athena swan bronze department award application · review of our equality strategy, within which...

Athena SWAN Bronze department award application

Name of university: University College London

Department: Department of Science and Technology Studies

Date of application: April 2015

Date of university Bronze and/or Silver SWAN award: Bronze award 2006, renewed in 2009, 2012

Contact for application: Professor Jon Agar

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: 020 7679 3521

Departmental website address: www.ucl.ac.uk/sts

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.

Sections to be included

At the end of each section state the number of words used. Click here for additional guidance on completing the template.

Abbreviations

4S Society for the Social Studies of Science

BSHS British Society for the History of Science

BSPS British Society for the Philosophy of Science

DEOLO Department Manager and Department Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer

HoD Head of Department

HR Human Resources

PGR Postgraduate Research

PGT Postgraduate Taught

STS Science and Technology Studies

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 STEMM activities that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission.

Please see below

[word count: 495]

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES

Ms Sarah Dickinson, Athena SWAN Manager, Equality Challenge Unit

30 April 2015

Dear Sarah:

This is a letter of endorsement for the Department of Science and Technology Studies’ (STS) application for an Athena SWAN Bronze Award. I am a strong supporter of all equalities strategies, and I am glad to see this particular application come to fruition.

What I especially like about this report is that it was a team effort of staff and students, including several forms of evidence gathering and genuinely allowing voice for dissenting views. As a report, it offers an important benchmark for the STS Equalities Strategy as a whole, and it identifies some issues on which we simply must focus our attention both short- and long-term. Some data are eye-openers for me and have given me much pause for reflection. I also welcome the plurality of views expressed in this report.

Since becoming HoD in 2012, I have made many changes in standard operating procedures. Many have been done specifically to improve opportunities for women academic staff, such as more than doubling the number of leadership roles in the department and ensuring regular rotation of roles. I have formalised practices associated with flexible working, championed return-to-work leave, encouraged women towards justly deserved promotions, re-engineering weekly working practices, and pushed back against all manner of passive barriers to professional development. I am the first to admit I’ve not done everything, nor has everything I’ve done been perfect. But I can assure the Athena SWAN panel that STS will be undertaking this report’s many Action Points, and we will be engaging the underlying issues. I have already agreed to include an STS Equalities Team in our staff enabling plan, which we will implement as a subcommittee of our Department Committee, and this will make permanent our Athena SWAN interests within the broad frame of equalities for everyone.

This report highlights pipeline issues as the most externally noticeable area of concern. “Not one female professor…” This is a point I take very much to heart. Several years ago, STS lost a colleague clearly on this trajectory to competitive hiring by another UK university. We lost them owing to a failure of spousal hiring (the partner was deemed by another department to be unappointable, so we lost a valued member of staff when their spouse eventually was hired elsewhere). In my tenure as HoD, STS’s expansion has significantly added more women to STS and to UCL. Some of this came through my own campaigns to turn single hiring processes into multiple hiring, capitalising on excellence within our applicant pools. I’ve also championed internal transfers from other UCL settings wherein, in my view, indefensibly poor management was underway. Rescuing staff from poor settings and giving them room to thrive has paid off well for STS. Equalities issues were central to those cases. But coaching women staff through career pipelines is an issue clearly identified in this report. I've already flagged up this issue at both faculty and university levels for action, as it clearly goes beyond our department's resources.

Sincerely,

Professor Joe Cain

Head of Department

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.

The team members were selected to reflect diversity in gender and academic level. All team members contributed to the drafting and discussions of the Athena SWAN application. Extra responsibilities are noted below. The SAT currently has 9 members – 5 female and 4 male.

Jon Agar joined the department in 2007 as a senior lecturer. Previously he had resigned a permanent academic post at the University of Manchester in order to support his wife’s career and family in London. He was promoted to professor in 2013. Jon has two sons, aged 11 and 13. He led the Athena SWAN team.

Brian Balmer is Professor of Science Policy Studies and has been at UCL since 1994, over which time he has seen the department grow both in intellectual strength but also diversity. He teaches on gender as part of his UG and PGT sociology of science and technology courses.

Hernan Bobadilla Rodriguez is a PGT student. He is enrolled full-time on the Science and Technology Studies (STS) MSc.

Karen Bultitude joined the department in 2011 and was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2013. She took maternity leave for nine months in 2013/14. Throughout her time at UCL she has worked, by choice, in a part-time capacity, and now balances her UCL academic appointment with freelance external consultancy and childcare commitments. Karen designed and led the Athena SWAN surveys.

Brendan Clarke joined the department in 2007 as a PhD student. He was then employed as Teaching Fellow in 2009, and as Lecturer in 2012. Throughout, he has supported his wife’s ongoing academic career, largely by providing childcare for two children, aged 7 and 2.

Lori Coletti Campbell joined the department in 2013. She is the Department Manager and Department Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer (DEOLO). Lori has been at UCL for over 16 years in a variety of departments and sites (she was based over at the Archway Campus for 10 years).

Phyllis Illari joined the department in 2012 as a Lecturer in History and Philosophy of Science. She has previously had 10 years experience in temporary contracts in the Universities of Stirling, Bristol, Kent and Hertfordshire. She is involved in the Women's Caucus of various learned societies in Philosophy of Science. She also has experience of combining academic posts with caring for a seriously ill family member.

Meher Subra is a 2nd year undergraduate student taking the STS History and Philosophy of Science BSc. Meher helped design and run the Athena SWAN student survey.

Raquel Velho is a Phd student. She is working on a dissertation on ‘Transport Accessibility and Interdisciplinarity’. Raquel helped design and run the Athena SWAN student survey. She also runs FemSTS, the STS Feminist Reading Group.

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.

Preparations for an Athena SWAN application were started in summer 2014 by the head of department, Professor Joe Cain. The self-assessment team was assembled in October 2014, and following briefings and advice from the UCL Athena SWAN officer, Harriet Jones, met from that month. Prior to the formal start of the Athena SWAN process, the department has built and followed its STS Equalities Strategy. The first meeting introduced the Athena SWAN process, discussed the level of application (with a decision to aim for a Bronze award), and conducted a preliminary survey of available data. In November 2014 further work was done to identify and correct errors in the data. The suggestion of the MSc representative (Rodriguez) to find means of expanding the conversation about Athena SWAN across the STS student body was enthusiastically accepted. In December the SAT examined and analysed the data, identifying issues to be resolved. It was decided that a survey of gender equality issues across STS staff and students was needed. Karen Bultitude led the survey design and operation, assisted in discussion at SAT meetings and by further discussions with postgraduate and undergraduate representatives. The survey was conducted between the 12th and 25th February 2015, and results were discussed by the SAT. Returns were anonymous, and the SAT team was pleased with the high level of response (staff=17 (5 female, 6 male, 6 prefer not to say, 59% response rate), students=87 (51 female, 25 male, 11 no gender provided, 60% response rate)). The first drafts of different parts of the form were composed by staff members of the SAT (Jon Agar, Phyllis Illari, Brendan Clarke and Brian Balmer), drawing on data from department, from HR, from UCL Athena SWAN and from HESA for the national picture. Further drafting and discussion continued in March and April.

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 STS department will set up permanent Equalities Sub-Committee, including membership of those with experience of the Athena SWAN process, charged with regular review of our equality strategy, within which Athena SWAN, Race Charter Mark and other elements of the UCL Equality Strategy will be taken forward on the departmental level. This structure will take over from the Athena SWAN Bronze application team, and is described in detail in the further comments section of this form. The Equalities Sub-Committee will report to Department Committee, and Equalities issues will be a fixed agenda item on the senior committee. However, the Athena SWAN team will continue to meet until the new structure is in place from September 2015.

As set out in the Action Plan, actions identified through this Athena SWAN Bronze application process will also be brought to appropriate committees within the department, and appropriate officers will be responsible for their pursuit.

[word count: 890]

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.

Science and Technology Studies (STS) is a subject made at a ‘crossroads’ of different disciplinary perspectives. As a department it began in 1921 specialising in history and philosophy of science. More recently, social science approaches have been added. STS is now unique in the UK in combining – in one department - teaching and research in history and philosophy of science with social studies of science including science policy, public understanding of science and science communication.

Until 2015 all staff were located in one building on Gordon Square. STS is now co-located at STS Gordon Square and STS Hampstead Road. Organisationally, STS sits in the Faculty of Mathematics and Physical Sciences (MAPS), which in turn is part of a wider Built Environment, Engineering and Mathematical and Physical Sciences (BEAMS) School within UCL. STS is a relatively small department, although it has expanded significantly in recent years. As of March 2015, STS has 18 (17.4 FTE) academic staff on open-ended contracts, 4 fixed-term research or teaching fellows, and 4 professional services staff. In addition, a 1.0FTE female lecturer on open-ended contract is contracted to begin 1 September 2015. Additional hiring is underway, including 1.275FTE professional services staff (3 posts) and 2.0FTE fixed term research fellows. Staff not on active contract are not included in this analysis.

STS has 30 PhD students, including part-time and full-time students. STS launched two MSc degrees, in 2013-2014, one in History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) and one in Science and Technology Studies (STS), typically recruiting between them 30-40 students per annum. STS has long had its own BSc programme, which recruits around 20 students per year.

In terms of research, individual staff specialise within the STS spectrum, although there are also significant interdisciplinary collaborations and conversations across the spectrum. All HEFCE-funded staff were submitted in RAE2008. For REF2014, 15.4FTE staff were returned, split across five units of assessment; 2.0FTE were not returned (one male and one female). The overall REF2014 results are hard to digest with such a split, but it appears all STS staff performed well in concert with UCL colleagues.

STS has a centralised management structure, appropriate to its size. The Head of Department is supported by a Deputy. Major tutor roles are: UGT Programme Tutor, PGT Programme Tutor and PGR Programme Tutor. Each post has an assigned deputy to assist.

There also are two Directors of Research. All tutor and director posts are regularly rotated. A committee structure is organised in a similar fashion, with a Departmental Committee fed by a Teaching Committee (reviewing UGT and PGT matters), a PGR Committee and a Research Committee. The professional services team is led by a Department Manager, who is also Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer.

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.

Not applicable – STS does not run 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.

As can be seen from Table 2, STS has very few part-time students. The ratio of female to male students is roughly 50% (see Graph 1 and Graph 2). The trend has been an increasing proportion of female UG students. STS has near the UK all SET subject average of female UGs. However, if STS is compared to the UK average for non-SET subjects the picture is less satisfying. While STS is broadly comparable in terms of ratio of female:male UGs compared to the national average for history and philosophy, it has fewer female UG students compared to the national average in the social sciences. This suggests that further investigation is needed to determine what can be learned in terms of explanations, and take actions through repeated student survey, review of recruitment material, and brought to Department Committee (Action 1.1).

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 UK average

(Science subject areas)

UK average

(Historical and Philosophical Studies)

UK average (Social studies)

No. % No. % No. % No %

Female 26 44 30 52 35 58 42 58 48 52 60

Male 33 56 27 48 25 42 31 42 52 48 40

Table 1. UG enrolled students by year. (UK average figures from HESA website,2013/14)

Graph 1. UG enrolled students by year, by gender, compared to HESA UK averages for comparable subject areas

26 30 35 42 48 52 60

33 27 25 31 52 48 40

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

100%

20

11

/12

20

12

/13

20

13

/14

20

14

/15

Scie

nce

su

bje

ct a

reas

His

tori

cal a

nd

Ph

iloso

ph

ical

Stu

die

s

Soci

al S

tud

ies

STS STS STS STS UK Averages (HESA 2013/14)

Male

Female

Full Time Part Time

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

Female 25 28 35 42 1 2 0 0

Male 32 26 25 31 1 1 0 2

Table 2 UG enrolled students by year, Full Time and Part Time

Graph 2. Full time and Part time UG students

(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.

STS launched its postgraduate taught courses in the academic year 2013-14. There are two MSc programmes (STS and HPS). Only the full-time students of this cohort have completed the taught courses, with the part-time students taking another year. The completion figures were as follows:

STS 15 students (5F/10M), within which there were 3 distinctions (2F/1M), 6 merits (2F/4M), and 6 passes (1F/5M), no failures.

HPS 5 students (3F/2M), within which there were 3 distinctions (1F/2M), 2 merits (2F), no other passes or failures.

25 28

35 42 1

2

0 0

32 26

25 31 1

1

0

2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Full Time Part Time

Male

Female

The proportion of female students among completing PGT students was 40%. The proportion of female PGT students in the current (2014-15) cohort is 53%. These figures are in line with the national picture female ‘Historical and Philosophical subjects’ students (49%, HESA 2013-14) but are disappointing compared to 59% female students recorded in the national picture for Social Sciences (59%, HESA 2013-14).

As part of our continuing Athena SWAN process the STS department will monitor the relevant data on PGT completion rates for emerging trends and review recruitment material (Action 1.2).

(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.

STS recruits a small number of PGR students each year to a growing PhD community within the department. In the period described in the data, a decreasing proportion of female students has been recruited, although the PhD group still has an equal number of female and male students. National average percentages of female postgraduates (PGT and PGR combined) at HE institutions (according to HESA Student data, 2013-14) were 46% (science subjects), 49% (historical and philosophical subjects) and 59% (social sciences); currently, STS has 14 enrolled female PGR students of a total 28 PGR students (50%).

While absolute numbers of both female and male PGR students have increased, STS needs to review recruitment materials, investigate female PGR experiences through a more fine grained survey, and investigate and draw lessons from actions taken in relevant disciplines (history, philosophy, sociology) to address trends towards imbalances (Action 1.3).

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Female (part-time)

4 3 3 6

Female (full-time)

4 5 8 8

Female (total)

8 75% 8 57% 11 55% 14 50%

Male (part-time)

0 % 1 % 1 1

Male (full-time)

4 % 5 % 8 13

Male (total)

4 25% 6 43% 9 45% 14 50%

Table 3. Total enrolled and percentage numbers of part-time and full-time PGR students, by gender

Figure 3. Percentage of PGR students by gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

Male (total)

Female (total)

(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.

Undergraduates

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

No. % No. % No. % No %

Applications Female 41 52 50 67 55 63 65 61

Male 38 48 25 33 32 37 41 39

Offers Female 29 60 38 69 40 66 54 64

Male 19 40 17 31 21 34 31 36

Acceptances Female 17 52 22 63 30 71 35 63

Male 16 48 13 37 12 29 21 37

Table 4. Undergraduate recruitment

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

% applicants receiving an offer

Female 73 76 72 83

Male 50 68 65 76

% offers accepted

Female 59 58 75 65

Male 84 76 57 68

Table 5 Percentages of UG students receiving and accepting offers

Graph 4. Undergraduate recruitment (representing data of Table 4)

As can be seen from Tables 4 and 5 and Graph 4, the percentage of female undergraduate applicants to the STS BSc programmes is above 50%. This is also true in terms of percentages of applicants made offers and percentages of acceptances. While the overall picture is positive, the data does suggest that there might be reasons behind the relative drop in acceptances that should be investigated by surveying students who did not accept offers (Action 1.4).

Postgraduate Taught

2013/14 % 2014-15 %

Applications Female 35 52 44 54

Male 32 48 37 46

Offers made Female 24 49 38 57

Male 25 51 29 43

Acceptances Female 19 49 25 57

Male 20 51 19 43

Table 6 PGT Recruitment

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

100%

Ap

plic

atio

ns

Off

ers

Acc

epta

nce

s

Ap

plic

atio

ns

Off

ers

Acc

epta

nce

s

Ap

plic

atio

ns

Off

ers

Acc

epta

nce

s

Ap

plic

atio

ns

Off

ers

Acc

epta

nce

s

2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014

Male

Female

2013/14 2014/15

% applicants receiving an offer

Female 69 86

Male 78 78

% offers accepted Female 79 66

Male 80 66

Table 7 Percentages of PGT students receiving and accepting offers

Graph 5. PGT Recruitment (representing data of Table 6)

2013-14 was first year of the STS MSc programmes. There is a very even gender percentage split at the each of the stages of application, offer and acceptance. There is a slight increase in the percentage of women throughout the process in 2014/15. It is nevertheless essential that future entries into the MSc programmes are monitored for emergent gender inequality issues (Action 1.2).

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

100%

Ap

plic

atio

ns

Off

ers

Acc

epta

nce

s

Ap

plic

atio

ns

Off

ers

Acc

epta

nce

s

2013 2013 2013 2014 2014 2014

Male

Female

Postgraduate Research

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Applications Female 13 68 12 60 5 19 15 63

Male 6 32 8 40 22 81 9 37

Offers Female 12 86 7 70 4 27 9 69

Male 2 14 3 30 11 73 4 31

Acceptances Female 7 78 2 50 3 43 6 60

Male 2 22 2 50 4 57 4 40

Table 8 PGR recruitment

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15

% Applicants receiving an offer

Female 92 58 80 60

Male 33 38 50 40

% Offers accepted

Female 58 29 75 67

Male 100 67 36 33

Table 9 Percentages of PGR students receiving and accepting offers

Graph 6. PGR Recruitment (representing data from Table 8)

The numbers applying for PGR study at STS are small, and this is one cause of the large variation shown year-to-year in Graph 6. For example, nearly 70% of applicants in 2011-12 were women, while in 2013-14 the figure is only nearly 20%. We will survey current female students , and reexamine recruitment materials (Action 1.3). Female applicants were consistently more likely to receive an offer compared to male applicants. However, in two of the years under survey, 2011-12 and 2012-13, women with offers were less likely to accept than men with offers, we will seek feedback to understand why (Action 1.4).

(vi) 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

Tota

l UG

Fem

ale

No

.

Mal

e N

o.

Fem

ale

%

Mal

e %

Fem

ale

1st

Mal

e 1

st

Fem

ale

2(1

)

Mal

e 2

(1)

Fem

ale

oth

er

Mal

e o

ther

2011 23 12 11 52 48 4 6 7 4

1 1

2012 14 8 6 57 43 4 3 4 3 0 0

2013 25 9 16 36 64 5 8 4 5 0 3

2014 24 11 13 46 54 4 2 7 9 0 2

Table 10. UG degree classification by gender

Graph 7. UG degree classification, proportion by gender

In two of the four recent academic years presented in Table 10 and Graph 7, male students were more likely to achieve a first-class degree than female students. Male students were also more likely across all four years to receive a result lower than a 2(1). In general, female students were more likely to achieve a 2(1). Several explanations can be proposed, assuming that this is not mere statistical fluctuation. First, there may be a systemic gender bias in marking. Recently, the STS department has moved to compulsory anonymous marking of coursework wherever possible. However, in some coursework, for example presentations (which are done face-to-face, and are used in some courses, including a relatively small percentage of total mark of the final-year dissertation) or dissertations (in which supervisors, who are also markers, inevitably know the identity of the author of the written work), the gender of the student is known to the marker. Second, the pattern may be the result of different expectations and strategic choices made in students’ approaches to coursework. Third, there may be factors in the culture of the department that encourage female and male students differently and would need to be addressed.

Finally, there is no measure here of the differences in relative intellectual and working strengths at applicant stage and how these might be reflected in attainment in the degree.

The following actions are suggested: examine comparative data on anonymous and non-anonymous marking in STS to establish if there is a difference and report and discuss at in STS Teaching Committee (Action 1.5), continue to survey undergraduate attitudes to gender inequality issues as part of the culture of the department (Action 1.1), examine whether there is a correlation in performance between entry and degree award (Action 1.5).

Postgraduate Taught (PGT)

As noted above, STS launched its postgraduate taught courses in the academic year 2013-14, with two MSc programmes (STS and HPS). Only the full-time students of this cohort have completed the taught courses, with the part-time students taking another year. Given that

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of UGs 1st 2(1) Other classifications

Male

Female

this course is new, it isn’t possible to identify any trends or areas for action. However, the lessons learnt from the activities described above for UGs will inform any discussions and action at PGT level. The completion figures were given above, and action proposed (Action 1.2).

Postgraduate Research (PGR)

entry year ->

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

Numbers starting Doctorates

Female 1 3 3 4

Numbers starting Doctorates

Male 3 1 1 1

Ave time to submission [years]

Female 3.72 5.96 5.18 3.93

Ave time to submission [years]

Male 5.07 2.90 3.44

Table 12 PGR PhD submission rates

The numbers in Table 12 are too small to draw conclusions. These data include part-time students and we will further analyse the data to identify issues specific to them (Action 1.6), and include part-time students. The PGR Programme Tutor, supported by a Deputy PGR Programme Tutor and a PGR Committee, keep the progress of STS PGR students under continuous review. There is extra scrutiny at key stages: at application, at the 3 or 6-month review stages, at the Upgrade (typically at one year). PGR students are also, of course, advised by their supervisors, and progress is monitored in supervision and on the UCL Student Log.

Staff data

(vii) 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

Female Male Total Female % Male %

Research Assistant or equivalent

2012 1 0 1 100 0

2013 1 0 1 100 0

2014 4 0 4 100 0

Post-doc researcher or equivalent

2012 1 0 1 100 0

2013 0 1 1 0 100

2014 2 1 3 67 33

Lecturer 2012 5 4 9 56 44

2013 6 6 12 50 50

2014 6 6 12 50 50

Senior Lecturer

2012 0 2 2 0 100

2013 2 2 4 33 67

2014 2 1 3 50 50

Reader or equivalent

2012 0 2 2 0 100

2013 0 2 2 33 67

2014 0 0 0 100 0

Professor or equivalent

2012 0 2 2 0 100

2013 0 4 4 0 100

2014 0 6 6 0 100

Table 13 Academic and research staff by grade, illustrating female: male ratios

Graph 8. Academic Pipeline 2012-2014

STS is a discipline more in common with the humanities than the natural sciences, and will perhaps differ from other applications Athena SWAN might receive in this respect. There is less of an expectation that an academic career will start with, perhaps lengthy, stints as a post-doc before securing a lectureship. The research assistants and post-docs in STS will tend to be fixed-term appointments associated with specific projects.

The clearest feature of Table 13, represented as a pipeline in Graph 8, is that the STS department has no female staff at the highest grades of academic employment, in particular the number of male professors has increased from two to six, with no female staff being appointed at or promoted to professorial grade. Action is needed to ensure that female staff are encouraged, and given the opportunities that would strengthen an application, to apply for promotion with the target being professorships (Action 3.1). In the staff survey the absence of senior (professorial) female staff was identified as among the three biggest barriers to gender equality in the department by 12 out of 17 respondents (making it by far the highest-placed reported issue). As the department has expanded in recent years, new female appointments at lecturer/senior lecturer level have been made. The appointments and non-professorial promotions made during expansion show no signs of gender inequality. STS has a cohort of women to be supported to professorships over the coming years.

(viii) 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

1 1

5

0 0 0 0

6 2

0 0

4

2 6

2

0 0

0 0

4

2 2 2 1

6 2

2 4

0

1 6

1

0

6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Rese

arc

h A

ssis

tant

Post

Doc

Lect

ure

r

Senio

r Lect

ure

r

Reader

Pro

fess

or

Post

Doc

Lect

ure

r

Senio

r Lect

ure

r

Reader

Pro

fess

or

Rese

arc

h A

ssis

tant

Post

Doc

Lect

ure

r

Senio

r Lect

ure

r

Reader

Pro

fess

or

2012 2013 2014

Male

Female

the number of staff leaving is small, comment on the reasons why particular individuals left.

Research Assistant

Post Doc Lecturer / Teaching

Fellow

Senior Lecturer

Reader

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

2012 1 1 1

2013 2 1 1

2014 2 1

Table 14: Turnover by Grade and Gender

Since the numbers are small we can give reasons for individuals

For 2012: one Reader (F) resigned, prior to October 2012; one Senior Lecturer (F) resigned in order to take up an equivalent post at the University of Edinburgh; one Teaching Assistant (F) came to the end of a fixed-term contract.

For 2013: Lecturer (F) resigned to take a post in consultancy; 2 Research Fellows made redundant because of end of funding ; Teaching Fellow (M) came to end of fixed-term contract;

For 2014: 3 Teaching Fellows (2 F and 1 M) came to end of fixed-term contracts.

[word count: 1998 words]

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

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.

Female No. Male No. Female % Male % Total No.

Lecturers Applicants 82 102 45 55 184

Interviewed 7 7 50 50 14

Appointed 3 3 50 50 6

Teaching Fellows

Applicants 10 23 30 70 33



Table 15: Job application and success rates by gender and grade 2012. Male lecturer appointed figure includes one ‘withdrawn by candidate’


Senior Lecturer




Lecturer Applicants 8 8 50 50 16

Interviewed 0 0 - - 0

Appointed 0 0 - - 0

Teaching Fellows




Research Associate




Table 16: Job application and success rates by gender and grade 2013


Lecturer Applicants 35 67 34 66 102



Teaching Fellow


Interviewed - - - - -


Research Assistants




Table 17: Job application and success rates by gender and grade 2014

Graph 9. Job applications, by year

92 9 5

44 5 4 71

8 5

125 8 4

66 8 5 90

4 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

2012 2013 2014

Male

Female

Graph 10. Job applications, all years combined by job type

Collectively, the data in Tables 15 to 17 and Graphs 9 and 10 suggest two important differences between men and women applying for jobs in this department. First, there is a different gender balance in the applications received. Academic posts (lecturer and above) receive more male applications than teaching and research jobs.

A second difference concerns the recruitment pipeline: most recruitment (for all grades) during this period shows an increasing percentage of female candidates from application to appointment stages.

The overall effect of these two differences is near-cancellation, with no imbalance apparent when recruitment as a whole is considered. A total of 14 female and 11 male appointments were made. A year-by-year comparison also shows no clear trend.

Despite this, it appears that the comparatively low number of applications received from female candidates for academic roles should be a focus of attention for the department and for UCL’s general practices for recruitment, such as advertising benefits. We will seek advice from UCL HR on what STS can do to review and revise job and person specifications for appointments, and we have identified further actions that will encourage more women to apply for new academic positions through surveying female staff in STS (Action 3.2).

35 4

3

10 1

0

125 11 5

3 1

1

34 5 5

17 1

0

15 2

1

177 10 4

8 2

0

64 5 6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

Ap

plic

ants

Inte

rvie

wed

Ap

po

inte

d

Research Assistants Research Associate Lecturer Senior Lecturer Teaching Fellows

Male

Female

(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.

Senior Lecturer

Reader Professor

2012 Female 0 0 0

Male 0 0 0

2013 Female 0 0 0

Male 0 0 1

2014 Female 1 0 0

Male 0 0 2

Table 18: Promotions by Gender and Grade

The number of promotions in the department during the period of this report was very small. Due to small numbers we are not comfortable in providing data on unsuccessful applications to maintain staff anonymity.

STS follows UCL policy in having no intra-departmental process for promotion applications. Individuals put themselves forward. Those considering application are encouraged to discuss options during the annual appraisal process and via regular mentoring meetings (the mentoring system is described below). Information about the promotion process also is available at an institutional level such as provided by UCL HR. In the three years represented here, a total of 4 applications were received: 3 were from men (all to professorial level) and 1 from women (to senior lecturer). The absence of junior promotions in this period perhaps reflects the large numbers of new appointments at Lecturer level. While this data does not suggest that success in the promotion process might be gendered, the qualitative survey of staff suggests perceptions of aspects of the application process as being disadvantageous to female academics. For example, both the staff and student survey identified that the lack of female staff at the professorial level is a major example of gender inequality.

With this in mind, we plan to provide better information and support to all staff regarding the promotion process by providing clearer information about the process itself and the department’s expectations (Action 3.3).

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

Given the discussion in section 4.a)(i), the key issue at recruitment in this department is to encourage more applications from female candidates for academic appointments. All job descriptions are reviewed by our DEOLO in STS and by UCL HR on equality grounds and written accordingly. We follow the UCL mandated policy on working towards equal opportunities in recruitment processes. Positive action statements are added to all job adverts – and senior roles specifically welcome applications from women. Later in the appointment process the department takes measures to ensure fair selection processes, including the use of anonymisation of applications for professional services roles and gender-balanced recruitment panels. However, additional measures (see Action 3.2) are intended to improve the gender-balance of applications received.

Hiring panels

A good deal of conscious effort has been done to improve gender balance on hiring panels over the past ten years. STS has consistently complied with the Provost’s directive to include at least 25% women on panels. All panellists participate in the interview process. Panels are reviewed by the DEOLO. Selection of external panellists has been done with gender equity in mind, too. We also have an interview structure that includes all staff and students via a two stage process (a presentation to the whole department, including graduate students, and an interview with the panel). The DEOLO discusses equality-based concerns and needs of candidates during the interview process, to accommodate as needed. We do not discuss equalities-based issues during interviews or candidate selection processes.

All staff are expected to complete the UCL Fair Recruitment and Selection Briefing before sitting on recruitment panels. This training includes information on the Equality Act 2010, key UCL policies and a discussion on unconscious bias.

(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.

As discussed above, our key transition points for women in STS relate to recruitment and particularly promotion.

Personal development training is raised for discussion, along with identification of specific training, at all appraisals and probationary reviews conducted by the Head of Department. Opportunities for networking have been explicitly addressed as an issue, with increased funds being made available for travel, including discretionary funding, for networking events.

STS has an active mentoring programme for staff. A “Head of Mentoring” oversees the process and ensures that mentoring takes place. All academic staff below senior lecturer grade are paired with a mentor as a matter of routine, and senior staff are paired on request. The mentoring system was repeatedly mentioned positively in response to the question of support for promotions in the survey of staff.

The survey requested suggestions of how the department can better support staff seeking promotion – staff identified the need for ‘more senior female role models/mentors with involvement in the department - whether from within UCL or externally’ to provide models or mentor advice relevant to key career transitions. In response, we propose direct actions: ensure that 50% of departmental seminar speakers are female, and expand the mentoring system to include additional senior female mentors from outside the department (Action 2.2).

In 2012, the Head of Department introduced ‘deputy’ roles for all the major officers to expand opportunities for developing leadership. All senior roles rotate every 3-5 years. Nevertheless we think that support for staff at key career transition points is an area where further coaching for career development for female staff has already been identified as an issue (Action 2.1). Furthermore, there is a lack of formal training opportunities provided at institutional level for some leadership roles (such as programme tutors, research managers, or personnel managers), although it should also be noted that the introduction of deputy roles was explicitly designed to offer a form of apprenticeship.

A noted difference between STS and STEMM subjects is that the first academic appointment is relatively more likely from PhD level than from post-doc. PhD students are already actively advised on career strategies through the supervision structure and through encouragement to be engaged with the relevant learned societies. With this key career transition point already identified, we will also offer an additional careers workshop to PhD students planning careers, including permanent lectureship positions, in STS (Action 3.4)

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 staff at UCL are required to undergo regular appraisal. Professional services staff are appraised by the Departmental Manager, while all academic staff (and research assistants and post-docs on contracts of six months or more) are appraised by the Head of Department. The interval between appraisals must not exceed two years. However, UCL data shows that STS has not always been compliant with this policy on frequency, and this will be addressed (Action 5.1). We will introduce a system of annual appraisals (Action 5.1). Aside from this issue of frequency, UCL appraisal guidelines are adhered to, in particular that “Staff review should also reinforce awareness of UCL's equality policies and staff responsibilities in relation to these.” For example, as part of the appraisal process, some staff have been advised to consider requesting flexible working arrangements.

Staff are made aware of each new annual promotion cycle and the criteria for promotion at our termly Departmental Committee Meetings and by e-mail, and as part of every appraisal. Criteria for promotion are transparent at UCL and available on the UCL HR web-site, with on-line advice and workshops run to aid applications during the promotion cycle. Appraisal of academic staff member covers the UCL categories for promotion as described in the UCL Excellence Agenda (teaching, research, enabling, and knowledge transfer), and suitable targets and a timeline for achieving promotion is discussed. This discussion includes factors that may impact on academic careers, such as parental or carer responsibilities. The decision to submit a case for promotion rests with the staff member concerned, and the Head of Department’s role is advisory only.

A key issue identified in staff data and the staff and student surveys was the absence of female professors in the department. The only ‘external’ appointment made in the department at professorial level in the past twenty years has been the hiring of a professorship as a 0.2 FTE funded post. STS has undergone considerable expansion in the past 5 years, and with an increased number of female staff in the department at lecturer and senior lecturer/reader level there will be opportunities for female staff to be promoted, including to professorial level. In the staff survey, the majority of respondents (15/18) felt there was no gender difference in the equality of treatment for promotion in the department. Nonetheless, the Athena SWAN process has highlighted the need to emphasise and encourage promotion not only through the appraisal process but through institutionalising other support mechanisms mentioned in the staff survey - including mentoring and support/advice from peers (e.g. offering the opportunity to share past successful applications, department-led discussions with staff who have recently been promoted) which currently take place on an informal basis but which need to be made accessible to all staff as part of the coaching role of mentors (Actions 2.1 and 2.2).

Qualitative responses in the staff survey indicated that there could be greater clarity around expectations for promotion. While not a gender-specific response, all staff would benefit from implementation of these more diverse mechanisms for supporting promotion than the current focus on the appraisal process. The survey responses did not support the view that

there was a mismatch between supporting quality of work versus delivering the quantity of work necessary for the department’s aims.

(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?

All new staff in the department undergo an induction process with the Departmental Manager and Head of Department. This includes discussion of equality and diversity issues and being informed of the role of our Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer (DEOLO). At this point, they are also informed of the ‘open door’ policy adopted by the DEOLO should they have any concerns about equality issues. All new staff are required to complete UCL’s mandatory online training in diversity and equality issues. Opportunities for further training in diversity and equality are actively promoted and advertised in the department, such as participation in UCL’s annual Diversity Month activities.

The flexible working policy, professional and personal development are all part of our induction material. Three professional services staff and four academic staff have had or do have in place flexible working arrangements over 2013-14 and 2014-15. All new and junior staff in the department are assigned a mentor, and any other staff who request a mentor are provided with one (see discussion of mentoring above).

(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.

All students are provided with careers advice. Drawing on the expertise of the UCL Careers Service, our departmental careers advisors (one male and one female) arrange talks and other events for both undergraduate and postgraduate students. Also, all PhD students in the department are given opportunities to gain teaching experience as paid postgraduate teaching assistants (PGTAs) on our undergraduate courses. Both female and male students regularly attend the careers events and are employed as PGTAs. A small conference/travel fund is available for our PGR students, allocated on a per student basis to ensure equitable access to these limited funds. All students are made aware, during their induction week, in the student handbook and through personal tutors of the UCL Adviser to Women Students whose main role is to be available for individual consultations with women students who are experiencing academic, personal, financial or emotional difficulties, which they prefer not to discuss with their personal tutor. ‘Equalities issues’ is also a standing item of business for our termly Staff Student Consultative Committee.

In our staff survey, 19/20 respondents agreed/strongly agreed with the statement: ‘My department uses women as well as men as visible role models (eg in staff inductions, as speakers at conferences, at recruitment events)’ and 1 person disagreed. A similar question was asked on the student survey, and an additional question about opportunities for students (see Graph 11 and Graph 12 below) – both suggest that students largely perceive no gender differences:

Questions from STS Student Survey

Graph 11. Student Survey results. Answers to: ‘My department uses women as well as men as visible role models (e.g. in inductions, as speakers at conferences, at recruitment events) (N=61)’

Graph 12. Student Survey results. Answers to: ‘What is your perception of the equality of treatment in your department with respect to how high-profile opportunities are allocated to students? (For example research assistantships, volunteering, public engagement) (N=62)’

For 2014-15, key leadership roles are held by women: UGT programme tutor, PGR programme tutor, UGT admissions tutor, and Director of Research (SAS), thus providing strong role models for students. Enabling roles rotate on a regular basis, so avoiding the problem of particular staff becoming stuck in a role and also mitigating the potential for pastoral or other enabling roles to become gender-stereotyped. For students not intending an academic career seeking role models, the most senior professional services post in the department (Departmental Manager) is a female graduate.

Equality issues are also incorporated into the content of our teaching with lectures on gender and science (from policy, philosophical and historical perspectives) taught on modules from first year undergraduate to MSc level. This means that our students encounter the significant feminist scholarship that underpins action towards gender equality in science. Our PhD students also run a well-attended feminist STS reading group; female PGR students currently run three of the reading groups.

Organisation and culture


(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.

Committee Name Number of female members

Number of male members

% Female

Departmental Committee

6 12 33

Teaching Committee 7 15 32

Research Committee 6 10 38

PGR Committee 6 7 46

PGR Admissions Committee

3 2 60

PGT Admissions Committee

1 4 20

UG Admissions Committee

1 2 33

Table 19: Female and Male Representation on Committees. The numbers cited above reflect numbers actually attending meetings, including apologies.

Departmental Committee is composed of all academic staff and teaching fellows. Teaching Committee consists of all staff plus teaching fellows. The Research Committee includes all academic staff with research responsibilities, and all PGR students and research fellows are also invited. Elected students representatives are invited as appropriate to committees, and where this is the case (Teaching Committee) the agenda is divided in open and closed business.

Where all academic staff are invited (Departmental Committee, Teaching Committee, Research Committee) the gender balance follows the gender balance of the department. The PGR Committee is a subset of the Departmental Committee and is selected to reflect roles (such as PGR Tutor and Deputy PGR Tutor) and also to seek a balance of disciplinary interests as well as gender balance. Membership of the admissions committees reflects roles, past experience of relevant roles, and are assigned by the Head of Department within

the overall distribution of enabling roles within the department, in consultation with the DEOLO.

Chairs of the committees are assigned by role. In the case of Teaching Committee, the chair alternates between UGT and PGT programme tutors. The overall strategy with chairs is to ensure growing experience in the role for all staff.

(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.

UCL does not use fixed-term contracts, instead everyone is on open-ended contracts and the difference is whether the post has a ‘funding end date’ or not. This means that all staff have access to the same benefits and opportunities – regardless of funding source/contract type.

Female Male Total Female % Male %

Fixed Funding 8 5 13 62 38

Non Fixed Funding

6 10 16 38 62

Table 20: Female and Male staff on fixed-funding and non-fixed funding contracts 2012-2014

Well over half of the female departmental staff are on fixed funding, and only a third of the male, which is an area of concern going forward.

The difficulty of getting a permanent post is a known sector-wide problem, but it is strongly suspected to impact disproportionately on women. This seems to be supported by survey results, with student concerns about the insecurity of an academic career appearing in several places. We propose to ensure more visible, realistic role models is one step we will take to help (Action 2.2). Further, the more junior job titles of women staff has clearly been noticed by students and staff alike (see below). As an action point STS should engage in a discussion of the sector-wide data here. Whether the perception reflects reality or not, STS should aim to develop with all students a sense that there are strategies they can use to move ahead should they want to. For example, further building up our online library of alumni podcasts to offer visible role models (Action 5.2).


(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?

There are women on all committees, and no explicit problems of ‘committee overload’ were uncovered. But as most senior staff are men, many critical roles are held by men. UGT and PGR programme tutors are currently women, and are no longer probationary staff, but this needs to be sustained. The Head of Department reviews assignment of enabling roles with the DEOLO annually to ensure gender fairness and gender balance, along with opportunities for career development and activities to support promotion.

The staff survey revealed some specific but pertinent views, not so much on representation on committees as much as single comments that decision-making structures did not allow space for dialogue, were ‘combative’, were not ‘collaborative’, covered ‘too much business’, and that ‘some senior members of staff have difficulty respecting female colleagues decision-making etc (eg in committees)’ (all responses to what were the ‘three biggest barriers to gender equality within the department’). As actions, the Head of Department will continue to intervene to ensure resolution and reconciliation, with disciplinary actions used if issues persist, and continue to emphasise UCL standards of appropriate behaviour. Aggressive and bullying behaviour have no place at UCL. Furthermore, chairs of committees will meet with Head of Department to talk about raising awareness of appropriate behaviour and how to run meetings (Action 5.3)

(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.

For a small department, STS has the same enabling requirements as all large departments. The distribution of enabling work is done by annual assignment from the Head of Department, done in formal consultation with the Department Manager and DEOLO, and in informal conversations will all staff. STS uses a qualitative, rather than quantitative, workload model for the distribution of enabling roles. Staff with especially onerous enabling roles receive support of various kinds, including reduced teaching loads, increased PGTA commitments, and reduced enabling commitments elsewhere. Service in leadership roles is highlighted in staff appraisals and recommendations for promotion, additional increments, and awards. Special care is taken to avoid stereotyping during assignment of roles, through

scrutiny by DEOLO. Major roles were discussed with staff beforehand, to agree overall workload, but the aim should be to ensure this consultation occurs with all roles and all staff (Action 5.4).

(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.

Core business during core hours is now the rule, if not always the practice. UCL Core Hours are between 10 and 4. Meetings are scheduled from 13:30-15:30, shortened and with end times set. Dates are set well in advance to allow planning, and policy is for materials to be circulated well in advance to accommodate flexible working and part time staff, including allowing staff to send in notes and action points remotely (to follow this policy strictly is Action 5.5).

Other events such as beginning of term social events do not fall in core hours, and the policy has been to set dates well in advance to allow planning, and encourage open debate so that staff can raise issues.

Research seminars: begin at 4.30, with two prestigious lectures each year beginning at 6pm. The later time allows greater participation from elsewhere in UCL. Again these are communicated well in advance. The timing of these was not raised as a problem in the staff survey, but we will monitor this in future staff surveys, and address concerns accordingly.

Social events: of their nature are in many cases (especially those involving students) evening events. We have recently made two leaving dos a lunchtime thing, and could extend this policy. Where appropriate partners and children have been welcomed to department events.

Reading groups: are a challenge to plan in core hours, and around flexible working arrangements, due to numbers and pressure on UCL room bookings. We will publicise the importance of respecting flexible working etc., especially for those groups organised by PhD students, or the use of tools such as doodle poll.

Staff survey: ‘Other core business in my department is scheduled to be within core hours of 10am - 4pm’ Women, those without caring responsibilities, and those newer to their roles were less likely to say ‘always’ here. We are doing some things well, but should improve on some areas where timings of social events could be moved. One important thing to bear in mind is that ability to attend crucial meetings, and ability to attend prestigious research seminars, enable different kinds of career progression – but ultimately both are essential. As an action point, the STS department should discuss whether all social events should be moved to core business hours, and ensure that organisers of other events, especially reading groups, are aware of the need to respect flexible working arrangements (Action 5.6).

(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.

Until this year the whole department was located in one building, including PhD study room and Masters and UG common room. A kitchen is available to all staff (professional services and research) and students, on the same floor as the undergraduate common room. This has encouraged an informal collegiality, but we now need to look after staff working in different locations. The four research staff at STS Hampstead Road will be met regularly by the head of their project explicitly to inquire about any developing issues with respect to location, and raise any concerns with the Head of Department for action (Action 5.7)

The surveys we carried out as part of the Athena SWAN process indicate we are doing some things well, but some things need work. The general questions of the survey indicate that most staff and students agreed with statements that the STS department treated people according to their merits irrespective of gender. For example in the student survey the split was 29 (agree/strongly agree) versus 4 (disagree/strongly disagree). This result is encouraging, but even 4 unhappy students is worrying. Our aim is to take very seriously the concerns even of this small group. Note that a high proportion of staff opted for ‘prefer not to say’ in background questions. This makes reliably identifying gender differences in questions difficult, but may of itself indicate that some staff do have concerns, as they wished to maintain anonymity.

The undeniable fact that all senior staff are men seems to have considerable impact, noted in many places on both staff and student surveys. (Students and staff were both asked to list top 3 barriers to gender equality in the department: of staff, 12 of 17 respondents noted no female professors; and 8 of 34 students’ comments noted the seniority of men. In suggestions for what to do to improve gender equality, 7 of 11 staff responses suggested getting more women in senior positions, or encourage their promotion.) This clearly affects the culture for everyone in the department. For example, the student survey makes it clear that at least some students do notice if they don’t have female mentors/tutors; while the numbers of students perceiving some disadvantage to women in career progression are 15 of 56. We hope that our actions around promotion and career development will help to improve this over time.

Many good things emerged from the survey, including: high proportion of women so there are female role models, and staff being supportive of each other, female invited speakers (Action 2.2: to ensure at least 50% females), women on reading lists, the feminist reading group, many female PhD students, and a general lively and welcoming research culture. Finally, a generally good level of commitment to gender equality was noted in the survey, and the support of the Department Manager and HoD.

For example the HoD has set out to validate the needs of carers, particularly at crucial points when people ask for accommodation, and should any other staff gripe. He also emphasizes that not only women are carers – all of us take on a caring role for some family member or friend at some point in our lives – with the aim of normalizing the caring role. The message is reinforced and actioned through DEOLO’s regular discussions with all staff, identifying, for example, requests for flexible working.

(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.

The STS department has a formal outreach programme: the STS Science and Society series, a regular set of events designed to share our research, foster the exchange of ideas, and engage well beyond academic circles. These are free of charge and open to the public. This series is organised by a female senior lecturer, as part of her administrative responsibilities. Less formally, STS staff are also strongly encouraged, as part of departmental and institutional strategy, to consider engaging public as well as academic audiences. Furthermore, public engagement with science is a target of research by some members of STS staff. There are opportunities here for STS to apply this expertise and help STEMM departments in UCL. STS already has a good relationship with UCL’s Public Engagement Unit, with staff and students actively participating in events.

Responsibility for the organisation of the formal outreach programme is allocated by the Head of Department, in consultation with the DEOLO, as part of the package of workload allocation. As such, contributions to the formal outreach programme is monitored in appraisal and promotion processes.

The informal contributions to outreach are not centrally organised, and are left at the discretion of individuals, and are currently systematically monitored as part of an annual report by the Head of Department on engagement activities to UCL. The Head of Department and the DEOLO should review female and male participation in the informal as well as the formal outreach activities (Action 5.8). Applicants to promotion, as well as staff writing appraisal self-assessments, are encouraged to note their contributions to outreach activities.

The Head of Department has noted that outreach activities can take place outside core hours, and has sought to support staff by, for example, paying for taxis and other quick transport solutions – the idea being to simplify the logistics of travel, thus lowering the barrier for participation.

Flexibility and managing career breaks


(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.

In the last three years, 2 female academic staff (all those who have had a child in the same period) have taken maternity leave. Both returned to full-time work in the department and were supported in doing so through a back to work support plan. These staff also received return-to-work sabbatical (one term relief from teaching), following UCL policy. There is no pattern of improvement or deterioration.

(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.

In the past three years, one male academic staff (the only male staff to have become a parent in the period) has taken paternity leave (he took only two weeks of the available four, Action 4.2). There is no pattern of improvement or deterioration.

(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.

The Head of Department asks all staff every year whether they have flexible working needs. Everyone who has asked for flexible working arrangements has had their requests considered. We can find no examples where flexible working requests have been refused.


(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.

Four academic staff (in addition to two professional staff) have had or do have in place these arrangements over 2013-14 and 2014-15. All staff can request – and management proactively encourages requests for - formal flexible working arrangements, in line with UCL

policy, however, since 2013-14, we now poll academic staff annually when developing teaching timetable as another way to encourage flexible negotiation about needs (rather than leaving staff to feel they need for force themselves into a singular conversation, we ask everyone to raise any issue they think should be considered).

Formal flexible working arrangements are protected – for example, they get first priority in scheduling e.g. teaching. More informally, core business such as teaching is frequently not scheduled before 10am etc. to allow for caring responsibilities (not merely for children) plus London travel time.

In general workload, especially in term time, is heavy. This is partially ameliorated as staff can frequently work from home and flexibly organise work. The HoD has pushed for use of technologies to increase inclusion, investing in speaker phones, webcams, and encouraging use of Skype where appropriate. For instance, we have had multiple cases where a person had to be off site in core hours – planned or ad hoc – but still working at home and could skype in for an important event. STS now supplies all staff with laptops so staff can work effectively outside the office, mitigating some of the expenses involved in home-office creation.

The STS department could do more to make it culturally established that individuals propose their work pattern, and can have some expectation that others will adapt. Time needs to be set aside for a wider discussion within the department of work/life balance issues, including questions of management and mutual expectations (Action 4.1).

(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.

In an effort to increase equality, we now refer to this as ‘parental leave’. STS automatically approves sabbatical leave as part of the “return to work” scheme. Cover for administrative and if appropriate teaching duties is always provided by reallocating responsibilities within the department and if necessary hiring fixed-contract staff. Time taken during periods of carers’ leave and return to work does not lengthen the time to next sabbatical (in other words the ‘sabbatical clock’ is paused). Everyone has returned, which is a good sign. But we shall continue to give thought to ensuring that they are adequately supported in the transition. Staff survey results for ‘Taking maternity/paternity/adoption/parental leave would damage my career’ strongly agree 1; agree 3; neither agree nor disagree 6; disagree 0; strongly disagree 5. But note that: Males and those who had been in the department for some time were less likely to agree with this statement. The aim is that everyone disagree with this statement. STS will promote UCL’s new shared parental leave provision (18 weeks full pay – mirroring maternity leave (Action 4.2).

We have given thought to cultural matters. For example, HoD takes care not to ask too often about family, especially for new parents, who may be under pressure. He comments: this approach was chosen because of a need ‘to be sensitive to the desire of new parents to maintain their professional identity as well as other identities. There is evidence that women report feeling downgraded in their professional identity after having a child simply because they are regularly asked about their child but not ever asked about their career. So, it’s an equalities strategy, not a lack of interest’.

[4950 words]

5. 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.

STS is setting up a new, permanent Equalities sub-committee of the Departmental Committee to form a stable and secure governance structure to monitor and discuss equality and diversity issues within the department (Action 5.9). The Equalities sub-committee will meet at least twice a year, and will have representatives drawn from all levels of the department, equally represented by gender. The Equalities sub-committee will be chaired by DEOLO. Membership will rotate.

The proposed terms of reference of the Equalities sub-committee are:

1. To act as a forum for raising and discussing equalities and diversity issues, including those with respect to gender

2. To monitor and follow up actions, including those generated by the Athena SWAN process, for example those detailed in the Athena SWAN Bronze award application Action Plan

The STS Athena SWAN survey of students suggests that perceptions among students were broadly positive. In answer to the question ‘What is your perception of the equality of treatment in your department with respect to admissions processes?’, 58 answered ‘No gender difference’, while 4 replied that ‘Women are slightly disadvantaged’ (total of all responses 62). In response to the statement ‘In my department, people are treated according to their merits irrespective of their gender’, out of 62 answers, 23 strongly agreed, 26 agreed, 3 disagreed and 1 strongly disagreed.

We wanted to make two further observations drawing on our joint experience in applying for the Athena SWAN Bronze award; these issues will be addressed by our new Equalities sub-committee.

First, in the process we realised that not as much reflection or action as desired has been explicitly directed towards the research side, for example the uptake of networking money,

sabbatical time, funded projects, publication rates, and external appointments (such as editorships of scholarly journals), all of which have gendered dimensions and consequences. We would like advice, for example from Athena SWAN’s experience, about ways these dimensions and consequences might be further explored.

Second, the process also does not yet encourage explicit discussion of the gender equality issues concerning professional services staff. At STS, our very strong preference would have been to include professional staff alongside academic staff and students in any process such as Athena SWAN, not least because the issues to do with culture, governance and support of careers are best understood by taking the organisation as an organic whole.

[445 words]

6. Action plan

Provide an action plan as an appendix. An action plan template is available on the Athena SWAN website.

The Action Plan should be a table or a spreadsheet comprising actions to address the priorities identified by the analysis of relevant data presented in this application, success/outcome measures, the post holder responsible for each action and a timeline for completion. The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next three years.

The action plan does not need to cover all areas at Bronze; however the expectation is that the department will have the organisational structure to move forward, including collecting the necessary data.

Issue and area for action identified

Actions Timescales Accountability (SAT member)

Responsibility Success measures

1. Support for students

1.1 Worse STS student female:male UG ratio compared to national average in social sciences

Investigate explanation of different ratios, with a view to bringing findings and suggested action points to Departmental Committee for discussion, specifically by breaking data down of cohort of STS applicants and UG students to identify the extent of comparability with national social science cohort

September 2015 Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)

Emma Tobin (Undergraduate Tutor)

Carole Reeves (Admissions Tutor)

Investigation completed and brought to Departmental Committee, actions in place where appropriate

New student survey completed

Recruitment materials are have at least 50% images including female staff and students

Investigate female UG experience through new revised student survey. Repeated biennially

January 2016

January 2018

Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)

Karen Bultitude




Review recruitment materials - ensure that materials promote the department as welcoming and supportive, and continuing to include images of female staff and students.

October 2015 Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)

Carole Reeves (Admissions Tutor)

Bring actions points to Department Committee for discussion


Lori Coletti Campbell (DEOLO)

1.2 Completion rates of PGT courses

Monitor trends of these new MSc courses, with specific emphasis on identifying and addressing gender inequality issues


Simon Lock (PGT Programme Tutor)

Trends monitored and reported at Teaching Committee

PGT recruitment materials reviewed, with changes reported to Departmental Committee. Recruitment materials are have at least 50% images including female staff and students

Review PGT recruitment materials, in order to nsure all recruitment materials have images of male and female staff and students, and the welcoming and supportive culture of the department


Simon Lock (PGT Programme Tutor)




1.3 Trend towards decreasing proportion of female PGR students

Review PGR recruitment materials, in order to nsure all recruitment materials have images of male and female staff and students, and the welcoming and supportive culture of the department


Chiara Ambrosio (PGR Programme Tutor)

PGR recruitment materials reviewed, with changes reported to PGR Committee. Recruitment materials are have at least 50% images including female staff and students

Investigation of survey results completed and reported to PGR Committee

Design and implementation of revised student survey completed and results reported to PGR Committee

Advice from comparable disciplinary bodies received and reported to PGR Committee

Investigate female PGR experience through further analysis of 2014-2015 student survey data, actions in place as a result where appropriate


Karen Bultitude

Investigate female PGR experience through new revised student survey, actions in place as a result where appropriate

January 2016 Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)

Karen Bultitude




Seek advice and example of actions from comparable disciplinary bodies (departments, learned societies such as the BSHS, 4S and BSPS)

December 2015 Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)

Chiara Ambrosio (departments)

Jon Agar (BSHS)

Phyllis Ilari (BSPS)

Brian Balmer (4S)

1.4 Occasional fall in the proportion of women between offer and acceptances

Survey female students who did not accept offers, and bring results for discussion at the Equalities Sub-Committee


Carole Reeves (UG Admissions Officer)

Brendan Clarke (PGT Admissions Officer)

Survey completed and results reported and discussed at Equalities Sub-committee, actions in place in response to results

1.5 Causes of gender inequality in UG degree results

Examine comparative data on anonymous and non-anonymous marking in STS to establish if there is a difference


Andrew Gregory (Chair of the Exam Board)

Analyses completed and reported to Departmental Committee




Examine whether there is a correlation in performance between UG entry and degree award


Emma Tobin (UG Tutor)

1.6 Data granularity for part-time versus full-time PGR completion rates

Analyse past PGR student completion rates by part-time students



Analysis completed and reported to Equalities Sub-committee




2. Support for staff at key career transition points

2.1 Ensuring coaching takes place as part of mentoring system

The Mentoring Officer to discuss with HoD the best measures to ensure that coaching is encouraged and supported as part of the mentoring process

September 2015 Joe Cain (HoD) Jon Agar (Mentoring Officer)

Discussion between Mentoring Officer and HoD takes place

Best practice identified

Best practice implemented, with reporting and discussion at Equalities Sub-committee

Positive feedback in future staff survey, specifically at least 90% in positive responses to the question ‘I am supported in working towards promotion in our 2017 staff survey’”

Mentoring Officer to discuss practices in other UCL departments to identify best practice


Jon Agar (Mentoring Officer)

Mentoring Officer to implement best practice through briefing of mentors



Repeat staff survey, expanded to include further specific questions identifying quality of support for promotion, coaching, mentoring


Karen Bultitude




2.2 Better support for staff at key career transition points through more senior female role models/mentors with involvement in the department - whether from within UCL or externally

Ensure that at least 50% of departmental seminar speakers are female


Jack Stilgoe (STS Seminar Series organiser)

The 2015-2016 STS Seminar Series to comprise of at least 50% female speakers

External senior female mentors identified (December 2015) and recruited (January 2016)

Meetings take place between external senior female mentors and female STS staff (March 2016)

Positive feedback in future staff survey, specifically at least 90% in positive responses to the question ‘I receive mentoring from female mentors from outside the department’ in our 2017 staff survey’”

Expand the mentoring system to include additional senior female mentors from outside the department

December 2015 – March 2016


Joe Cain (HoD)





3. Recruitment, promotion and retention of female staff and students

3.1 The absence of female professors in STS

Paths to applications for promotion to senior levels in UCL addressed as a topic as part of the coaching role of mentors



Discussions of paths to professorships discussed in mentoring meetings

Positive feedback in future staff survey, specifically at least 90% in positive responses to the question ‘I am supported in working towards promotion in our 2017 staff survey’”

Focus group takes place and results reported and discussed at Equalities Sub-committee

In the first instance, that the issue is raised with UCL senior management. A second measure of success is the provision of external senior coaches for female staff for the transition to professorship

At least one female professor in STS by 2020

Focus group of female staff to identify further actions

December 2015 Joe Cain (HoD) Lori Coletti Campbell (DEOLO)

Encourage UCL to provide coaches for the transition to Professor through the Head of Department raising the issue with senior management


Joe Cain (HoD)




3.2 Number of female applicants for job appointments

Seek advice from UCL HR on what STS can do to review and revise job and person specifications for appointments


Joe Cain (HoD) Advice received from UCL HR, and followed, where appropriate, in revisions of job and person specifications for appointments

Email list maintained and contains names and email addresses of over 100 female STS academics

Suitable websites for adverts aim at attracting female applicants identified and used in all academic job advertisements

STS SWAN activities information included in all academic job advertisements

STS website images of STS academics at least 50% female

Focus group completed and resulted reported and discussed at Equalities sub-committee

Increased proportion of

When at conferences, STS staff will encourage female academics to apply for posts at STS and invite them to be added to an email list to send job adverts to

2015-2018 Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)

All STS academic staff

Advertise on websites that may attract female applicants (e.g. Women in Science & Engineering WISE)

2015-2018 (for any advertised position)

Joe Cain HoD Lori Coletti Campbell (Department Manager)

Include information in job advertisements about SWAN activities and support and benefits in the department

2015-2018 (for any advertised position)

Joe Cain (HoD) Lori Coletti Campbell (Department Manager)

Continue to ensure there are images of male and female academics on the STS website, and that images show the

December 2015 Joe Cain (HoD) Lori Coletti Campbell (Department Manager)




department to be a supportive and welcoming environment

female applicants for job appointments from 42% over the past three years to over 50% during 2015-18. Identify further actions that

will encourage more women to apply for new academic positions through focus group of female staff in STS



3.3 Better information and support to female staff regarding the promotion process by providing clearer information about the process itself and the department’s expectations

Check information provided about the promotion process during appraisals


Joe Cain (HoD) Anonymous survey of staff shows (see Action 2.1) that the information and support of female staff regarding the promotion process, in appraisals and mentoring, was rated at least good

Provide support for the promotion process through coaching through the mentoring system (see Action 2.1)






3.4 Support for PhD students considering careers in STS subject areas

Hold careers advice workshop for STS students considering careers in the STS subjects

Circulate a feedback form to assess impact and identify future improvements

January 2016, running biennially thereafter



Workshop takes place, at least x% of our female PhD students attending

Positive feedback (at least 80% to the question ‘Did you find the careers advice workshop helpful?’) received in feedback form




4. Career breaks, workload and flexible working

4.1 Wider open discussion of work/life balance issues

Decide on a suitable format that would allow time for discussion of work/life balance issues


Joe Cain (HoD) Format decided and discussion hosted

Host discussion of work/life balance issues, in the form of a focus group involving all staff

March 2016 Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)

Joe Cain (HoD)

4.2 Paternity leave, and shared parental leave

Circulate information about the four weeks paid paternity leave available at UCL

October 2015 (repeated each October)



Information on paternity and shared parental leave circulated

Shared parental leave scheme implemented in full

An increase in 50% of new parents taking full 4 weeks paternity leave

Positive feedback in staff survey, specifically at least 90% positive to the question ‘Are you aware of your rights in relation to parental leave?’

Implement fully shared parental leave scheme and promote to staff


Joe Cain (HoD)




5. Culture, communications and departmental organisation

5.1 Frequency of appraisals

Full compliance with the UCL policy on frequency of appraisals


Joe Cain (HoD) At least 60% completion rate in 2015, which increases to 80% in 2016. 100% completion by 2017 Move to system of yearly

appraisals Expected by January 2016


Joe Cain (HoD)

5.2 Alumni podcasts Further increase the number of online podcasts with female alumni, supplementing Action 2.2 on visible role models

October 2015-October 2017


Emily Dawson (Careers Officer)

Jon Agar (Careers Officer)

Andrew Gregory (Alumni Officer)

At least one extra podcast with female alumni role models online on STS website per calendar year

5.3 Combative, non-collaborative and disrespectful behaviour in committee meetings

The Head of Department will continue to intervene to ensure resolution and reconciliation, with disciplinary actions used if issues persist, and continue to emphasise UCL standards of appropriate behaviour.

October 2015, repeated annually


Joe Cain (HoD) Improvements measured through improved responses in staff survey (with reference to the same question as used in the 2014-15 survey)




Chairs of committees will meet with Head of Department to talk about raising awareness of appropriate behaviour and how to run meetings

October 2015, repeated annually


Joe Cain (HoD)

Conduct anonymous staff survey to assess attitudes to behaviour in committees

January 2016, repeated annually



5.4 Timely consultation of allocation of all roles in the department

Early consultation and discussion of roles with staff, including agreement of overall workload for individuals, for all roles and all staff

June 2016 (for 2016-17 roles), repeated annually


Joe Cain (HoD) Consultation takes place at least three months before the start of a new academic year with all staff

5.5 Timely circulation of meeting materials

Meeting materials to be circulated well in advance (at least two weeks prior to meeting) to accommodate flexible working and part-time staff, including allowing staff to send in notes and action points remotely

September 2015-September 2018)

Joe Cain (HoD) Lori Coletti Campbell (Department Manager)

Circulation of meeting materials at least two weeks prior to meetings




5.6 Core business, and other events, in core hours

Discuss at Departmental Committee whether all social events should move to core business hours


Joe Cain (HoD) The question of whether all social events should be within core business hours discussed at Departmental Committee

At least 50% of staff social events to take place within core hours

DEOLO checks whether organisers of reading groups and other relevant events are aware of the need to respect flexible working hours

Survey of staff show that events outside core business hours are not causing problems (no more than 10% positive responses to the question ‘There are too many STS events held outside of core business hours’)

Ensure organisers are aware of the need to respect flexible working arrangements (such as core hours), especially amongst organisers of reading groups

September 2015 (repeated annually)


Joe Cain (HoD)

Survey staff to uncover changing attitudes to events outside of core business hours

May 2016 Equalities Sub-committee (chair: DEOLO)





5.7 Emerging issues of STS Hampstead Road

The head of project to regularly meet the four research staff at STS Hampstead Road explicitly to inquire about any developing issues with respect to location, and raise any concerns with the Head of Department for action

October 2015, repeated every three months

Joe Cain (HoD) Tiago Mata (head of project)

All staff in STS Hampstead Road continue to attend all staff meetings and social events

No difference in staff survey responses from staff in different locations

We will add a question to the staff survey (see Action 2.1): ‘Does the location of your office discourage you from participating in STS work and culture?’

5.8 Levels of female and male participation in outreach activities

Review levels of participation by female and male staff in informal as well as formal outreach activities

December 2015, repeated annually


HoD and DEOLO Levels of participation reviewed and reported for discussion at Equalities Sub-committee

At least 40% of those involved in outreach activities are female, (but ensure women are not overburdened by ensuring at least 40% participation from men).

5.9 Equalities sub-committee

Establish the Equalities sub-committee of the Departmental Committee

July 2015 Jon Agar (Chair, Athena SWAN SAT team)

Joe Cain (HoD) Equalities Sub-committee set up, and meets at least 2 times per year.

Positive representation – at least 50% female members

athena swan bronze department award application · review of our equality strategy, within which...

Documents