of participants were aware of the HWU policy that wherever possible, a male and female participant should be involved in decisions on appointments. Only 61% of staff who had participated in panels reported that panels they had served on included female participants, indicating lack of consistency in policy implementation.

Action 5c: We will ensure all selection panels consist of at least one man and one woman.

Currently no records are kept of who is involved in selection panels. Records would help to ensure that female staff are included in interview panels and that participation is rotated wherever possible, so that individuals are not overly burdened.

Action 5a: Maintain records of staff involved in selection panels and encourage female staff to take part, wherever possible.

In line with the University’s equal opportunities policy, the School uses shortlisting and interview selection forms where candidates are scored against the desirable and essential criteria for the post and selection decisions are based on this assessment. Currently, we do not know the numbers of staff who have completed the mandatory recruitment and selection training or completed any equality and diversity, or unconscious bias, training. The School has recently started to monitor completion of the mandatory training and in Autumn 2015, 16 of our most senior colleagues attended workshops on unconscious bias. The sessions were well received and have created an appetite for rollout of this training more broadly.

Action 11a: All new staff will be required to undertake equality and diversity training as part of their induction.

Action 5b: Ensure that all staff serving on interview panels have completed the HWU mandatory recruitment and selection training, and completely a minimum level of unconscious bias.

bii Support for staff at key career transition points

35

For research staff, the University’s Centre for Academic Leadership and Development (ALD) delivers a holistic portfolio of training which maps onto Vitae’s Researcher Development Framework (RDF). Academics are offered mentoring with a senior academic while they are on probation.

A small number of female academic staff from three of the four institutes have participated in the Leadership Foundation’s AURORA programme (see Table 23 below) which is a women-only leadership development programme for women in higher education (grades 7 and above).

Table 23: Number of academic staff participating in the AURORA programme

EGIS academic participants

2015/16 1 (IPE)

2014/15 2 (CESBD)

2013/14 4 (2xIIE, 2xCESBD)

The staff survey revealed that more than a third (35%) of staff would find mentoring helpful. This, combined with the fairly static picture of female staff at Grades 6 to 8 from 2011 to 2013 in Table 15 and the lack of initiatives around career development has led us to prioritise mentoring for researchers and academics in our action plan.

Female staff also participated in the University’s Leadership training programme which builds leadership capability over several key management functions.

The Good Practice Checklist revealed that more support for female and male staff to progress their careers would be helpful; this was confirmed by the staff survey which revealed that more than a third (35%) would find mentoring helpful. Acting on these findings, a focus group organised to explore Academic Advancement and Mentoring revealed demand for a variety of approaches to mentoring, including coaching, championing and supporting individual cases for promotion. This qualitative evidence, combined with the fairly static picture of female staff at Grades 6 to 8 from 2011 to 2013 in Table 14 and the lack of initiatives around career development for staff leads to the high priority placed on mentoring in our action plan.

Action 1c: Expand mentoring provision by providing a phased programme of training to senior staff and seek mentors from industry.

Action 1d: To promote a culture of mentoring within the School, we will nominate mentors for a Best Mentor of the Year award.

36

Career development

Promotion and career development

Every member of staff has a Performance and Development Review (PDR) meeting with their line manager at the beginning of the year where there is the opportunity to (1) review performance over the prior year, (2) identify performance objectives and development needs for the coming year (3) develop longer term promotion plans.

EGIS Survey data revealed that while most respondents felt that the PDR process covered performance in the previous year (88%) and objectives and targets in the next year (92%), only 42% of respondents reported that PDR covered progress and preparation for promotion.

Action 2a: Embed the practice of incorporating promotion planning during research and academic staff PDR.

Induction and training

Staff are provided with induction at both University and School levels. The University induction provides an overview of the University history, strategy, structures and key policies, including our equality and diversity policy. The University’s values (Figure 11) and its approach to performance and development review are signposted. A networking lunch allows new staff to meet each other, the Principal of the University and key members of the senior management team, as well as the University’s Athena SWAN Officer.

Figure 11: Heriot-Watt values

Valuing and Respecting Everyone

Pursuing Excellence

Pride and Belonging

Shaping the Future

Outward Looking

The School induction programme was implemented several years ago. Survey data indicates the majority feel that the induction makes them feel welcome (64%); helps them to understand how the School works (56%) and helps them to understand their roles and responsibilities within the School (57%).

Action 11b: Review the (recently revised) EGIS induction programme to enable further improvement

All new staff are allocated an ‘induction buddy’ who ensures they are made aware of key School information and procedures, and that meetings are organised with key contacts. This is supplemented by an induction pack, including details of where to obtain University policies such as the Flexible Working policy. As part of their induction all staff meet with their PDR reviewer to discuss and agree work objectives and development needs for the coming year. They also meet

37

with a mentor (a more senior colleague) to set probationary targets in teaching/research/administration over the three year probationary period. This mentoring provides guidance and support for new staff to help develop their academic career. Currently, no training is provided for mentors; an area addressed in our action plan (Action 1c), as discussed under Career development.

Support for female students

While PhD supervision is primarily assigned to staff based on research interests and experience, female student requests to be supervised by a female academic are taken into account. Each new student develops a student-support plan with their supervisor to consider resources required for their study, for example, courses or software. The School encourages students to access training to develop specialist skills for their research and generic skills for their future career progression. PRG students can undertake LEADS training allowing them to gain teaching experience if they wish. In parts of the School, female academics involve female PhD students in teaching and provide developmental feedback. Where appropriate, female students also work (on a paid basis) on funded research projects led by senior female staff who act as role models in research leadership and delivery.

A strong portfolio of core PGR training is offered via the University’s Research Futures programme. To supplement this, two senior (Grade 10) female staff offer PhD training at School level. In addition students have access to funding through their Institutes to attend external conferences or training courses. The School also runs annual PGR events which enable students to present posters or give talks on their projects. Students are also encouraged to deliver research seminars at appropriate points in their research. The Research Student Society committee comprises annually elected representatives, one from each institute, and a chair who takes a lead at the Research Education Committee in terms of representing students’ views and making proposals.

To complement the opportunities offered to all students, the School is gradually building on good practice with UG and PGT students in developing gender-specific initiatives. Colin Elliot (I-SPHERE) leads on engaging US students to participate in activities organised by the Association of Women in Property (WiP). Whilst this programme of activities is not oriented to academic careers, it does raise the profile of women in the property market, enhance employability and contribute to forging links between academia and industry Recognising the impact of awards on future career prospects, where possible, students are nominated for awards with some success (see Figure 12).

Female students, from UG to PGR, can join the University’s recently established (2014) chapter of “Interconnect”, a Scottish initiative for Women in SET, through which they can access peer support, visits to potential employers, job fairs, role models and networking events. Civil Engineering student Charlotte Kerr acts as a formal Interconnect representative for the University.

The University provides guidance on student maternity and paternity leave, and students will be able to use our Mothers Room for expressing and breastfeeding when it is completed this winter. Carers can also join Heriot-Watt’s “Students with Kids” group. These groups are both advertised via Fresher’s Week and hosted on Facebook.

38

Figure 12: (a) Emma Watson, Scottish Women in Property 2014 Student Award, (b) Civil Engineer Undergraduate Charlotte Kerr, Winner of the 2014 WISE Girl Award, (c) Ruth Heinzer (Urban Studies) wins Jones Lang LaSalle Prize2014 for best student, MSc Real Estate Management and Development

39

Figure 13: Participants at the Women in Property event, 2014

Organisation and culture

i) Male and female representation on committees

Data on committee membership is presented (Table 24 & Figure 14) since the formation of EGIS in August 2014.

Table 24: Gender of Chairs and gender balance of School decision-making bodies

Committee

Chair Number of academic and research staff on

committee (number of females)

Percentage of female academic and research

staff

on committee 2014/15 2015/16 2014/15 2015/16

Management Group M 19 (8) 18 (7) 42% 38% Research Cte M 15 (5) 20 (7) 33% 35% Studies Cte F 20 (7) 20 (7) 35% 35% Learning & Teaching Cte M 16 (4) 16 (5) 25% 31% School SAT M&F 43 (29) 46 (29) 63% 63% Senior Promotions Panel M 6 (2) 8 (2) 33% 25%

40

Figure 14: Trends in gender balance of key School decision-making bodies from 2014/15 to 2015/16

Membership of School committees is generally ex officio i.e. based on position held, the majority of these positions requiring the individual to be Grade 9 or 10, with the exception of the Athena SWAN SAT.

When compared with the gender balance of women on those grades (25% female in 2014, the most recent year in which information is available), females are well represented, indeed perhaps over-represented on the majority of committees. Two of the six committees (School Studies and SAT) are chaired by women. However, in two of the most influential committees – Management Group and the Senior Promotions Panel – there has been a fall in the percentage of females due to the increase in male members as a result of the merger of IPE with the other three research institutes.

Action 12a: We will take action to address current disproportionate representation of either gender on decision-making bodies.

Currently, post-doctoral staff are not represented on the Research Committee.

Action 12b: Recognising the importance of ECR representation on relevant committees, we will ensure post-doctoral representation on the Research Committee.

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

Figure 15 below shows that among academics, there are a higher number and proportion (27, 25%) of female academics on open-ended contracts in 2014 than in the previous two years (21, 22 and 27%, 26% respectively). The number of female academics on fixed-term contracts has

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

Senior Promotion Panel

SAT

Learning & Teaching

School Studies

Research

Management Group

Percentage of academic members who are female

School-wide decision-making committees

2014/15

2015/16

41

remained stable, whilst their male counterparts have increased. Whilst the numbers are small, a higher proportion of female academics are on fixed-term contracts than on open-ended contracts.

Action 9b: The reasons for higher proportion of female academics on fixed-term contracts are not clear and will be investigated.

Among researchers, the number and proportion of females on open-ended contracts has increased over the period (from 4 to 6, and 16% to 30%), while the number and proportion of female researchers on fixed-term contracts has decreased (from 10 to 5, and 36% to 20%). While we are pleased to see this increase in female open-ended contracts, there is concern that this should not be at the expense of fixed term positions, given that fixed-term Research Associate positions are a key transition point on the academic pathway. The good practice to be delivered via Action 5 will assist in ensuring a healthy recruitment of women to fixed-term Research Associate positions.

Figure 15: Academic and Research staff in EGIS on fixed and open term contracts

.

(i) Representation on decision-making committees

While Figure 14 demonstrates that women join key decision-making committees inside EGIS, hard evidence of equality in the selection mechanism and that women are encouraged to join these

42

committees is difficult to obtain. As discussed earlier, we will take action to address the current disproportionate representation of either gender on our decision-making bodies and possible committee overload (Action 12a)

There is some evidence that senior female staff participate in a range of influential committees outside of the School that relate to their specialist areas, as illustrated by Figure 16. Participation in some committees, requires individuals to self-nominate while membership of others, relates to research profile and participation within networks. Both routes may involve encouragement from others and reinforce the value of mentoring provision, already identified under Staff development as a priority action (Action 1) Figure 16: Examples of women on influential committees outside the School

Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick (I-SPHERE): Member of the ESRC Peer Review College (2010 – present); Editorial Board member, Critical Housing Analysis (2012 – present); Editor in Chief, International Journal of Housing Policy (2009 – 2013); Academician of the Academy of Social Sciences (2011)

Professor Sue Roaf (CESBD) - Board member, International Solar Cities Initiative, South Korea; Director, Dundee Solar City; Member, Advisory Board of the Resilient Design Institute, New York

Workload model

Over the last two years, workload model development has focused on increasing transparency and fairness in the allocation of teaching and administration to ensure that all academic staff have sufficient research time. Individual teaching and administrative workloads are reviewed annually by Chairs of Boards of Studies and it is an expected component of every PDR meeting. The rotation of responsibilities is not currently a formal part of the workload model, but informally the benefits of rotating responsibilities is recognised in parts of the School. An EGIS staff working group has reviewed the current workload model and regard the model as effective in assigning teaching and administrative responsibilities.

Action 2c: Assess the implementation of the new workload model to assess for any gendered differences.

Timing of departmental meetings

The School does not have a ‘core hours’ system, although there is broad awareness of the need to time meetings between ten to four to allow those with family responsibilities to attend. For instance, in response to a request by the Athena SWAN SAT, Staff Committee meetings (four per year) are held on different weekdays to increase opportunities for part-time staff to attend. IE and I-SPHERE seminars have been adjusted to finish earlier in the afternoon, and SMG now starts at 10am, rather than 9.15. The School recognises the difficulty inherent in scheduling meetings jointly with the Dubai and Putrajaya campuses. Current practice is to ensure the burden of early or late hours does not consistently fall on any one campus, and that as much notice is given as possible.

(i)Culture

43

A key area which emerged in the Survey was lack of agreement on whether the working environment allowed for a healthy work-life balance; 45% responded positively that it did, while the remainder were either undecided (28%) or disagreed (27%). On the related issue of whether there was a culture of long working hours, 51% responded positively that there was, while 20% responded negatively. Attitudes to long working hours included acceptance that this was necessary to achieve high standards and career progression as well as concern about the impacts on family life. While responses did not appear gendered, both male and female staff concurred that individuals with caring responsibilities faced additional challenges. Our action plan proposes seeking common ground by identifying elements in EGIS culture that are family-friendly or otherwise and on creating an explicitly family friendly culture.

Staff meetings are held four times a year and preceded by lunch to allow informal networking. The meeting is chaired by different staff members (both female and male) to encourage open discussion. Agenda items include Athena SWAN SAT updates.

Quality of chairing of meetings varies across the School. In order to gain insight into the conduct of meetings, a SAT member observed a meeting of the Management Group and Learning and Teaching Committee, and reported on the conduct of these meetings. These observations were positive, with chairs seen to encourage participation from all present. However, staff survey feedback suggests that female staff have difficulty participating in some meetings.

Action 14b: We will investigate and implement training to ensure all views are heard and listened to in meetings.

Staff rooms allow staff to network informally and are a key part of the culture of the School. The Survey identified that IPE buildings lack a space for this purpose and is impacting negatively on communication within this institute.

Action 14c: Identify a space for a staff room that can be easily accessed by staff working in IPE to allow networking and informal information sharing within that institute.

According to the staff survey, only 37% felt that technician time was allocated fairly and transparently; only 38% felt that this was the case for laboratory space. Whilst the survey did not show this to be a gendered issue, we will address this since women may be more likely to be disadvantaged by informal resource allocation.

Action 13a: We will investigate how access to technician time and laboratory space can be increased, and put in place measures to reduce inequity of access.

Seminar series are organised by each institute. Speakers include PhD students, staff and external speakers. Currently, speakers’ gender is not monitored.

Action 16d: We will add research seminars to the Athena SWAN data monitoring plan.

To raise the profile of women in STEMM subjects, the School celebrated ‘Women in Engineering Day’ 2015 by marking the life of Dr Mary Fergusson OBE, and inviting three female staff to talk about their career journeys and challenges they had overcome (Figure 17). Students are encouraged to attend these events, where they enjoy a networking lunch.

44

Figure 17: Participants at the Women in Engineering Day, 2015. From left to right: Dr Gillian Menzies (CESBD), Dr Mehreen Gul (CESBD), Mr Robert Peacock

(Blyth&Blyth, retired), Prof Paul Jowitt (IIE, ex-President of ICE), Dr Lindsay Beevers (IIE), Ms Sara Thiam (Regional Director, ICE Scotland)

Representation of female staff and students in imagery used in School promotional materials, e.g. in programme brochures and web-based material, has been improved. The achievements of female role models have also been celebrated. For example, to address the lack of portraits of eminent women scientists in the School, the School now prominently displays a portrait of Scottish engineer, Dr Mary Fergusson (Figure 18), with an accompanying plaque outlining her contribution to the field.

EGIS staff have been actively involved in University Athena SWAN initiatives e.g. Professor John Underhill (IPE) recorded an Ada Lovelace Day 2014 podcast about Dame May Ogilvie Gordon:

http://www.hw.ac.uk/news/staff/ada-lovelace-day-celebrating-inspiring-women-18885.htm

EGIS academics and researchers also feature prominently in the University’s 2015 Portrait Exhibition of Women in STEM, recently displayed in a popular part of the campus.

http://www.hw.ac.uk/news/staff/ada-lovelace-day-celebrating-inspiring-women-18885.htm

45

Figure 18: Portrait of Dr Mary Fergusson OBE, with plaque, displayed in School student area

46

Figure 19: Helen Lewis (Associate Professor) with Stephanie Zihms (Research Associate) (IPE)

Action 14a: Ensure increased visibility of women scientists and engineers in the imagery and place names of our physical spaces and our digital resources.

Some staff actively promote gender equality in the broader professional environment. Professor Fiona Grant (CESBD), who is Regional Chair of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveying has played a key role in developing and launching an Inclusive Employer Quality mark, which aims to make the land, property and construction sector more attractive to women. As with the WiP programme (see Support for female students), these activities build links between female staff in the academy and industry, increase employability for female students and contribute indirectly to higher female numbers in the postgraduate taught and research programmes

Outreach activities

Outreach activities are recognised in the workload model and carried out by both female and male Admissions Tutors, who work with the University’s Recruitment Team to organise activities with local schools in support of University aims to widen access to higher education. This year we collaborated with the Scottish Funding Council’s new Schools for Higher Education Programme (SHEP), as part of a wider HWU strategy to provide opportunities for children from schools with traditionally low progression rates into higher education. While these activities were intended to attract both female and male students, it was noted that design related activities carried out by I-SPHERE staff attracted a high number of female participants.

Gender-specific outreach is in the fairly early stages but is very well supported by the HoS. One example of gender-specific activity is undertaken with ALERT (European Association of Rock Mechanics Laboratories) to educate and support female ALERT students and the ALERT committee. We also engage in broader public engagement activity e.g. staff recently visited schools with interactive displays of their work in topical areas such as flooding and high speed rail. Staff undertaking these activities were male but accompanied by female and male student STEM ambassadors. PhD students are encouraged to register as ambassadors and participate in these

47

activities alongside staff to act as role models to young people. However, the extent to which our outreach activities engage young women is not known.

Action 15a: We will carry out a gender impact assessment of outreach activities to inform promotional activity on STEM subjects among young people.

Flexibility and managing career breaks

Maternity return rate

There has been a steady rate of take up of maternity leave over the period 2011 – 2014 as shown in Table 25. All staff remained in their posts after one year.

Table 25: EGIS academic maternity and paternity leave

Maternity leave Paternity leave

2011 <5 0

2012 <5 0

2013 <5 <5

2014 <5 <5

The staff survey gives insight into how career breaks3 are experienced.

• Only 29% had a meeting with line manager and/or Human Resources Partner before taking career break.

• 90% reported being satisfied with communication whilst on a career break.

Four EGIS staff took part in a focus group exploring how the University could better support new mothers returning to work. The outcome has been the development of a Breastfeeding Policy and Mothers Room for expressing and breastfeeding. Peer support coffee mornings are also planned. All staff taking maternity leave will benefit from these initiatives.

Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake

Only two men applied for paternity leave in both 2013 and 2014 (see Table 25). There is no record of any member of staff taking parental and adoption leave.

Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and grade

Statutory requests for flexible working are considered via the University’s flexible working policy/procedure.

3 time away from work greater than 3 months, mainly maternity leave.

48

Table 26: Numbers of statutory flexible working requests by grade and gender

Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Total

Female <5 8 <5 <5 0 15 Male <5 <5 <5 0 <5 10

Table 26 above shows the numbers of females/males at grades 6 – 10 in EGIS working part-time/flexibly (includes academic and professional services staff) as a result of a statutory request. The figures show a higher number of requests by females particularly at Grade 7. These relate mainly to life-style choices and child care responsibilities. In contrast, at Grade 10, this was requested by males mainly due to reduction in hours as part of the ‘flexible retirement option’.

bi Flexible working

EGIS survey data reveals 77% agree that flexibility in working arrangements is available to them informally. However, the low number of statutory requests presented above suggests we should actively promote more formal flexible working opportunities. It has become apparent that an alternative, formal but not statutory, route to flexible working is not specifically documented, and the University policy is currently being updated.

Action 7a: We will actively promote formal flexible working opportunities including through staff notice boards, at induction and as part of formal discussion when preparing to return from a career breaks.

Currently, no support or training appears to have been provided to managers to support flexible working arrangements.

Action 7b: We will liaise with HR to organise training for line managers to better support flexible working practices.

bii Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return

Support is currently determined on a ‘case-by-case’ basis in discussion with the line manager. Survey data indicate:

• Only 31% agree that they were offered the opportunity to discuss options and any flexibility in working.

• Only 38% agree that they received the support needed from the School on return from break to get their career back on track.

We will: Action 6a: Improve communication of career break policies to staff.

Action 6b: Implement the use of a manager’s maternity checklist to ensure individuals are adequately supported before, during and after career breaks.

Action 6c: Pilot a policy to allow those returning from a career break to have a 6 month teaching sabbatical.

49

Action 6d: Pilot a career break support fund to allow research facilitation grants of £1500 to staff returning from a career break.

[4094 words]

5. Any other comments: maximum 500 words

The EGIS SAT has fully engaged in the self-assessment process and valued the opportunity to critically examine the way in which gender influences staff and student experiences in the School. The leadership and commitment of the Head of School, demonstrated through his active involvement at all critical stages of this process has raised the profile of this exercise in EGIS. The work undertaken within the School has been supplemented by a range of University wide initiatives to promote and support female students and staff. We have also benefited hugely from the specialist advice and support offered by the Athena SWAN project manager, as well as the University’s Athena SWAN champions group.

We have identified key areas that the action plan seeks to address, including gender Imbalances at Grades 9 and 10, which are evident in all four research institutes but most pronounced in IPE. We propose to address this through expanding the quality and extent of mentoring provision to academic and research staff and to improve the PDR process available to effectively support all staff, especially women, in advancing their careers. The need for targeted recruitment initiatives to address the under-representation of female students, particularly in Petroleum Engineering and Construction Management and Surveying is also a priority.

We are confident that the actions identified in our action plan will help EGIS make progress in these and other areas. The action plan has also been key for identifying where we must continue to monitor, collate and analyse data to identify actions that will ensure female students, researchers and academics continue to be represented in the School at all levels.

[268 words]

Table 27: Word count summary

Section Number Word Allowance Number of words used from allowance

Additional word count used

1 500 482

2 1000 577

3 2000 2884 884

4 5000 4094

5 500 268

50

Appendix 1

Membership of the original SATs (IPE and former SBE)

Former SBE SAT Name Job Title Institute SAT Role Dr Caroline Brown Assistant Professor I-SPHERE Member, survey data analysis group Colin Elliot Assistant Professor I-SPHERE Member Alison Hamilton-Pryde

Assistant Professor CESBD Member

Dr Scott Arthur Associate Professor IIE Member, student data analysis group

Dr Gabi Medero Associate Professor IIE Member, case study participant for career breaks Dr Michael Gormley Associate Professor CESBD Member, survey data analysis group

Dr Gina Netto Associate Professor I-SPHERE Joint SAT lead, responsible for co-chairing meetings of the SAT, leading the survey data analysis group and the application process.

Joy Jarvie PhD Student IIE Member, PhD representative on SAT. Joanne Astbury Professional

Services/Administrator N/A SAT administrator/Project manager

Philippa Burrell Professional Services/Director of Administration & School Registrar

N/A Member

Alex Heron Professional Services/Computing Officer

N/A Member

Tom Hurst Professional Services/Senior Administrative Assistant

N/A Member, student data analysis group

Cathy Lord Professional Services/Administrator

N/A Member, survey data analysis group

Anne Ormston Professional Services/ Building Superintendent

N/A Member, staff data analysis group and organising AS related events.

51

Sharon Rodgers Professional Services/HRD Partner N/A SAT role as School's HRD Partner.

Professor Fiona Grant

Professor / Director of Academic Quality

CESBD Member, staff data analysis group

Professor Lynne Jack Professor/Deputy Head of School CESBD Member, staff data analysis group

Professor Sarah Johnsen

Professorial Fellow I-SPHERE Member, survey data analysis group

Professor Omar Laghrouche

Professor IIE Joint SAT lead on SAT and involved with staff data analysis group

Professor Stephen Ogunlana

Professor CESBD Member

Femke Stokkel Professional Services/Marketing Officer

N/A Member

Janice Blenkinsopp Research Associate & PhD student I-SPHERE Member

Ailsa Strathie Research Associate IIE Member

IPE SAT Dr Dan Arnold Assistant Professor Member Dr Elma Charalampidou Assistant Professor Member & Data Focus Group Dr Samantha Ilott Assistant Professor Member & Career Progression, PDR focus group member Dr Oscar Vazquez Assistant Professor/Research Fellow Member & Role, Responsibility & Workload focus group member Dr Vasily Demyanov Associate Professor Member & Data focus group member Dr Helen Lewis Associate Professor SAT Lead & Academic Advancement, Mentoring focus group member Alexandra Kuznetsova PhD Student Member Mojtaba Moradi PhD Student Member Houra Mozaffar PhD student Member Sarah Caldwell Professional Services/Web Developer Member & Data focus group member

52

Dr Amanda Lyness Professional Services/Learning & Teaching Manager

Member

Rene OReilly Professional Services/CPD Manager Project Manager and focus groups member Dr Zeinab Smillie Professional Services/Administrative

Assistant Member & Data focus group member

Andy Tunnicliffe Professional Services/Computing Officer Member Prof David Davies Professor Member Dr Alexander Graham Research Associate Academic Advancement, Mentoring focus group lead

Sally Hamilton Research Associate Member, HWU SAT member & focus group member Dr Jinhai Yang Research Fellow Member Dr Mike Singleton Senior Research Fellow Member & Career Progression, PDR focus group member

athena swan bronze department award applicationathena swan bronze department award application ....

Documents