department application bronze award€¦ · total word limit – bronze award 10,625 (incl. 200...

1

Department Application

BRONZE Award

2

Name of institution University of Plymouth

Department School of Health Professions

Focus of department STEMM

Date of application November 2017

Award Level Bronze

institution AS award Date: November 2013 Level: BRONZE

Contact for application Must be based in the department

Dr Catriona Hamer

Email [email protected]

Telephone (01752) 588828

Departmental website https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/Schools/School-of-health-professions

Department application SoHP CURRENT

TOTAL Word limit – BRONZE AWARD 10,625

(incl. 200 extra for HoD letter)

Recommended word count

1.Letter of endorsement (+ 200 extra words for change in HoS) 492

203

2.Description of the department 465

3. Self-assessment process 1,268

4. Picture of the department

4.1 Student Data

4.2 Staff Data

2642

1,292

1,350

5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers

5.1 Key Career Transition Points: Academic Staff

5.3 Career Development: Academic Staff

5.5 Flexible Working and Managing Career Breaks

5.6 Organisation and Culture

5554

1349

1283

1421

1517

6. Case studies N/A

7. Further information 1

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/schools/school-of-health-professions

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/schools/school-of-health-professions

3

1. Letter of endorsement from the Head of Department (HoD)

.

Athena SWAN Charter Equality Challenge Unit 7th Floor Queen’s House 55-56 Lincoln’s Inn Fields London WC2A 3LJ

25th October 2017

HoS: October 2009 – April 2017

Dear Dr Gilligan,

During my time as Head of the School of Health Professions (SoHP), at the University of Plymouth (UoP), I was in full support and totally committed to the AS Bronze application. The school as a whole is keen to work towards creating an environment that reflects the Athena SWAN Charter’s principals and offers equal opportunities to staff and students, regardless of race, gender or discipline. During this time, the application has also received excellent support from the Faculty of Health & Human Sciences (FHHS) and the UoP.

Staff in the School are aware of their professional responsibilities to act as role models for our students and issues around E&D are discussed openly within the School. The behaviours expected, generally align to those expected by the appropriate regulatory bodies for the different health professions represented within the School e.g. Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and General Optical Council (GOC). Core values include respect, tolerance and inclusivity, with the aim of providing a nurturing environment in which all staff and students are given every opportunity to thrive. The School also implements a values-based recruitment policy for both UG and PG programmes in line with Health Education England recommendations.

The SoHP population is predominantly female (71% of the staff and 77% of the students), similar to other health subject departments across the UK. However, we have found males are less likely to apply or accept a place at the university, increasing the imbalance. In line with the AS charter, we want to promote equal opportunities to both genders. We plan to address the application process and marketing for male staff and students looking at SoHP. Despite the dominance of female employees, there are signs of inequality in career progression and development that we are keen to tackle e.g. fewer female professors. In response, the Senior Executive Group (SEG) will be revising support and mentorship schemes provided for career progression for staff. We have seen some success in the recent revision of the school structure, providing more leadership opportunities (as Associate Head of School), where female staff filled 60% of the new positions. In addition to this, there was a female staff member promoted to professor, just prior to the application submission. Another area of good practice is found in the financial and supervisory support provided wherever possible, for staff wishing to undertake PhDs and other additional qualifications.

4

Inevitably, our work to enhance equality across the School is a work in progress and I am personally very pleased and encouraged by the way the staff and students have responded to these on-going challenges.

I am therefore delighted that the School has applied for an AS Bronze award and would see this as the first of many steps along the AS pathway. With this, I must also state that the information presented in the application (including qualitative and quantitative data) is an honest, accurate and true representation of the institution/department.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Graham Sewell Head of the SoHP and Associate Dean (Research) in the FHHS

Interim HoS Additional Statement:

Dear Dr Gilligan,

As Interim Head of the SoHP, I would like to add and re-confirm my full support and commitment to the AS Bronze application, made by my predecessor Prof Graham Sewell.

Since my appointment as Interim Head of School in April 2017, I have enjoyed a more active participation in the AS application process. I particularly enjoyed the helpful discussions around gender equality and the areas for improvement. I am keen to make a person commitment to the principles of AS Charter and I am determined to support the actions proposed.

Specifically, I am determined to strengthen the mentorship programme for new staff and those beginning or applying for new roles. I was disappointed with the representation of our part time staff members in senior roles and positions and would like to see improvements here as well. Engagement with our AS application has shown that we need to be much more active in nurturing and developing our staff and students with equality of opportunity for all. Whilst we do have pockets of excellent practice across the School, this needs strengthening and the whole of the AS team and school are determined to make this happen.

Yours Sincerely,

Bernhard Haas Interim HoS and Associate Professor SoHP

Faculty of Health and Human Sciences Plymouth University Peninsula Allied Health Centre Derriford Road, Plymouth PL6 8BH, United Kingdom

T +44 (0)1752 588847 F +44 (0)1752 588873 E [email protected] W www.plymouth.ac.uk

Bernhard Haas Interim Head of School and Associate Professor School of Health Professions

SECTION 1 WORD COUNT: 492 (Prof Sewell) + 203 (Mr Haas).

http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/

5

CONTENTS

SECTION SECTION TITLES PAGE

1 Letter of Endorsement…………………………………………………………………………………………

3

Glossary of Terms…………………………………………………………………………………………………

6

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

7

List of Textboxes………………………………………………………………………………………………....

7

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………

7

2 A Description of the Department…………………………………………………………………………

9

3 The Self-Assessment Process……………………………………………………………………………….

12

4 A Picture of the Department………………………………………………………………………………. 18

4.1 Student Data…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 18

4.2 Staff Data………………………………………………………………………………………………….

32

5 Supporting and Advancing Women’s Careers………………………………………………………. 49

5.1 Key Career Transition Points: Academic Staff…………………………………………….. 49

5.3 Career Development: Academic Staff………………………………………………………… 58

5.5 Flexible Working and Managing Career Breaks………………………………………….. 65

5.6 Organisation and Culture……………………………………………………………………………

74

7 Further Information………………………………………………………………………………………………

85

8 Action Plan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

86

6

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

ACRONYM DESCRIPTION

AHP Allied Health Profession

AML Additional Maternity Leave

AS Athena SWAN

CEE Centre for Eyecare Excellence

DHoS Deputy Head of School

E&D Equality & Diversity

ECU Equality Challenge Unit

EDIC Equality and Diversity Committee

FHHS Faculty of Health & Human Sciences

FT Full Time

GOC General Optical Council

HCPC Health Care Professions Council

HEA Higher Education Academy

HoD Head of Department

HoS Head of School

HR Human Resources

JACS Joint Academic Classification of Subjects

KIT Keeping in Touch Days

OML Ordinary Maternity Leave

OMP Occupational Maternity Pay

PAHC Peninsula Allied Health Centre

PDR Performance Development Review

PG Postgraduate

PGCAP Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice

PGR PG Research

PGT PG Taught

PT Part time

RO Research Only

SAT Self-Assessment Team

SEG School Executive Group

SLT Senior Leadership Team

SML Statutory Maternity Leave

SMP Statutory Maternity Pay

SoHP School of Health Professions

T&R Teaching and Research

TO Teaching Only

ToRs Terms of Reference

UCAS University Central Admissions Service

UG Undergraduate

UoP University of Plymouth

WA Workload Allocation

WAM Workload Allocation Model

7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NUMBER

TABLE HEADING PAGE

2.1 Developmental milestones of the SoHP 9

2.2 Staff and Students in SoHP by Gender and Staff and Student Category 10

3.i.1 SoHP AS SAT September 2017 12-14

3.ii.1 SoHP AS Staff Survey Response Rates 15

4.1.ii.1 UG student numbers 2011-15 divided by gender 18

4.1.ii.2 Proportion of applications: offers: acceptances, UG programmes 22

4.1.iii.1 Proportion of PGT applications: offers: acceptances 26

4.1.iv.1 Proportion of applications: offers: acceptances- PGR 29

4.2.i.1 Ethnicity of academic staff in SoHP 37

4.2.i.2 Ethnicity of academic staff in UoP 38

4.2.i.3 Summary of staff numbers in academic roles by contract type 39

4.2.ii.1 Staff on Permanent and Fixed term Contracts in the SoHP 41

4.2.ii.2 Staff by gender in full-time and part-time positions in the SoHP 43

4.2.iii.1 SoHP Staff turnover by gender and full or part contract 46

4.2.iii.2 Description of staff turnover in SoHP, split by gender and full or part time contract 2013-14 to 2015-16

47

5.1.i.1 Proportion of applications broken down by recruitment stage, 2013-16 49

5.1.i.2 Proportion of applications broken down by recruitment stage and roles (Research, Academic and Senior Manager), 2013-16.

50

5.1.iii.1 Promotions in SoHP, showing eligibility, applications and actual promotions for whole eligible population of school

54

5.1.iii.2 Promotions in SoHP, showing eligibility, applications and actual promotions for lecturer to senior lecturer in SoHP

55

5.1.iv.1 Breakdown of staff in SoHP who are eligible and submitted to RAE 2008 and REF 2014 57

5.3.i.1 Mandatory training completion data for core SoHP staff (as of June 2017) 59

5.3.i.2 PGCAP completion rates by gender 60

5.3.i.3 2016 FHSS Leadership courses undertaken by gender 60

5.5.iv.1 Academic & Research Staff – Maternity Return and Retention Post-Return Rates 69

5.5.v.1 Academic & Research Staff - Paternity and Parental Leave 69

5.5.v.2 Use of leave recorded by staff survey responders 70

5.5.vi.1 Numbers of staff in the staff survey reporting use of flexible working 71

5.5.vi.2 Numbers of staff in the Staff Survey reporting varying their working pattern due to a change in circumstances since starting work at UoP

71

5.6.iii.1 Staff participation numbers of School committees, split by gender for 2016 77

5.6.iv.1 Staff survey response to ‘How many, if any, work-related steering groups or influential committees outside of the University are you a member of?’

78

5.6.iv.2 SoHP staff on ‘external’ UoP influential and management committees, split by gender 78

5.6.vii.1 Speakers and Chairs at SoHP-organised events – gender balance of contributors 84

5.6.viii.1 Outreach 2014/15 to 2016/17 – SoHP – Presenters and Audience 85

LIST OF TEXTBOXES

TEXTBOX NUMBER

TEXTBOX TITLE

5.1.iv.1 Quotes from Staff Survey in response to research themed questions 57

5.5.i.1 Quotes from staff survey regarding the support received before maternity leave 66

5.5.ii.1 Quotes from staff survey regarding support during leave 67

5.5.iii.1 Quotes from staff survey regarding support upon return to work 68

5.5.vi.1 Staff survey response to questions regarding flexible working policies 73

5.5.vi.2 Staff survey quotes regarding flexible working policy within the SoHP

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NUMBER

FIGURE HEADING PAGE

2.1 Breakdown of the Faculty and School structure at UoP 9

2.2 Management reporting structure at SoHP 11

2.3 Picture of the PAHC building, based on UoP’s Northern Campus 11

8

4.1.ii.1 UG student data BA (Hons) Social Work, BSc (Hons) Dietetics, BSc (Hons) Occupational Therapy, BSc (Hons) Optometry

20

4.1.ii.2 UG student data for BSc (Hons) Paramedic Practitioner, BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy, BSc (Hons) Podiatry, DipHE Operating Department Practice

21

4.1.ii.3 Degree attainment by class of degree and gender 23

4.1.iii.1 PGT programmes 25

4.1.iii.2 PGT programme qualification attainment 27

4.1.iv.1 PGR student numbers 2011-2016 28

4.1.iv.2 PGR student attainment 30

4.1.v.1 Average proportions of female to male students across the student cohorts (2012-16) 31

4.2.i.1 Staff population compared to registered clinical population in the UK, split by discipline and gender 33

4.2.i.2 SoHP staff demographics by grade and gender (2015-17) 34

4.2.i.3 Comparison of SoHP and Plymouth University demographics by grade and gender (2015-17) 35

4.2.i.4 Comparison of SoHP gender distribution to National Data taken from UK Schools including Nursing, Allied Health Professionals and Social Work

36

4.2.i.5 SoHP staff population by contract type (Teaching only: TO, Teaching and Research: T&R and Research only: RO), split by gender and role

39

4.2.ii.1 Staff population by contract type for 2016-17, split by general role (P = Permanent, T = Temporary) 41

4.2.ii.2 Comparison of SoHP gender distribution to National Data taken from UK Schools including Nursing, Allied Health Professionals and Social Work for temporary and permanent contracts in 2017

42

4.2.ii.3 Academic staff by gender and grade in full-time and part-time positions in the SoHP 43

4.2.ii.4 Comparison of National Data taken from UK Schools including Nursing, Allied Health Professionals and Social Work and UoP data for full-time and part-time contracts in 2017

44

4.2.ii.5 Comparison of National Data taken from UK Schools including Nursing, Allied Health Professionals and Social Work and UoP data for full-time and part-time contracts in 2017

44

4.2.iii.1 Staff turnover in SoHP, split by part time or full time contract, gender and job role (2013-2014 TO 2015-2016)

46

4.2.iii.2 Reasons for leaving cited in exit interviews held at SoHP between 2013-16, (n=11) 47

5.1.i.1 A Research Staff, B: Academic Staff & C: Senior management Staff: Recruitment process figures from staff at SoHP broken down by gender and role.

51

5.1.ii.1 Attendance at formal induction 2013-2016 53

5.1.iii.1 Staff’s response to ‘I can communicate my development needs with my line manager’ 56

5.1.iii.2 Staffs’ response to ‘The promotion process is clear to me and I know what I need to do to get promoted’ 56

5.1.iii.4 Staff’s response to ‘The promotion process is transparent and fair’ 56

5.3.i.1 Number of training activities completed by SoHP staff during 2016-2017 59

5.3.i.2 Staff’s answer to ‘do you have appropriate training opportunities’ question from staff survey 60

5.3.ii.1 PDR completion rate by gender 61

5.3.iii.1 Staff’s answer to ‘do you feel encouraged to consider career progression during PDR’ 62

5.3.v.1 Grant success by gender 2015-16 64

5.5.vi.1 Staff response to ‘University policies outlining procedures relating to flexible working are accessible and clear’

71

5.5.vi.2 Staff response to ‘Flexible working is implemented fairly and consistently’ 72

5.5.vi.3 Staff response to ‘The possibility of homebased working is limited due to my workload’ 72

5.5.vi.4 Staff response to ‘Home-based working requests are typically approved by my line manager ’ 72

5.5.vi.5 Staff response to ‘Support is provided for appointments for health and caring responsibilities scheduled in working hours’

73

5.6.i.1 Staff response to ‘I generally have a good working relationship with colleagues. 75

5.6.v.1 Staff response to ‘The criteria for Workload Allocation are communicated clearly communicated.’ 79

5.6.v.2 Staff response to ‘There is equity in the allocation of roles, duties, and responsibilities.’ 80

5.6.v.3 Staff response to ‘There is transparency in the allocation of roles, duties, and responsibilities. 80

5.6.v.4 Staff response to ‘There are no gender biases concerning workloads.’ 80

5.6.vi.1 Staff response to ‘My School tries to time meetings so that all staff can fully participate in key events (e.g. Away day, Faculty Briefing).’

82

5.6.vi.2 Staff response to ‘When social gatherings are arranged, efforts are made to ensure that the timing, cost (financial) and culture (setting/activity) of the occasion is inclusive so that people who want to can attend’

82

5.6.vii.1 Gender balance seen in external publicity produced by the School 83

5.6.vii.2 Gender balance seen in internal publicity produced by the School 83

5.6.vii.3 Gender balance of the subjects featured in publicised events 84

9

02. Description of the department

The SoHP formed in 2004 as part of the UoP. It was located in the Peninsula Allied Health Centre (PAHC) as a co-operative site with Plymouth MarJon University’s Speech and Language Therapy programme. It was made up of five programmes: Podiatry, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Dietetics and Midwifery. Over the next 13 years, the School expanded and evolved; adding some programmes and losing others (see Table 2.1).

Year Development Milestone

2004 SoHP formed as part of UoP

2007 Paramedicine joined the School

2008 BSc Midwifery programme leaves the School

2009 Operating Department Practice Programme joins the School

2011 BSc Optometry Programme joins the School

2013 BA Social Work Programme joins the School

2015 SoHP forms FHHS with School of Nursing and Midwifery (SNaM) and School of Psychology

2016 Operating Department Practice programme leaves the School (end of contract with NHS)

Table 2.1 Developmental milestones of the SoHP

INSTITUTION UOP 1st October 2017

Faculties

Arts and Humanities Business Health and Human Sciences

Medicine and Dentistry

Science and Engineering

Schools

Plymouth Institute of Education

Plymouth Business School

Health Professions

Biomedical and Healthcare Sciences

Biological and Marine Sciences

Art, Design and Architecture,

Plymouth Graduate School of Management

Nursing and Midwifery

Dentistry Computing, Electronics and Mathematics

Humanities and Performing Arts

Law, Criminology and Government

Psychology Medicine Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences

Tourism and Hospitality

Engineering

UoP Doctoral College

RESEARCH INSTITUTES

Pedagogic Research Institute and Observatory

Arts Social Policy and Enterprise

Health and Community

Translational and Stratified Medicine

Marine

Pedagogic Research Institute and Observatory

Cognition Sustainable Earth

Figure 2.1: Breakdown of the Faculty and School structure at UoP

10

Staff Group Job Title Female Male TOTAL

No % No %

Academic Staff – 01/01/2017 – Number of Posts*

Research Research Assistant 1 50% 1 50% 2

Research Fellow 3 50% 3 50% 6

Assoc Lec / Dem Demonstrator 4 100% 4

Associate Lecturer 4 57% 3 43% 7

Academic Lecturer 56 76% 18 24% 74

Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer) 9 90% 1 10% 10

Associate Professor (Reader) 2 100% 2

Deputy/Associate HoS 3 60% 2 40% 5

Senior Manager Academic Professor 1 20% 4 80% 5

Senior Manager Academic other 2 100% 2

TOTAL 83 71% 34 29% 117

Professional & Support Staff – 01/01/2017 - Number of Posts*

Professional/Support Staff Professional/Administrative 12 75% 4 25% 16

Technical 3 60% 2 40% 5

TOTAL 15 71% 6 29% 21

Students 2015/2016 (Headcount)

Student UG 778 76% 243 24% 1021

PGT 279 80% 70 20% 349

PGR 15 79% 4 21% 19

TOTAL 1072 77% 317 23% 1389

* See Section 03 for description of staff count

Table 2.2: Staff and Students in SoHP by Gender and Staff and Student Category

Teaching and research activities are managed at School level, with research organised and supported

through designated institutes that, whilst ‘located’ within faculties for organisational and managerial

purposes, work across the University research community. The UoP Doctoral College provides central

administrative and educational support for research students and their academic supervisors.

Research in the School is primarily aligned to the Institute of Health and Community with four research

clusters. Each cluster has professorial leadership and serves as a research community engaging in wide

collaborative activity.

The current management structure for the School consists of an overarching team (Figure 2.2). There is a

HoS and Deputy Head of School (DHoS) and four Associate Heads of specific areas (Research, Marketing,

Placements and Internationalisation). Each subject has a programme lead, responsible for overseeing the

academic programme. In subjects with multiple disciplines, degree types or active PG programmes, there is

also an academic lead, who oversees all subjects and the development of the programme(s).

The School is currently in a transition period as the HoS position changed during 2017. Professor Sewell

stepped down in April and Mr Bernhard Haas was promoted as the interim HoS for the remainder of 2017.

The process to recruit a new HoS is still on-going.

11

Figure 2.2: Management Reporting Structure at SoHP

The SoHP currently runs 7 Undergraduate (UG) pre-registration health programmes, all of which are only open to full-time students due to the training requirements outlined by the professional bodies. Postgraduate (PG) activity includes advanced clinical and professional pathways within an integrated Masters programme, and research training (PhD). Allied to this is an extensive portfolio of Continuing Professional Development provision that includes clinical and research focused modules.

Six of the seven subjects are based in PAHC (Figure 2.3), four miles north of the main campus, which is co-located with the local hospital and the Schools of Medicine and Dentistry. Social Work, the Optometry clinic (Centre for Eye Excellence, (CEE)) and portions of the Dietetics and Nutrition courses are based on main campus. A free bus pass is provided to students travelling between sites.

Figure 2.3: Picture of the PAHC building, based on UoP’s Northern Campus

SECTION 2 WORD COUNT: 465

HoS

Associate Head of Research

Associate Head of Marketing

DHoS

Academic Lead

Programme Lead

Associate Head of Internationalisation

Associate Head of Placements

SoHP Level Reporting Structure

12

03. The self-assessment process

3.i. A description of the Self-Assessment Team (SAT)

Some elements of this section have been redacted as they contained sensitive/personal information not suitable for

general publication.

Name Position

Adrienne Allen-Laing Clerical Assistant

Dr Hetal Buckhurst Associate Professor (Senior Lecturer) in Optometry

Paul Braund Faculty Business Manager

Dr Lisa Bunn Lecturer in Physiotherapy

Jocelyn Davis HR Business Partner (FHHS), HR (From 01/09/2017)

Fiona Fraser Lecturer in Occupational Therapy

Dr Hilary Gunn Lecturer in Physiotherapy and Postdoctoral Researcher

Bernhard Haas Interim Head of SoHP (since 01/04/2017)

Dr Catriona Hamer Lecturer in Optometry SoHP AS SAT Chair

Jade Hedges-Stearn UG Student and Student Rep (Occupational Therapy)

Dr Liz Hellier Associate Dean Teaching and Learning

Prof. Mary Hickson Professor in Dietetics

Gerry McCallion Deputy Faculty Registrar

Amy McSweeny Media and Communications Officer, External Relations

Michaela Neal UG Student (Physiotherapy)

Donna O’Connor HR Business Partner (FHHS), Human Resources (HR) (To 01/09/17)

Dr Margaret Pope Lecturer in Podiatry

Prof. Graham Sewell Professor of Clinical Pharmaceutics/Associate Dean (Research) HoS (until 31/03/2017)

Rachel Jagger-Thomas Diversity & Inclusion Lead, HR

Dr Rachel Torr Senior Administrator (E&D Support)

Andrew Webber Lecturer in Paramedic Practice

Dr Andy Wills Lecturer in Social Work

Keith Walker Lecturer / Academic CPD Co-ordinator, SoHP Table 3.i.1: SoHP AS SAT September 2017

Formation of the SAT

13

In recognition of her general commitment to equal opportunities and gender equality, Dr Catriona Hamer was approached to Chair the SAT and manage the AS application process in October 2016 by the HoS. The SAT Chair role includes a 0.2FTE time allocation. Staff and student volunteers were recruited via an open email invitation and personal approaches made by Dr Hamer, ensuring that all disciplines and roles in the School were represented. The team is a balanced representation of the School in terms of gender (16 women, 5 men), job roles, part and full time working, and includes student representatives, all of whom have shown an active interest in the issues surround the AS application. All staff were allocated 30 hours of their annual workload to the SAT. In addition, Faculty managers, Public Relations and HR were consulted. Members of other SATs (Nursing and Midwifery; Psychology; Medicine and Dentistry; Science and Engineering) and the UoP SAT liaised regularly with the group during the application process. In January 2017, Dr Rachel Torr was appointed as the FHHS E&D Officer, providing the SoHP SAT with additional administrative support.

3.ii. An account of the self-assessment process

SAT Communication and Meetings

Full SAT Meetings were held monthly from November 2016. The team’s strategy and specific role assignments were agreed at initial meetings. Core members formed sub-groups to research and draft sections of the application. Sub-groups reported progress at subsequent meetings and specific action points were developed to maintain momentum. An agenda, papers, minutes and action points were circulated before and after each meeting, respectively. Dr Torr and Dr Hamer met or spoke regularly outside of the SAT meetings to monitor progress on the full application and action plan, sent updates to the SAT between meetings and helped to direct queries about specific areas of the application to the relevant team or resource at the University.

Data Collection

Section 4 – Picture of Department

Data were collected for the application through various sources, as outlined below.

The central E&D team created and maintain the central UoP AS data hub to collate much of the relevant data. Where available, the hub data spans at least three years and the latest available datasets were used. Student population numbers in the hub data relate to headcount at the start of each academic year (September - up to 2015/16). Staff population totals in the hub data are typically based on contract count, either as ‘snapshot’ data taken at a specific point in the year (January – up to 2017) or as an average for an academic year (i.e. August to July – up to 2015/16).

The SAT used a number of sources to establish benchmarking data. Student data was collected from HEIDI 2015/2016 datasets using 6 Joint Academic Classification of Subjects (JACS) Principal Subject codes:

B1 ‘Anatomy, Physiology & Pathology’

B4 ‘Nutrition’

B5 ‘Ophthalmics’

B7 ‘Nursing’

B9 ‘Others in Subjects Allied to Medicine’

L500 ‘Social Work’

14

Additionally, UCAS 2015/2016 application and admissions data, using JACS group B: (Subjects Allied to Medicine) and Group L (Social Studies), were also used.

Staff data were gathered from HEIDI 2015/2016 datasets using cost codes 103 (Subjects Allied to Medicine and Nursing) and 131 (Social Care and Social Work) as well as publically accessible data from the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) and General Optical Council (GOC). The HEIDI staff and student reports were drawn using the Full Person Equivalent dataset.

Faculty and UoP level data were also used as staff and student benchmarks for areas where appropriate.

Section 5 - Advancing Women’s Careers

Data were sourced from the AS hub, an AS SoHP staff survey and specific requests to SoHP staff (details of chairs, speaker and outreach activities). Requests for additional information were sent to individual teams in the University, including, FHHS Dean’s Office and UoP Teaching and Learning Services (TLS), Doctoral College, Research and Innovation and HR. 71% of core SoHP staff responded to the anonymous SoHP AS survey (Table 3.ii.1). The survey provided qualitative and quantitative data on SoHP staff experiences and their thoughts and feelings about gender equality within the School. Non-core were not included in the survey but will be in future years along with wider consultation with students.

ACADEMIC RESEARCH ONLY PROF/SUPPORT & TECHNICAL

TOTAL

F M PNS Total F M PNS Total F M PNS Total F M PNS Total

Population 69 26 95 5 4 9 16 6 22 90 36 126

Respondents 44 16 5 65 2 1 0 3 13 4 4 21 59 21 9 89

Response Rate 68% 33% 95% 71%

Table 3.ii.1 SoHP AS Staff Survey Response Rates: F=Female, M=Male, PNS=Prefer Not to Say

Liaison with the School (staff and students)

SoHP staff were updated on progress through various channels, including SAT Chair updates at SEG meetings to Programme and Academic Leads, who then disseminated the information to individual teams across the School, and preambles to the AS staff survey and requests for other information. Additionally, informal feedback was gathered from staff and the SAT student representatives helped to gauge student experience and opinion. More student engagement will be sought in the future (Action 3.ii.1).

15

3.ii ACTION POINT:

1. Consult with the student population using surveys and focus groups to gain data on the student experience of the Athena Swan process and actions.

External Feedback on the Report

Two academics acted as critical friends and provided feedback on the draft application:

1. Dr Louise MacKenzie, AS Champion, Life & Medical School AS SAT (Bronze and Bronze renewal awards), University of Hertford

2. Professor Liz Kay, Chair, UoP central AS SAT and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry AS SAT (Silver AS award)

How the SoHP SAT fits with the University structure.

Reporting channels operate between the AS SoHP SAT and the Faculty and the AS SoHP SAT and AS UoP SAT. In addition to this, the SoHP liaise with the faculty Equality and Diversity Committee (EDIC) which feeds in to the university UoP EDIC. These reporting channels help to ensure the smooth co-ordination applications across the Institution and support the staff involved.

3.iii. Plans for the future of the SAT

Meeting frequency

Once the Bronze application is submitted, a reduced version of the SAT will continue to meet four times a year to monitor the implementation of the action points. There will be six core SAT members post-application. This will increase in preparation for the next application (2021).

Succession planning

The SAT Terms of Reference (ToRs) will be reviewed annually (Action 3.iii.1). All SAT posts (excluding the administrator linked to the faculty) will run for maximum 2 years, half the post will end each year with annual open calls to recruit new members, allowing some continuity (Action 3.iii.2). If a SAT member leaves the team before the end of the session, an open call will be made to find a replacement; every effort will be made to retain a good balance and representation in the team (gender/ role and contract function).

Monitoring Action Points

The SAT will continue to work with the SEG and Faculty to implement the action plan. Policy changes will be suggested at both Faculty and University level and monitored for progress/adoption. Individual SAT members are assigned a specific group of action points to monitor and will update the SAT on progress. Many of the changes made in data collection and monitoring in the School will be managed at Faculty level, the teams and E&D administrator will work together to instigate and maintain the practice of monitoring progress and collect and review any required data that was not collected previously.

16

Additionally, the staff survey will be reviewed and repeated every 18 months to gauge changes in staff perception and after the application (Action 3.iii.3).

Keeping the School Updated

The SAT Chair will continue to attend SEG meetings to update the leads on AS issues. The chair will also provide updates at School open forums (held twice annually) and the staff away day (held each term) (Action 3.iii.4).

Engagement with other departments and the institution

All UoP Faculties are committed to achieving AS awards. UoP encourages SATs that have already completed awards to offer advice to others, to assist in the completion of more applications at the University.

3.iii ACTION POINTS:

1. Formal review of SAT ToRs annually and update as required 2. Review SAT membership and rotation of responsibilities and staff members 3. Review and repeat staff survey annually to monitor staff experience and perceptions of policy

implementation. Include all staff. 4. Continue to provide regular updates to staff on AS progress actions.


17

4. A picture of the department

4.1 Student data

SoHP currently has 1389 registered students. The School provides a diverse range of academic programmes, including pre-registration professional programmes and a range of post-registration modules within an innovative framework to support professional development in a learner and service-centred format. Data within this section span academic years 2011/12 – 2015/16 inclusive.

4.1.i. Numbers of men and women on access or foundation courses

N/A

4.1.ii. Numbers of UGs by gender

Within the SoHP, the proportion of female undergraduate students has remained stable at 76% over the past three years, in line with data from the sector (HEIDI 2015/16). The gender balance is less extreme than the FHHS but greater than the UoP (Table 4.1.ii1.).

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16

n % n % n % n % n %

UoP

Female 14771 54 13240 53 12967 54 12559 54 11296 55

Male 12532 46 11676 47 10997 46 10556 46 9167 45

FHHS

Female 3836 84 3877 83 4217 84 4145 84 4380 85

Male 733 16 772 17 775 16 765 16 794 15

SoHP

Female 869 79 853 77 822 76 793 76 778 76

Male 234 21 253 23 261 24 253 24 243 24

Total UG students

1103 - 1106 - 1083 - 1046 - 1021 -

Table 4.1.ii.1: UG student numbers 2011-15 divided by gender

SoHP UG data split by programme

The SoHP currently runs seven UG pre-registration health programmes and, in line with similar programmes nationally, due to professional body training requirements, they are all only open to full-time students. The School also ran a DipHE in Operating Department Practice that was discontinued after the contract with the NHS ended.

Individual programme data demonstrate variability in the gender split of students, Social work and Optometry have more females than the national figure, while Dietetics and Physiotherapy have less, with a higher level of males than the national average. Podiatry and Occupational Therapy are similar but Paramedicine achieves the best balance with an almost equal split (better than national average)1 see Figures 4.1.ii.1 and 4.1.ii.2. The application and admission process e.g. Open days and marketing may differ between courses. Exploration of all the applicant journey in Paramedicine, Physiotherapy and Dietetics may provide some ideas for improving the balance in Optometry and Social Work (Action 4.1.ii.2).

18

Figure 4.1.ii.1: UG student data BA (Hons) Social Work, BSc (Hons) Dietetics, BSc (Hons) Occupational Therapy, BSc (Hons) Optometry

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 National 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 National 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 National 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 National

BA (Hons) Social Work BSc (Hons) Dietetics BSc (Hons) Occupational Therapy BSc (Hons) Optometry

Male 40 34 26 16 22 16978 8 8 9 12 12 529 16 9 10 8 15 2940 16 34 40 38 40 6588

Female 227 213 186 163 142 75222 89 96 95 90 92 8592 164 163 154 151 150 35118 19 36 60 70 90 8179

85% 86% 88%91%

87%82%

92% 92% 91%88% 88%

94%91%

95% 94% 95%91% 92%

54%51%

60%65%

69%

55%

15% 14% 12%9%

13%18%

8% 8% 9%12% 12%

6%9%

5% 6% 5%9% 8%

46%49%

40%35%

31%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

19

Figure 4.1.ii.2: UG student data for BSc (Hons) Paramedic Practitioner, BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy, BSc (Hons) Podiatry, DipHE Operating Department Practice

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 National 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 National 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 National 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

BSc (Hons) Paramedic Practitioner BSc (Hons) Physiotherapy BSc (Hons) Podiatry DipHE Operating Department Practice

Male 52 63 80 72 70 14982 47 48 43 45 46 12185 27 32 32 27 22 3140 15 14 12 14 9

Female 65 70 64 60 72 9113 80 79 75 86 102 40760 64 57 59 63 66 9782 38 40 41 42 20

56%53%

44% 45%51%

38%

63% 62% 64% 66%69%

77%

70%

64% 65%70%

75% 76%72%

74%77% 75%

69%

44%47%

56% 55%49%

62%

37% 38% 36% 34%31%

23%

30%

36% 35%30%

25% 24%28% 26%

23% 25%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20

UG application, offer and acceptance data

SoHP’s UG admissions processes have been developed to be transparent and fair to all. Applicants have advance information about what to expect via webpages, and face-to-face interviews are undertaken using mixed-gender panels, representing a range of University and professional disciplines. E&D and Unconscious Bias training is mandatory for all internal staff, and non-University staff participating in recruitment activities are invited to access the online packages via an external link.

National benchmarking suggests that conversion from application to acceptances is around 16% for both genders. In comparison, the School’s 2015/16 conversion rates were 14% for men and 22% for women (Table 4.1.ii.2). Whilst there may be a number of reasons for this, it is possible that the University’s active widening participation programme could be contributing to the high rate of acceptance amongst female applicants. A 2015 UCAS study suggests that whilst women are on average 35% more likely to go to University than men, this proportion increases significantly amongst students from a disadvantaged socio-economic background, particularly amongst predominantly white communities3. The socio-economic characteristics of the south west of the UK means that the University’s widening participation activities predominantly engage people in this demographic. The data indicate that the number of offers to men has increased by 2.3% since 2011/12 whilst overall offers have remained fairly stable. Some programmes have higher male participation than others (compared to benchmarking). Comparison and interdisciplinary discussions between teams may help the programmes with lower male application and acceptance rates. However, we will aim to explore ways to improve both the offers and the conversion rate for male applicants, whilst maintaining the current strong conversion rate amongst female applicants (Actions 4.1.ii.1 & 2).

21

Female Male

Raw data Proportion Raw data Proportion

2011/12

Applications 1703 725

Application:Offer 493 29% 153 21%

Application: Accept 338 20% 103 14%

2012/13




2013/14




2014/15




2015/16




National Benchmarking data 2015/16



Table 4.1.ii.2: Proportion of applications: offers: acceptances, UG programmes

4.1.ii ACTION POINTS: 1. Assess interview and selection process to identify reasons behind difference in offer rates between male and

female applicants. 2. Explore the applicant journey to identify possible factors influencing acceptance amongst male applicants.

Consult current students and those attending open days/ offered a place at the university.

22

Some elements of this section have been redacted as they contained sensitive/personal information not suitable for general publication.

Figure 4.1.ii.3: Degree attainment by class of degree and gender: Graph depicting the distribution of degree classifications awarded each year by the SoHP,

split by genders for comparison

23

UG degree attainment

Data for degree attainment in SoHP for the last five academic years appear in Figure 4.1.ii.3 (Some elements

of this section have been redacted as they contained sensitive/personal information not suitable for general

publication.). National data suggest that the proportion of students attaining ‘good degrees’ (2:1 and above)

is broadly equal between the genders at around 23%. In contrast, these figures suggest that the

percentage amongst male students in the School is consistently slightly higher than their female peers. The

SAT felt that further examination of the data at a programme level was warranted. Therefore, univariate

logistic regression analysis was used to explore the association between gender and achievement of a

‘good’ degree classification within each programme using the total available student data for the academic

years 2011/2012-2015/2016. Across the whole School, the odds of achieving a ‘good’ degree tended to be

lower for females than males, although this was not statistically significant (Odds Ratios for females 0.74

(95% Confidence Interval 0.53-1.02, (p= 0.06)). SoHP is committed to ensuring that all of our students have

equal opportunity to achieve their potential. Exploratory analyses suggest variability between individual

programmes, thus, this aspect of our AS assessment will form an action point. Ongoing data collection and

evaluation will be important to enable a more sensitive analysis as more data becomes available and to

share good practice between the programmes (Action 4.1.ii.3).

4.1.ii ACTION POINT:

1. Explore marking, assessment practice and support provided to undergraduates across all programmes. This will help identify any area of potential bias affecting attainment. Include review of use of anonymous marking in exams.

of 106

4.1.iii. Numbers of men and women on PGT degrees

Enrolled students

Figure 4.1.iii.1: PGT programmes

These data show that SoHP PGT programmes are dominated by female students, with the proportions consistently exceeding national student benchmarking and AHP workforce data1.

FullTime

PartTime

FullTime

PartTime

FullTime

PartTime

FullTime

PartTime

FullTime

PartTime

FullTime

PartTime

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16Benchmark

15/16

Male 6 14 9 15 14 12 16 20 16 54 2650 7175

Female 55 145 46 135 47 115 64 146 66 213 8450 20215

90% 91%84%

90%

77%

91%

80%88%

80% 80% 76% 74%

10% 9%16%

10%

23%

9%

20%12%

20% 20% 24% 26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

of 106

Application, offer and acceptance rates

Table 4.1.iii.1 indicates a similar conversion rate from applications through to acceptances amongst male and female students.

Female Male


2011/12

Applications 182 39


Offer: Accept 60 88% 5 50%

2012/13

Applications 222 38


Offer: Accept 106 96% 18 95%

2013/14

Applications 225 37


Offer: Accept 113 90% 13 81%

2014/15

Applications 234 47


Offer: Accept 102 89% 23 82%

2015/16

Applications 262 80


Offer: Accept 141 89% 47 90%

Table 4.1.iii.1: Proportion of PGT applications: offers: acceptances

The data suggest that male students are under-represented on our PGT programmes. The increase in numbers seen in 2015/16 cohort was due to the introduction of more PG programmes. Given the similar conversion rates from offer to acceptance between male and female applicants, we feel that the area to focus on is attracting applicants to ensure we attract a representative diversity of students. Section 5.6.vii has identified a potential gender imbalance in promotional material and activities (Action 4.1.iii.1).

4.1.iii ACTION POINT:

1. Create a gender balance in the promotional material and recruitment activities for Post- graduate taught programmes.

of 106

Degree attainment

Available data only include those being awarded any type of PGT qualification. Figure 4.1.iii.2 (Some

elements of this section have been redacted as they contained sensitive/personal information not suitable for general

publication.) includes all PGT awards in the academic years 2012/2013 – 2015/2016. The number of

students has increased yearly and of those achieving a qualification, the proportion of female students has

remained stable at 75 – 77%, which reflects HESA figures for subjects allied to medicine (HESA 2016). The

majority of students discontinuing their studies without achieving a formal qualification undertook single

modules as CPD.



Figure 4.1.iii.2: PGT programme qualification attainment

of 106

4.1.iv. Numbers of men and women on PGR degrees

Enrolled students

Figure 4.1.iv.1 shows that SoHP has a small PGR population and the ratio of male:female students has been variable over the years. Full time students have become more female-dominated over time, especially compared to the benchmarking. Part time students have become similar to benchmarking. It is good to see so many women on the programme but the school needs to encourage more males. SoHP has developed active links with many local healthcare providers, including mentorship and active support for those interested in pursuing a research career, attracting the predominantly female staff to PGR qualifications. Further exploration of what attracts male candidates may help us understand how to increase our male numbers (Action 4.1.vi.1).

Figure 4.1.iv.1: PGR student numbers 2011-2016

Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time

2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Benchmark 15/16

Male 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 1470 595

Female 4 9 5 11 7 6 7 6 10 5 2120 1060

57%

69% 71%79% 78% 75% 78%

67%

91%

63% 59%64%

43%

31% 29%21% 22% 25% 22%

33%

9%

38% 41%36%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

of 106

Application, offer and acceptance rates

Application, offer and acceptance data within PGR programmes indicate a highly variable picture, with no discernible patterns from year to year (Table 4.1.iv.1). This is most likely due to the small numbers of students involved. Therefore, data from all years were collapsed into a summary figure. These data suggest that a greater proportion of female applicants are offered places, and in turn are more likely to accept (Action 4.1.vi.1). It is possible that this figure is, in part, due to the high proportion of PGRs who are SoHP staff members undertaking their studies on a part-time basis, given the high proportion of female staff in SoHP but warrants further exploration.

Female Male


2011/12

Applications 10 12 Application:Offer 7 70% 5 42%


2012/13



2013/14


Offer: Accept 0 n/a 1 100%

2014/15



2015/16



All years

Applications 46 30



Table 4.1.iv.1: Proportion of applications: offers: acceptances- PGR

Degree attainment



4.1.vi ACTION POINT:

of 106

1. Explore the applicant journey to identify possible factors influencing application and acceptance amongst male PGT/R applicants.

2. SAT administrator to liaise with UoP central AS Hub data team and doctoral training centres to develop a more accurate tracking system of PG student completion data for future analysis.

4.1.v Progression pipeline between UG and PG student levels

Women make up the majority of our students at all levels (Figure 4.1.v.1); their share increases from 77% at UG, to 85% at PGT, but reduces back to 77% at PGR. Given the low proportion of male PGTs, we are committed to investigating and addressing any issues, which may discourage male UGs from undertaking their PG studies with us. However, we are also aware of the need to monitor PGR data to ensure that the current proportion of female students is maintained (Action 4.1.v.1).

Figure 4.1.v.1: Average proportions of female to male students across the student cohorts (2012-16)

Undergraduate Postgraduate taught Postgraduate Research

Male 1244 176 25

Female 4115 1032 70

77%85%

74%

23%15%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4.1.v ACTION POINT:

1. Survey male 3rd year UG students to identify reasons that may be discouraging them

from going on to apply for PG studies.

of 106

References

1. NHS England. 2016. NHS England Workforce Statistics- September 2016 [Internet]. [cited 2017 Jun 7]. Available from: http://www.content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB22716

2. Naylor S, Norris M, Williams A. 2014. Does ethnicity, gender or age of physiotherapy students affect performance in the final clinical placements? An exploratory study. Physiotherapy. 100(1):9–13.

3. UCAS. 2015. UCAS data reveals the numbers of men and women placed in over 150 higher education subjects [Internet]. UCAS end of cycle report 2015. [cited 2017 Jul 26]. Available from: https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/ucas-data-reveals-numbers-men-and-women-placed-over-150-higher

SECTION 4.1 WORD COUNT: 1292

of 106

4.2. Academic and research staff data

4.2.i. Academic staff by grade, contract function and gender: research-only, teaching and research or teaching-

only

With the exception of paramedicine and optometry programmes, the SoHP staff profile is predominantly female (Table 2.2), reflecting closely the gender distribution of UK qualified clinicians (Figure 4.2.i.1.). That men are underrepresented in allied medical professions is an acknowledged national and international phenomenon. Though the SoHP female:male ratio closely reflects national distribution, this ratio is not consistent across academic grades. There are disproportionately fewer senior female staff (Figure 4.2.i.2).

of 106


Figure 4.2.i.1: Staff population compared to registered clinical population in the UK, split by discipline and gender

of 106


Figure 4.2.i.2: SoHP staff demographics by grade and gender (2015-17)

of 106


Figure 4.2.i.3: Comparison of SoHP and University of Plymouth demographics by grade and gender (2015-17)

of 106

Across the University the female:male ratio amongst Lecturer and Associate Professor (teaching) are closer to 50%:50% and drop to 33%:66% in senior roles (Figure 4.2.i.3), whilst in SoHP this change is from 75%:25% to 30%:70% in senior academic staff (Figure 4.2.i.2). This is a significant shift in gender balance and a poor representation of the staff population.

Gender distribution trends amongst lower academic grades has remained fairly consistent. Marked differences are seen amongst senior research and academic grades within SoHP, however a single change has a significant impact on a small number. Whilst this follows HE sector trends (Figure 4.2.i.4) when compared to registered professionals (substantial female bias) the declining representation of women in higher level academic grades within senior SoHP staff (Figure 4.2.i.3 & 4.2.i.4), reflects a further departure from the sector trend.

Figure 4.2.i.4: Comparison of SoHP gender distribution to National Data taken from UK Schools including Nursing,

Allied Health Professionals and Social Work. Other Academic includes: Research Assistant, Research Fellows, Associate

Lectures, Associate Demonstrators, Lecturers, Senior Lecturers and Associate Professors, Associate HoS, DHoS. Professor:

Professors alone. Manager includes HoS or other senior manager.

There are three potential causes for the disparity in female:male ratios in senior posts: recruitment, retention and progression. That SoHP lecturer numbers reflect the sector gender distribution indicates that the general recruitment policies and process have minimal bias. Fewer women in more senior posts in SoHP suggests female staff are in some way disadvantaged by the current practices of promotion or recruitment to senior positions (Section 5.1 addresses recruitment and promotion). Notably, recent changes in management structure, to include Associate Heads of School, has helped to increase female presence at senior levels in 2017 (Figure 4.2.i.3).

SoHP National SoHP National SoHP National

Other Academic Professor Manager

Male 25 3065 4 265 2 115

Female 79 8525 1 360 0 230

76% 74%

20%

58%67%

24% 26%

80%

42%

100%

33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

SoHP staff population compared to national average

of 106

Diversity of the Staff in SoHP



Table 4.2.i.1: Ethnicity of academic staff in SoHP: N/D= Not Disclosed

of 106



Table 4.2.i.2: Ethnicity of academic staff in UoP: N/D= Not Disclosed

Ethnic diversity is low in the SoHP and UoP, similar to the population of the south west of England. The population is generally 95% white British4 and the staff are fairly representative of this. Recruitment of more BME staff would require more national and international staff applying and relocating for the positions (Action 4.2.i.1).

4.2.i ACTION POINT

1. Encourage more national and international BME applicants to apply for posts in SoHP and relocate

to Plymouth. Increase national and international advertisement with balanced ethnicity and

promotional material for Plymouth the city.

of 106

Contract Types: Teaching only, Teaching and Research and Research Only

2015 2016 2017

Female Male Female Male Female Male

TO 30 23 56 22 59 16

T&R 44 17 22 11 19 13

RO 5 1 9 2 4 4

Total 79 41 87 35 82 33

Table 4.2.i.3: Summary of staff numbers in academic roles by contract type

Table 4.2.i.3 summarises contract type distribution. Historically, contract type was largely defined by the role assumed. Research only contracts (RO) for research roles, teaching only contracts (TO) for associate teachers (lecturers and demonstrators), whilst remaining academics were on mixed teaching and research contracts (T&R). A University review of academic career pathways in 2015, resulted in a shift in contract types offered to permanent academics. Table 4.2.i.3 and Figure 4.2.i.5 reveal the shift in contract types from T&R to TO amongst academics, reflecting more closely staff roles in each department. Lack of parity between the different roles may have contributed to the disparity in gender distribution in senior grades in the past (Figure 4.2.i.5).

Figure 4.2.i.5: SoHP staff population by contract type (Teaching only: TO, Teaching and Research: T&R and

Research only: RO), split by gender and role. Research = Research Assistant and Research Fellows, Associate

Lecturer = Associate Lecturer or Associate Demonstrators. Academic = Lecturer Associate Prof (Senior Lecturer),

Associate Prof (Reader), Associate HoS, DHoS. Senior Manager = Professor, HoS, or other academic senior manager

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

2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Research Associate Lecturer Academic Senior Manager

TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 9 2 4 4 20 10 46 16 51 12 0 0 0 1 0 1

T&R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 11 22 6 18 8 0 6 0 5 1 5

RO 10 13 10 5 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

69%

52%

32%27% 26%

40%

100%

83%

100%

83%

31%

48%

68%73% 74%

60%

17% 17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SoHP staff population across different rolesby contract type and gender

of 106

4.2.ii. Academic and research staff by grade on fixed-term, open-ended/permanent and zero-hour contracts by

gender

Fixed–term, temporary and zero-hour contracts

Zero-hour contracts

UoP does not use zero-hour contracts. Most academic staff are employed on open-ended contracts. Temporary/fixed-term contracts are for specific purposes in research and teaching only roles.

Temporary teaching contracts

Fixed-term contracts are used routinely for associate lectures and demonstrators (TO) to add specialist skills or provide essential cover for core staff for a limited number of sessions. Hours are agreed once cover requirements are calculated; however staff can accept or decline additional hours as offered. PhD students are often employed on additional fixed-term contracts that provide teaching experience and income whilst studying. The availability of a broad range of teachers enhances the student experience whilst developing links between the University, external companies and influential clinicians. Temporary contract use is reviewed regularly and the SoHP must consider creating a permanent post if teaching hours exceed a specific threshold (around 180 hours) for 2 years.

Research contracts

Most Research Assistants and Research Fellows are employed on temporary RO contracts linked to specific projects and the grants funding them. A recent review of temporary RO contracts by the University, resulted in plans to establish longer contracts, facilitating retention of skilled researchers within UoP. Any employee who has a series of fixed-term contracts for 4 years will be considered for a permanent post. This was developed in consultation with the unions and contributed to our recent European Commission HR Excellence in Research award.

Maternity leave and interim posts

Temporary posts are created for maternity or secondment cover (12 months standard).

When a senior academic with management responsibilities leaves, another member of staff is promoted to the role on an interim basis, temporary contracts cover the interim period and their original role (and contract) is held for their return (unless promotion is permanent).

of 106

Permanent and Temporary contracts

Female Male

Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary

n % n % n % n %

2015 64 82% 14 18% 31 78% 9 23%

2016 66 76% 21 24% 23 66% 12 34%

2017 65 78% 18 22% 23 70% 10 30%

Table 4.2.ii.1: Staff on Permanent and Fixed term Contracts in the SoHP

Table 4.2.ii.1 indicates that females are more likely to be employed on a permanent contract within the school. The breakdown across the roles in Figure 4.2.ii.1 shows that the contract type is closely associated with the role that is being carried out, the majority of staff are employed on permanent academic contracts. The number of males is lower in general, causing larger changes in the statistics, with each individual. As stated previously, yearly fluctuations in research and associate lecturer grades are due to the high turnover, which mostly affects the number of temporary contracts. In senior management positions the temporary contracts are used for interim roles created as staff leave managerial positions.

A UoP redeployment scheme exists and aims to ensure retention of skilled permanent and temporary research and teaching staff.

Figure 4.2.ii.1: Staff population by contract type for 2016-17, split by general role: P = Permanent, T = Temporary. .

Research = Research Assistant and Research Fellows, Associate Lecturer = Associate Lecturer or Associate Demonstrators.

Academic = Lecturer Associate Prof (Senior Lecturer), Associate Prof (Reader), Associate HoS, DHoS. Senior Manager = Professor,

HoS, or other academic senior manager

P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T P T

2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017


M 0 1 0 2 0 4 6 7 0 5 4 11 20 0 18 4 18 2 5 1 5 1 6 1

F 0 5 0 9 0 4 4 6 5 5 0 3 60 3 61 7 62 2 0 0 0 0 1 1

83% 82%

50%40%

46%

100%

50%

21%

75% 77%64%

78%

50%

14%

50%

17% 18%

50%60%

54% 50%

79%

25% 23%36%

23%

50%

86%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SoHP staff population by permanent and tempory contract,Split by gender and roles

of 106

Figure 4.2.ii.2: Comparison of SoHP gender distribution to National Data taken from UK Schools including Nursing,

Allied Health Professionals and Social Work for temporary and permanent contracts in 2017.

The ratio of permanent to temporary contracts is similar to national benchmarking. However, SoHP has a greater proportion of males are on temporary contracts. In 2017 there were a greater number of male associate lectures, all of whom are on temporary contracts, which may be skewing these numbers, this changes yearly.

Female Male Female Male

National SoHP

T 1,990 685 10 18

P 7,190 2,800 67 28

78% 80%87%

61%

22% 20%13%

39%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Benchmarking against National Data Gender Distribution over Temporary and Permanent Contracts

P T

of 106

Full –time and Part time staff contracts

Female Male

FT PT FT PT

n % n % n % n %

2015 37 47% 42 53% 22 54% 19 46%

2016 38 44% 49 56% 20 57% 15 43%

2017 43 52% 40 48% 20 61% 13 39% Table 4.2.ii.2: Staff by gender in full-time and part-time positions in the SoHP: Percentage of female in either full or

part-time shown.

Figure 4.2.ii.3: Academic staff by gender and grade in full-time and part-time positions in the SoHP FT = Full-time,

PT = Part-time. . Research = Research Assistant and Research Fellows, Associate Lecturer = Associate Lecturer or Associate

Demonstrators. Academic = Lecturer Associate Prof (Senior Lecturer), Associate Prof (Reader), Associate HoS, DHoS. Senior

Manager = Professor, HoS, or other academic senior manager

Table 4.2.ii.2 and Figure 4.2.ii.3 shows females are also more likely to be part time than males, similar to other departments nationally. This may be due to child and other caring responsibilities outside of work. Again the role also has a bearing on the type of contract e.g. research and associate lecturer roles are more likely to be part –time (as well as temporary).


2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017


PT 4 1 8 2 1 4 10 13 10 5 3 16 28 4 31 7 39 5 0 1 0 1 0 1

FT 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 17 37 15 63 15 0 5 0 5 1 6

20%11%

75%

56%

81%

54%

68%62%

75%83% 83% 86%

80%89%

25%

44%

19%

46%

32%38%

25%17% 17% 14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SoHP Staff Population of full time and part time contract,split by gender and role

FT PT

of 106

Figure 4.2.ii.4: Academic staff by gender and in academic roles in full-time and part-time positions in the SoHP

Figure 4.2.ii.5: Comparison of National Data taken from UK Schools including Nursing, Allied Health Professionals

and Social Work and UoP data for full-time and part-time contracts in 2017.


2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Lecturer Senior Lecturer Associate Prof Professor

PT 24 4 24 4 26 5 4 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

FT 30 15 28 13 30 13 3 2 6 2 5 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 3 0 3 1 3

56%

79%

54%

76%

54%

72%

43%

67%56%

75% 75%

44%

21%

46%

24%

46%

28%

57%

33%44%

25% 25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Academic SoHP Staff Population of full time and part time contract,split by gender and role

FT PT

F M F M

National SoHP

PT 3620 1020 30 5

FT 5525 2440 43 17

60%71%

59%

77%

40%29%

41%

23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Benchmarking against national data Gender distribution over full or part time

of 106

Closer examination of Figure 4.2.ii.3 reveals differences between lecturer and more senior academic positions, differentiated by promotion route, i.e. teaching or research. There is an interesting change in the profile if promotion along majority research pathway is examined (Figure 4.2.ii.4), with no part-time Readers, and no female Professors prior to 2017. This further suggests a potential concern regarding recruitment and promotion of senior staff in the School. The SAT will investigate (Action 4.2.ii.1) and escalate this issue to the University SAT as it will be influenced by promotion criteria and protocols set out by the University (see Section 5.1.ii).

4.2.ii ACTION POINT:

1. Review promotion and recruitment practices for any bias or barriers against different contract

types that would prevent promotion to senior roles in the SoHP.

of 106

4.2.iii. Academic leavers by grade and gender and full/part-time status

Staff turnover

Though staff turnover is low, there are noticeable trends; in particular, PT female staff have highest turnover rates. The reasons are unclear, though the figures suggest the need for a review of the support provided in development and promotion of part-time staff (particularly women). Amongst academics, the senior academic/management comprising mostly men in full-time roles has the lowest turnover (Figure 4.2.iii.1 & Table 4.2.iii.1).

Full-Time Part-Time

F M F M

2013-14 3 (8%) 4 (20%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%)

2014-15 5 (14%) 2 (10%) 7 (21%) 1 (14%)

2015-16 3 (8%) 2 (10%) 14 (38%) 1 (10%)

Table 4.2.iii.1: SoHP Staff turnover by gender and full or part contract

Figure 4.2.iii.1: Staff turnover in SoHP, split by part time or full time contract, gender and job role (2013-2014 TO

2015-2016).

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

13-14 14-15 15-16 13-14 14-15 15-16 13-14 14-15 15-16

Research Academic Senior Manager

PT 0 0 2 0 9 0 1 0 5 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

FT 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0

33%

50%44%

67%

29%

67%

50%

67%

50%56%

33%

71%

33%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

SoHP leavers - Full or part time, split by gender and job role

FT PT

of 106

The small number of senior academic posts in SoHP means the data presented throughout this section are very sensitive to small changes; the departure of one member of staff may represent 50 or 100% turnover (Table 4.2.iii.2).

Research Academic Senior Manager/Prof

Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time

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

2013-14

1 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

1 (3%)

4 (25%)

1 (4%)

0 (0%)

1 (50%)

0 (0%)

1 (100%)

0 (0%)

2014-15

1 (100%)

0 (0%)

2 (33%)

0 (0%)

4 (11%)

2 (13%)

5 (18%)

1 (20%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2015-16

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

9 (150%)

0 (0%)

3 (5%)

2 (13%)

5 (16%)

1 (17%)

0 (100%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Table 4.2.iii.2: Description of staff turnover in SoHP, split by gender and FT or PT contract 2013-14 to 2015-16:

turnover of role presented as number and %.

Reasons for leaving

All staff leavers are offered an ‘exit interview’ and HR tracks and monitors responses to identify trends within each department. The information, summarised in Figure 4.2.iii.2, informs UoP policy to attract and retain skilled staff.

Between 2013/2014-2015/2016 almost one third of SoHP leavers reported stress and heavy workload as the major contributing factor in their decision to leave. Informal conversations with staff suggest that those on PT contracts, in particular, have greater difficulty managing their workload within their contracted hours (Action 4.2.iii.1). However, the number of leavers who complete exit interviews is very low (Action 4.2.iii.2).

Another reason was career progression. This indicated that staff did not have the opportunity for promotion within SoHP, resulting in staff leaving for organisations that offer greater opportunities for progression (Action 4.2.iii.3). The remaining factors were those over which SoHP has little influence: retirement, end of contract/voluntary redundancy and personal circumstances.

Figure 4.2.iii.2: Reasons for leaving cited in exit interviews held at SoHP 2013-16, (n=11).

of 106

4.2.iii ACTION POINTS:

1. Review of Work Load Analysis by SEG to create realistic workloads, especially for part-time employees.

2. Flag poor uptake of exit interview with central HR team. Request a review of exit interview process to increase numbers taking part. SEG to review reason for leaving data annually for positive impact/ changes since introduction of other actions

3. Line Managers to advertise developmental opportunities to all staff actively support and encourage development opportunities for promotion.

References

1. Office for National Statistics. 2012. Ethnicity and National Identity in England and Wales: 2011.

[cited 2017 November 10]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/ethnicityandnationalidentityinenglandandwales/2012-12-11#ethnicity-in-england-and-wales


of 106

5. Supporting and advancing women’s careers

5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff

5.1.i Recruitment

Job vacancies are advertised on UoP web pages. Advertisements include UoP AS Bronze Award and

Stonewall Diversity Champion logos and related statements. All recruitment at the University is managed

electronically, overseen by HR, using the online system (i-Trent). Job advertisements appear on national

websites, such as jobs.ac.uk, enabling female and male candidates to view and consider them.

During shortlisting and interview, University policies are used to ensure fairness and equality and avoid discrimination and prejudice in the selection process. Panel members must have undertaken ‘Unconscious Bias’ training before interviewing (including external panellists). Since 2017, all new staff are required to undertake mandatory training within the first two weeks of employment on both ‘Diversity in the

Workplace’ and ‘Unconscious Bias’. Additionally, all managers are required to complete the ‘Recruitment and Selection’ e-learning course, within their first two weeks of employment, and to enrol on face-to-face training on ‘Interviewing with Confidence’, and ‘Recruitment and Selection for Chairs of Panels’.

Female Male


2013-14

Applied 49 39

Shortlisted 28 57% 21 54%

Interviewed 21 75% 19 90%

Offered 14 67% 11 58%

Accepted 11 79% 7 64%

2014-15

Applied 78 32



Offered 13 34% 3 38%

Accepted 13 100% 3 100%

2015-16

Applied 58 25



Offered 17 63% 3 30%

Accepted 16 94% 3 100%

Table 5.1.i.1: Proportion of applications broken down by recruitment stage, 2013-16: Raw number of candidates

displayed with proportion moving on to next stage as a percentage.

Table 5.1.i.1 illustrates that more female candidates apply for positions in the school and are more likely to

be offered the position (similar to student data) although both genders are have the same chance for

shortlisting and interview and of accepting the job. On face value, this suggests a move away from gender

equality, favouring females. However, the lower numbers of men have created more variability in the

proportions and the trend in recruitment varies with job type (Figure 5.1.i.1A, B & C and Table 5.1.i.1). In

of 106

the research roles, females have a higher chance of success but in the academic group, it is fairly even,

with far more females applying for both roles. In senior management, there is some suggestion that males

are more likely to be hired but the numbers are very low. It must be noted that academics are being

sourced from a pre-existing pool of health care professionals where there are three females for every male

(see 4.2 – Figure 4.2.i.1), the ratio of applicants is similar to that of staff and the national profession.



Table 5.1.i.1: Proportion of applications broken down by recruitment stage and roles (Research, Academic and

Senior Manager), 2013-16. Raw number of candidates displayed with proportion moving on to next stage as a percentage.

Abbreviations: Prop = Proportion, Apl= Applied, SL = Shortlisted, Int = Interviewed, Off= Offered, Acc = Accepted

of 106

Figure 5.1.i.1.A Research Staff, B: Academic Staff & C: Senior management Staff: Recruitment process figures from staff at SoHP broken down by gender and role.

Abbreviations Apl= Applied, SL = Shortlisted, Int = Interviewed, Off= Offered, Acc = Accepted.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Apl SL Int Ofr Acc Ap Sh In Of Acc Ap Sh In Of Acc

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Recruitment of Academic Staff in SoHP over 2013-16

Female Male

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Recruitment of Academic Staff in SoHP over 2013-16

Female Male

0

2

4

6


2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Recruitment of Senior Management Staff in SoHP over 2013-16

Female Male

A B

C

of 106

5.1.ii Induction

SoHP staff commence employment with the UoP throughout the academic year. Prior to the arrival of any new staff member, the i-Trent system automatically sends out an email to the recruiting manager, providing guidance on what induction should include. Email address and computer log-in details are arranged centrally via this system. There is a ‘new staff community’ for web-based guidance on induction, presenting relevant information and advice on how to navigate through the wide array of services available.

University induction is mandatory and includes:

Welcome to UoP – outlining the University’s values and strategic ambitions.

Living Our Values and the Student Experience – Demonstration of UoP behaviours and impact

on the student experience.

Signposting – access to essential information and mandatory training.

Coffee/Cakes and Networking – meet other new staff and key staff across the University.

The last three years’ of recorded SoHP Induction event data show that most staff do attend the induction session (Figure 5.1.ii.1). Attendance by females has dropped over time but males has been more variable. These data must be interpreted with caution owing to the small numbers being analysed, especially male recruits in the SoHP. Despite the high numbers of those who do attend, this still demonstrates that not all staff attend the university induction as required (Action 5.1.ii.1).

Line managers organise and run the local, School-based, induction programme, including assignment of a mentor, along with the probation process. The mentor-mentee relationship typically lasts for a year. A

recent review by the SEG found that the induction process was not being adhered to by all line managers and have actioned that a formal checklist is used, monitored by the school administration (Action 5.1.ii.2). New staff are welcomed on day one by their mentor and manager, given a tour of the University, visit the staff card office, and introduced to other members of academic and professional services staff.

New staff with teaching responsibilities must complete the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) training in order to become Fellows of the Higher Education Academy (HEA), if they have not previously done so. 220 hours of contracted time are allocated to study towards this qualification in addition to attending the taught components. All staff members are allocated a SoHP ‘PGCAP mentor’ who have themselves completed PGCAP.

https://intranet.plymouth.ac.uk/newstaff/intranet.htm

of 106

Figure 5.1.ii.1: Attendance at formal induction 2013-2016: Atnd = Attended, DNA = did not attend.

Despite all staff initially being allocated a mentor, only 57% of female and 44% of male SoHP staff indicated in the 2017 staff survey that they rely on support from a mentor who is not their line manager. It is not clear if mentors are original induction mentors (Action 5.1.ii.3) or mentors self-selected by staff for other qualities or if the remaining staff do have mentors but ‘do not rely on them for support’. The UoP’s Women’s Network has recently piloted a ‘mentorship’ scheme for women in research, which has some promising participant feedback. This scheme facilitated self-selection of mentors from other disciplines across the University to foster impartial support and advice from the relationships. Short staff profiles are shared in order to ensure that both mentee and mentor are happy with the ‘match’, before the mentorship begins.

5.1.ii ACTION POINTS:

1. Line managers to ensure that 100% new SoHP recruits are allocated time to attend standard University-wide face-to-face induction event within the first 12-weeks of starting.

2. Formalise standard internal (SoHP) policies for induction of new staff and ensure they are adhered to on an on-going basis.

3. Revise mentor questions in School AS Staff survey to further explore perception and experience of staff mentorship from induction.

Female Male Female Male Female Male

2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

DNA 3 1 4 0 5 3

Atnd 8 5 8 3 9 3

73%83%

67%

100%

64%50%

27%17%

33% 36%50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Attendance at Induction training across SoHP, split by gender 2013-16

of 106

5.1.iii Promotion

The 2016 UoP promotion process was changed from an ad hoc application submission, to a set application

submission period each year. In 2016, this occurred in November. Policies, procedures and advice

concerning the three academic pathways (T&R, TO and RO) and promotions are listed on intranet

webpages, with clear job descriptions for each level. HR-led Promotions workshops were offered in FHHS

in December 2016; three members of SoHP staff attended. Following this, in 2017, the faculty and HR

Business Partner created a promotion support group. SoHP staff can access advice and support for the new

promotion system.

From 2014-16, eight promotion applications were made and four were successful (a yearly mean calculation of 167 staff members were eligible to apply). This equates to 4.7% of those in the total eligible SoHP workforce making applications and 2.3%% being promoted. All four promotions were made from lecturer to senior lecturer grades. Unsuccessful applications were also for senior lecturer level. No promotion applications were made during 2013/14 (Tables 5.1.iii.1&2).



Table 5.1.iii.1: Promotions in SoHP, showing eligibility, applications and actual promotions for whole eligible population of school. PT = Part-time, FT = Full time.

of 106



Table 5.1.iii.2: Promotions in SoHP, showing eligibility, applications and actual promotions for lecturer to senior lecturer in SoHP. FT = Full time, PT = Part-time.

Staff survey results revealed that whilst the vast majority of men and women felt able to communicate

development needs with their line manager (Figure 5.1.iii.2), less than 50% of staff felt that they knew

what they needed to do for promotion (Figure 5.1.iii.3), despite the availability of the new support group,

indicating staff are unaware of it (Action 5.1.iii.1). Perhaps in line with this uncertainty, less than 60%

asserted that they thought the promotion process is transparent and fair (Figure 5.1.iii.4).

Figure 5.1.iii.2: Staffs’ response to ‘The promotion process is clear to me and I know what I need to do to get promoted’

Figure 5.1.iii.3: Staff’s response to ‘The promotion process is transparent and fair’.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

F

M

F M

Agree 34 15

Neutral 9 0

Disagree 3 2

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

F

M

F M

Agree 22 7

Neutral 12 4

Disagree 10 6

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

of 106


1. Increase awareness of the new FHSS promotion support group within the School and run annual promotions preparations workshops at staff away days.

of 106

5.1.iv Department submissions to the Research Excellence Framework (REF)



Table 5.1.iv.1: Breakdown of staff in SoHP who are eligible and submitted to RAE 2008 and REF 2014

Staff are only counted as eligible if their contract/ role has a research element. Similar to the staff

female:male profile, there are more female researchers employed than male (Section 4.2.i). However,

despite higher numbers of eligible female researchers, males are more likely to be submitted to the REF

than females (Table 5.1.iv.1). The reasons behind this are difficult to ascertain. They could be related to the

review process (gender bias) or support for female researchers.

Staff survey data in this area is currently limited but open responses may point to restricted research

activity for those in part-time work or assigned with additional administrative duties, suggesting lack of

support for research activities (Textbox 5.1.iv.1). Workload adjustments for those returning to work

following career breaks may be one method of facilitating re-engagement with research roles (Action

5.1.iv.1). Those returning on part time contracts have a lower chance of submission than their full-time

peers (Table 5.1.iv.1). All research-active staff need protected time for their research activities, regardless

of contract status or other academic duties (Action 5.1.iv.2). Further investigation into the selection panels

and support needed for research staff is warranted (Actions 5.1.iv.3&4).

Consideration could be given to assess the short-term teaching load of research active staff after coming back from maternity leave to allow them time to focus on research outputs not achieved during their break (female academic)

Research time frequently compressed by other duties and short deadlines (Female academic)

Textbox 5.1.iv.1: Quotes from Staff Survey in response to research themed questions.

5.1.iv ACTION POINTS:

1. Develop a School-wide policy and process to support research active staff to re-commence research activity upon return to work after a prolonged absence e.g. parental leave within first year of return.

2. Monitor Workload Allocation Model (WAM) to ensure all research-active staff have protected time to conduct research within their allocation.

3. Create gender balanced panels and blind reviewing process for REF 2021. 4. Conduct focus groups and survey of research –active staff to assess the support given for

research activities that result in REF submission.

5.3 Career development: academic staff


5.3.i Training

Training is available to all staff and much of the available training is delivered internally (e.g. face-to-face or online), yet external opportunities are offered if appropriate. There is limited data on attendance or

of 106

satisfactions with current training opportunities provided (Figure 5.3.i.1) (Action 5.3.i.1). Training begins upon induction, with staff completing several mandatory e-learning courses, including: Health & Safety; E&D; and Unconscious Bias. This has been poorly monitored in recent years (Action 5.3.i.2).

Training Type n %

Equality & Diversity 89 84%

Unconscious Bias 90 85%

Table 5.3.i.1: Mandatory training completion data for core SoHP staff (as of June 2017).

Data relating to all non-core staff (Associate Lecturers and Demonstrators) has not been recorded historically (Action 5.3.i.3).

Figure 5.3.i.1 – Number of training activities completed by SoHP staff during 2016-2017. Data was collected from

the staff survey.

New staff also undertake a PGCAP. Completion was comparable between genders (Table 5.3.i.1). In 2016, 96% of PGCAP participants (n=50) said the course was well-organised and ran smoothly; 96% were satisfied with its quality.

The Teaching Development Framework prepares more experienced staff to apply for Senior Fellow and Principal Fellow positions with the HEA. A series of leadership sessions also support more senior staff to develop, with higher numbers of women attending than men (Table 5.3.i.2), reflecting the higher proportion of women in the SoHP.

Year Female Male

n % n %

14%

6%

45%

63%

32%

25%

9%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

F

M

FM

0 61

1-3 2010

4-6 144

7+ 41

of 106

2013/14 8 57% 6 43%

2014/15 4 67% 2 33%

2015/16 5 71% 2 29%

Table 5.3.i.2 – PGCAP completion rates by gender

Course Female Male Total

Leadership 12 2 14

Business & finance 10 2 12

HR 9 1 10

Managing difficult conversations 4 1 5

TOTAL 35 6 41

Table 5.3.i.3 – 2016 FHSS Leadership courses undertaken by gender

Further UoP opportunities are advertised online and booked using a self-service system (i.e. without need for authorisation). Staff survey results indicate that most academic staff report having access to appropriate training opportunities to promote progression (Figure 5.3.i.2).

Figure 5.3.i.2 – Staff’s answer to ‘do you have appropriate training opportunities’ question from staff survey

5.3.i ACTION POINTS:

1. Work with HR and central team to develop a process to monitor staff attendance and satisfaction with any training currently provided within the School, Faculty and within the UoP.

2. HoS to ensure that 100% of SoHP staff have carried out all mandatory training.

3. Work with central training team to develop report to monitor online mandatory training in health and safety, E&D and unconscious bias by ALL staff (including ‘associate lecturers’ and ‘demonstrators’).

5.3.ii Appraisal/development review

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

F

M

FM

Agree 3312

Neutral 53

Disagree 61

of 106

All SoHP staff complete an annual ‘Performance Development Review’ (PDR) with their line manager. The PDR aims to promote dialogue, identify how staff contributes to the SoHP’s strategic plan, and encourage staff to develop. All line managers are required to undertake training to support their role in delivering appraisals, as well as unconscious bias training.

PDR completion rates are comparable between men and women; although rates fall slightly behind the University-wide level (see Figure 5.3.ii.1) (Action 5.3.ii.1&2). Most staff felt that their review helped them to consider career progression (Figure 5.3.iii.1).



Figure 5.3.ii.1 – PDR completion rate by gender


1. Monitor satisfaction with, and efficacy of, the PDR for both male and female staff with HoS

actively enforcing mandatory completion of new PDR by all staff.

of 106

5.3.iii Support given to academic staff for career progression

Figure 5.3.iii.1: Staff’s answer to ‘do you feel encouraged to consider career progression during PDR’

Most females agreed that they were encouraged to consider career progression, however men were less likely to agree with this statement (Figure 5.3.iii.1). The UoP PDR forms have been revised for the 2017 cycle and are about to be implemented. Notably, the amended forms now contain a section that is explicitly entitled ‘Development and Career Progression’. To support staff research aspirations, the SoHP recently implemented the Personal Research Plan to share staff’s research interests with senior researchers after PDRs. Non-research active staff are encouraged to pursue doctoral studies, for which the SoHP waives PhDs fee and buys out teaching time. There are currently 9 staff (6 female, 3 male) competing these. Staff are supported via the University-wide Research Development and Research Support Programmes, which address the aims of the Vitae Researcher Development Framework and the UK Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. In 2008, the University established the Researcher Forum, which meets quarterly to promote Concordat-related discussion and development within the University. In September 2011 the University was awarded the European Commission HR Excellence in Research Award, which has been renewed biennially since then. More recently, in 2012, the HR Excellence in Research Steering Group was established to further support researchers at all stages of their career.

As noted in 5.1, the SoHP values peer mentoring, with approximately half of academic staff mentored by someone other than their line manager (57% female and 43% male staff). Until now, mentor allocation has been ad-hoc, with no formal process to monitor allocation/workload. However, a recent review by the SEG suggested that this be implemented formally across all departments. Individuals interested in promotion are encouraged to seek support from recently promoted applicants; although this system is informal within the SoHP (Action 5.3.iii.1). More widely, the University has designated Academic Promotions peer mentors within each Faculty and is currently piloting a new Women’s Mentoring Scheme (as mentioned in 5.1.ii). The UoP Women’s Network offers advice on career progression, as well as offering a platform to share the voice and views of women and providing networking opportunities.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M F

Agree 7 27

Neutral 5 5

Disagree 2 6

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy/concordat-to-support-the-career-development-of-researchers/strategy-researcher-development-and-careers

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy/concordat-to-support-the-career-development-of-researchers/strategy-researcher-development-and-careers

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/your-university/about-us/university-structure/service-areas/equality-diversity-and-inclusion/womens-network

of 106


1. Formalise and improve the peer mentoring scheme availability within SoHP in order to make it available to all staff looking for support with career development.

5.3.iv Support given to students (at any level) for academic career progression

Several mechanisms exist to support students’ career progression (whether academic, or professional). Each student has a named personal tutor, who meets with him or her regularly to promote academic achievement and develop employability skills (three to four times per year). Tutor allocation is random, with no formal systems to request a specific tutor. A senior personal tutor is also available to support staff, and to disseminate new opportunities to support students.

SoHP programmes prepare students for their chosen profession, with placements enabling students to shadow professionals/clinicians in practice. Students also complete a module entitled ‘Preparation for professional practice’ which highlights career choices, and introduces various PG career pathways. Although not specifically for academic career progression, the Plymouth Compass supports students and alumni to prepare their futures. Other support is offered via the Accelerate workshops that support all University students in developing key employability skills. There is no monitoring of the uptake or success of students accessing these support services (Action 5.3.iv.1).

The University offers a Researcher Development Programme to all PGR students, which is designed to support career development and is supported by Research Councils UK, Vitae and employers of researchers. Within the SoHP, students develop academic skills as UGs and PGs (e.g. by undertaking research work). The SoHP holds an annual research conference, which provides a forum for students and staff to discuss career opportunities. All SoHP doctoral students are supported by a team of academics, who provide subject and research-specific guidance, as well as providing support to situate students’ research within their career. Doctoral students receive funding to attend relevant conferences, which encourages networking and development. PGRs are encouraged to teach on relevant modules to prepare them for an academic career. Currently, there is no specific support set up for PGR students transitioning to post-doc work or other academic posts (Action 5.3.iv.2)

The University-wide Sprint programme offers career and peer support to female students. There are separate UG and PG programmes, and a specific programme for UG women studying STEMM subjects.

5.3.iv ACTION POINTS:

1. Conduct a student survey and focus groups to assess the number of students accessing career

support services and the effectiveness of support received. 2. Establish a system to encourage transition of PhD students to postdoc research posts and other

academic posts.

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/your-university/teaching-and-learning/guidance-and-resources/personal-tutoring

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/your-university/teaching-and-learning/guidance-and-resources/personal-tutoring

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/whats-on/personal-tutoring-as-a-space-for-personal-and-employability-development

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/your-university/teaching-and-learning/plymouth-university-compass

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/

of 106

5.3.v Support offered to those applying for research grant applications

The SoHP encourages individual and joint research funding bids. Individual academics are responsible for planning and preparing bids; with support for development of research ideas and grant writing provided by the Research Support Programme. Tailored support is provided via research advice surgeries offered by specialist advisors from the University’s Research and Innovation team.

Examples of successful grant applications are available on the intranet to support applicants. Support on costings and financial matters is normally offered by the Research and Innovation specialists and the Finance team. No formal process exists for allowing early career researchers to be named on grants, but often this is decided within individual research groups and based on relative contributions made by the staff on the application being prepared. Encouraging inclusion of early career researchers may boost the research experience of the staff and boost numbers for the next REF, especially female researchers who are less likely to be submitted (5.1.iv) (Action 5.3.v.1). To promote quality assurance, internal reviewers examine grant applications and risk assess applications, before the HoS reviews and ‘signs off’ the proposal. In some cases, this will also require the approval of the Associate Dean for Research. As stated previously, mandatory unconscious bias training minimises bias in these situations. Ten grant applications were made in the SoHP between August 2015 and July 2016. Female applicants had greater success, and secured greater levels of funding (£341,275 vs £24,959). The SoHP had a greater proportion of successful female bids than the wider University, although numbers are too small to assess significance.



Figure 5.3.v.1 – Grant success by gender 2015-16 (NB centrally prepared data are not available for previous years)

Unsuccessful applicants are encouraged to seek support from specialist advisors in Research and Innovation. Some funders provide feedback, which academics can adopt for future applications. Much of this post-event analysis is informal and restricted to the individual or team of academics involved, making it difficult to evaluate at present.


5.3.v ACTION POINTS

1. Develop school wide protocol with research clusters to include early career researchers as

named applicants on grant applications.

http://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/research/support/Development/Documents/RSP%20brochure%202016-2017.pdf

https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/support/funding/research-funding-flowchart

of 106

5.5 Flexible working and managing career breaks

5.5.i Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave

Maternity Policy (before leave):

The school has an assigned maternity administrator (HR) who will support any matter relating to the employee’s pregnancy and maternity leave, including health and safety review and any occupation health requirements needed of the over the pregnancy. Following government guidance, the employee is allowed paid time off to attend antenatal appointments, parental craft and relaxation classes. Staff are entitled to 52 weeks’ leave (a combination of ordinary maternity leave (OML, 26 weeks) and additional maternity leave (AML, 26 weeks). This policy is identical for all expectant mothers, regardless of contract type.

Adoption Policy (before leave):

For adoption leave, line managers must be informed at an early stage to provide support where needed. HR can be contacted to help clarify procedures and requirements. Principal adoptive parents can have paid time for appointments relating to the adoption. A second parent can take unpaid leave for up to two appointments. Employees must notify line managers within seven that they have been matched with a child. The leave allocation is identical to maternity.

“Support was provided during the pregnancy in terms of checking my wellbeing and capacity. Plans for how my teaching was going to be covered during my leave were discussed and planned.” Female Academic

“Risk assessment, reduction in more strenuous activities closer to due date” Female Academic

“Via HR. Very good.” Female Academic

Text box 5.5.i.1: Quotes from staff survey regarding the support received before maternity leave.

Most staff felt well supported during this time (Text box 5.5.i.1), indicating the School follows University policies closely. However, when surveyed, only 44% of research and academic staff and 39% of professional/support staff agreed that the policies outlining procedures for family related leave were accessible and clear. It may be that only staff who have been involved in the leave in some way are aware of the policies. Clearer signposting to policies is needed (Action 5.5.i.1).

5.5.i ACTION POINTS:

1. Line Managers to signpost access to all family- related policies such as maternity, adoptive, paternity and parental leave to all staff.

of 106

5.5.ii Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave

Arrangements for maternity and adoptive leave are agreed in advance with the line manager. This includes arrangements for cover while on leave. During leave, employees can participate in up to 10 keeping in touch (KIT) days. These can be used to attend training events, meetings or other specific tasks. Prior to the birth, line managers discuss what contact there will be with the employee during the leave period.

Despite the clear UoP policies, the staff survey showed that support during leave was variable, depending upon the line manager and team enforcement of the policy (see Textbox 5.5.ii.1). This variation is unfair and meant that some staff had a poorer experience than others (Action 5.5.ii.1).

“My previous manager kept in minimal contact over this time which was appreciated.” Female academic

“KIT were used to maintain contact with research students and line manager.” Female academic

“I felt very privileged that I was able to take so much time off when my son was born.” Female academic

“None. One researcher put in a bid without including my name as a collaborator, despite having personally contributed to the concept of the project before taking leave.” Female academic

“I was asked to complete work on maternity leave such as workload planning.” Female academic

Textbox 5.5.ii.1: Quotes from staff survey regarding support during leave


1. SEG to review the support provided during and after extended leave by line managers in SoHP by conducting focus groups with, and a survey of, those who have gone on extended leave.

of 106

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

Staff agree their return in advance and if they require a change in role or hours, can submit a flexible working request. There is no dedicated space available for nursing mothers in the PAHC building. Staff have been required to make individual arrangements with the School technicians and their line manager for a private room. The staff comments revealed that this has not been successful in the past (Text box 5.5.iii.1). Childcare vouchers are available through the salary sacrifice scheme. Staff at PAHC can use the main campus nursery or the Marjon University nursery, so that the child is on the same campus.

The ‘return to work’ support reported in the staff survey was also variable. Most staff indicated that they were not supported fully upon their return and would have appreciated some flexibility and support in their new status as a parent (see Textbox 5.5.iii.1) (Action 5.5.ii.1).

“Appreciation re: need for flexible working on occasions” Female academic

“No support…unable to use the nursing room for use of a breast pump. This contributed to me stopping breastfeeding.” Female academic

“My desk was not available for me to use when I returned from maternity leave... had to use somebody else's desk … which did not feel comfortable.” Female academic

“I altered my working contract from being full time 1.0 to part-time 0.6 - this was support by my line manager. I was given the same modules I taught previously so limiting time needed for preparation.” Female academic

“None, despite a heavy workload, disclosed poor general health and mental health issues. I was rather told that I needed to contribute more to cover staff shortages.” Female academic

“Somewhere to express (not a toilet) and store breastmilk (not in the dirty communal fridge!) would be helpful.” Female academic

Textbox 5.5.iii.1: Quotes from staff survey regarding support upon return to work.

5.5.iii ACTION POINT:

1. SEG to identify a private and clean room for nursing parents/ a family room on the campus the majority of SoHP staff are based.

(5.5.iii.1 Line Managers to signpost access to all family- related policies such as maternity, adoptive, paternity and parental leave to all staff.)

of 106

5.5.iv Maternity return rate

Only a few academic SoHP staff (no other staff) have taken maternity leave within the last three years (Table 5.5.iv.1). None were due to return from maternity leave in 2013/14 but 60 and 75% of eligible staff returned in the following two years, respectively. Temporary contracts do not pause or extend over the extended leave, staff must have a contract renewal or a new contract issued, however all temporary SoHP staff did have their contract renewed.

Year Return Rate In Post 6 Months

In Post 12 Months

In Post 18 Months

Temp. Staff Contract Not Renewed

Pop No. % Pop No. % Pop No. % Pop No. % Pop No. %

13/14 N/A N/A 1 1 100 2 2 100 N/A

14/15 5 3 60 3 2 67 N/A N/A 5 0 0

15/16 4 3 75 2 2 100 3 3 100 2 2 100 4 0 0

Table 5.5.iv.1: Academic & Research Staff – Maternity Return and Retention Post-Return Rates. Pop =

population of staff who took leave, No. = number of staff who returned. NB there were no professional

service staff on maternity leave during this period.

5.5.v Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake

Paternity and Parental Leave Policy

The UoP introduced enhanced paternity pay in 2015/16, prior to this many fathers took annual leave. Fathers can take up to two weeks of leave up to eight weeks after the birth, with pay (if they have 26 weeks of continued service). Leave is agreed in advance, so that the School can provide cover during leave. Staff can take unpaid parental leave when needed, at the discretion of their line manager.

There are little to no data for paternity, adoptive and parental leave in the last three years (see Table 5.5.v.1). Staff survey data (Table 5.5.v.2) shows the number of staff who reported taking leave while employed by SoHP. The numbers are fairly low across both genders and roles. However, many staff comments indicate that staff are not clear on the flexible working or other policies. Many may be unaware of the new paternity or other policies and have been taking annual leave where needed (Action 5.5.i.1).

Leave Type

Year No. Sex

SoHP Paternity 14/15 1 Male

Parental 15/16 1 Female

Table 5.5.v.1: Academic & Research Staff* - Paternity and Parental Leave (NB there are no data for 2013/14 and no

SoHP Professional/Support staff are reported as having taken such leave across the three-year period)

of 106



Table 5.5.v.2: Use of leave recorded by staff survey responders. Leave taken at any point in employment with SoHP

5.5.vi Flexible working

Despite a UoP policy, in SoHP flexible working mainly occurs as a result of informal discussions and

arrangements with line managers. It has not been formally tracked and little to no use has been made of

official flexible working request documentation. This includes restrictions on timetabling for some staff to

suit needs outside of the workplace (e.g. caring or parental responsibilities). Table 5.5.vi.1&2 show that

some staff members have been able to initiate flexible changes to their work and altered their working

patterns in the past. In general, the workday is seen as flexible by staff and there is a policy that allows

employees to work from home, at the discretion of their line managers. However, this informal approach

has been unsuccessful (Figures 5.5.vi.1-5 and Text box 5.5.vi.1). Initial investigation by SAT has prompted

the SEG to review with an aim to create a transparent, formal and fair application across the School (Action

5.5.vi.1). There is some hint of flexibility seen in the support for health care appointments (Figure 5.5.vi.5)

but the other answers reveal a disparity in treatment and lack of clarity.

of 106

Gen

der

Flex

ible

Wo

rkin

g

Ho

me

Wo

rkin

g

Job

Sh

are

Sab

bat

ical

Le

ave

Pla

nn

ed

Rem

ote

w

ork

ing

Exte

nd

ed

Leav

e

Academic Female 23 (50%) 36 (80%) 1 (2%) 0 5 (11%) 0

Male 5 (25% 9 (50%) 0 3 (15%) 3 (19%) 0

Prof/ Support/ Technical

Female 7 (54%) 2 (15%) 0 N/A 0 0

Male 1 (25%) 0 0 N/A 0 0

Table 5.5.vi.1: Numbers of staff in the staff survey reporting use of flexible working. Data describes Flexible

working used anytime in employment with SoHP.

Re

du

ced

ho

urs

Job

sh

are

Form

al F

lexi

ble

w

ork

ing

Info

rmal

Fl

exi

ble

wo

rkin

g

Agr

eed

wo

rk a

t

ho

me

Info

rmal

tim

e

for

cari

ng

Incr

ease

d h

ou

rs

e.g.

PT

to F

T

Re

qu

est

refu

sed

No

t n

eed

ed

Academic

Female 10

(20%) 0 0 3 (7%)

3 (7%)

1 (2%) 7

(16%) 1 (2%)

25 (57%)

Male 1 (6%) 0 0 1 (6%) 2

(12%) 0 0 0

13 (81%)

Prof/ Support/ Technical

Female 3

(23%) 0 0 0 0 0

2 (15%)

1 (8%) 7

(54%)

Male 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

(75%)

Table 5.5.vi.2: Numbers of staff in the survey reporting varying their working pattern due to a change in

circumstances since starting work at UoP

Figure 5.5.vi.1: Staff response to ‘University policies outlining procedures relating to flexible working are accessible and clear’. PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff. Don’t Know = don’t know policy.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R

PS, S & T A & RM F M F

Agree 1 8 11 16

Neutral 1 0 3 13

Disagree 1 3 2 7

Don't Know 1 2 1 9

of 106

Figure 5.5.vi.2: Staff response to ‘Flexible working is implemented fairly and consistently’. PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff

Figure 5.5.vi.3: Staff response to ‘The possibility of homebased working is limited due to my workload’. PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

Figure 5.5.vi.4: Staff response to ‘Home-based working requests are typically approved by my line manager ’. PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

FP

S, S

&T

A &

R


Agree 1 6 6 16

Neutral 1 2 9 20

Disagree 2 5 2 10

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R


Agree 2 8 8 22

Neutral 2 5 3 11

Disagree 0 0 6 13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S&

TA

& R


Agree 0 4 12 37

Neutral 2 6 4 6

Disagree 2 3 1 3

of 106

Figure 5.5.vi.5: Staff response to ‘Support is provided for appointments for health and caring responsibilities scheduled in working hours’. PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

“Working from home is very much discouraged and the idea of flexible working hours is news to me.” Female Academic

“… part-time workers are disadvantaged…. There are very few days when they are not timetabled to teach…” Female Academic

“I have requested term time working but was refused verbally, the process was not followed correctly by my manager. I submitted the forms correctly” Female Professional Staff

Text box 5.5.vi.1: Staff survey quotes regarding flexible working policy within the SoHP.

5.5.vi ACTION POINTS:

1. SEG to review flexible working and working at home policies and their implementation across the School, in order to create fair and transparent practices

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

FP

S, S

& T

A &

R


Agree 3 10 10 33

Neutral 0 1 6 10

Disagree 1 2 1 3

of 106

5.5.vii Transition from part-time back to full-time work after career breaks

There is currently no formal policy for staff transitioning back from part-time to full-time after a career break. If a staff member wishes to alter their hours, they must submit a flexible work request. If they wish to increase hours or revert back to full-time, this can only be arranged if there is a staff vacancy available for the hours in their department. This request can be discussed with Line managers, who will work to facilitate the request but all changes are subject to needs of the school/ business. Requests and changes in contracts like this have not been formally monitored previously, so it is not known how many such changes have been facilitated (Action 5.5.vii.1). Table 5.5.vi.2 indicates that 9 female staff members (7 academic and 2 support staff) had increased their hours at some point of their employment.

5.5.vii ACTION POINTS:

1. SEG to work with line managers and HR business partner to formally record requests for increase in hours and success rates for requests.


of 106

5.6 Organisation and Culture

5.6.i Culture

The AS Application has been embraced by the SoHP. SAT includes every department of the School. The overwhelming majority of the staff (97% females, 81% males) agreed with the overall aims of AS (Actions 3.ii.1 and 3.iii.1).

Staff offices within the PAHC building facilitate multi-disciplinary working. However, staff-only space is currently unavailable, other than shared offices, for informal gatherings and interaction. It was a common complaint in the staff survey that this hinders deepening staff connections and inter-professional working (Action 5.6.i.1). There is a UG and PG student representative position on all committees and, but uptake is variable (Action 5.6.i.2), limiting the student input.

PAHC-based students and staff report feeling disconnected from the rest of the university due to the site location. This is somewhat addressed by a free student bus passes between campuses and sensitivity from the staff when planning sessions. There is also a student common room, for the students to spend time in outside of class while up at PAHC. However, student feedback frequently includes complaints about site location and the travel. Staff also sometimes experience a lack of connection with the other Schools in the Faculty and the University. The SoHP staff and students based on the main campus also feel disconnected from the rest of the School at PAHC.

93% of AS survey respondents strongly agreed/agreed that they had a good working relationship with their colleagues, suggesting a tight-knit community. This a positive consequence of working on a separate campus, reflecting a feeling of community that is engendered when there is shared identity, repertoire and task (Table 5.6.i.1).



Figure 5.6.i.1: Staff response to ‘I generally have a good working relationship with colleagues.’ PS,S & T =

Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

5.6.i ACTION POINT:

1. SEG to assess the feasibility of a designated area at PAHC solely for staff use. 2. Increase student participation in relevant School meetings and committees, using incentives such

as the Plymouth Award credit awarded for participation

5.6.ii HR policies

The University-wide E&D policies, including guiding principles for anti-bullying /harassment, religious diversity and transgender policies for staff and students are informed and disseminated through the university by the EDIC. The EDIC is responsible for monitoring the use and implementation of these policies at all levels in the university. Policy is filtered down to the Faculty Managers group (FMG) and faculty EDIC and then the SoHP SEG. The School has staff representation on the Faculty EDIC which reports to the UoP EDIC. Managers can access the policies on directly from the intranet. The University run workshops on ‘HR

of 106

Policies for Managers’ annually. However, only one SoHP professional services staff member attended 2015-17 (Action 5.6.ii.1).

As noted in section 5.3, online training in E&D, Health and Safety, and Unconscious Bias is mandatory for all staff (Action 5.3.i.2).

5.6.ii ACTION:

1. Increase the number of SoHP line managers taking part in central UoP workshops on HR policies

within the School.

of 106

5.6.iii Representation of men and women on committees

Membership of most SoHP committees is determined by staffing role rather than gender e.g. the School executive group is made up of academic leads (or programme leads if there is no academic lead). The teaching and learning group is made up of programme leads. Professors attend the Research Group. The data presented in the table are accurate for 2016 and 2017, however 2015 was no longer available for most committees (Action 5.6.iii.1).

GENDER BALANCE ON COMMITTEES

2016 2017

School Committees Male Female Total Male Female Total

Ethics Committee 5 10 (67%) 15 5 10 (67%) 15

Executive Group 5 8 (62%) 13 4 9 (69%) 13

Research Group 5 10 (60%) 15 5 9(60%) 14

Marketing and Admissions 8 17 (68%) 25 6 16 (72%) 22

Marketing and Admissions PG NA NA NA 1 7 (87%) 8

Teaching and Learning Quality 5 13 (78%) 18 4 14 (78%) 18

Health and Safety 8 5 (38%) 13 6 7 (53%) 13

SAT 2 8 (80%) 10 5 16(69%) 21

Student Representatives 15 42 (73%) 57 NA NA NA

Table 5.6.iii.1: Staff participation numbers of School committees, split by gender for 2016-17. NB there was no

data for 2015.

Table 5.6.iii.1 shows a greater female:male ratio across most committees, this roughly mirrors the ratio of female:male staff of 70:30%. However, it is noticeable that the research group has shifted towards men and the teaching and marketing groups have more women than expected. This reflects the higher chance of males in senior research roles and females in senior teaching roles in the school (Action 5.6.iii.2). It highlights a gender imbalance across the distribution of different roles associated with the committees e.g. Marketing and Admissions (Admissions tutor) (Action 5.6.iii.3).


1. Develop a formal system within the School for recording membership of School Committees and ensure that records are kept for at least five years.

2. SEG to review SoHP committee membership by gender to ensure it is representative of the school.

3. Review gender balance across different administrative and senior roles performed by academic staff in the school.

of 106

5.6.iv Participation on influential external committees

Staff are encouraged to participate in committees external to the University because ‘external engagement’ is an explicit criterion for academic promotion. Staff who participate in such committees are supported through coverage of expenses, time off, funding and training. Staff are encouraged to discuss potential engagement during the PDR process.

The School has not previously tracked this information. The staff survey asked about participation in influential committees external to the University. The results in Table 5.6.iv.1 provide limited insights, but these suggest that there is some parity of engagement between men and women (Action 5.6.iv.1).

Table 5.6.iv.2 draws on central data reports for the available years and considers academic and research staff participation in University-level influential and senior management committees (i.e. external to SoHP but internal to UoP). The numbers are very low and more support from senior staff may help improve this (Action 5.6.iv.2). There is no SoHP professional service staff representation on these committees - this is not unusual. All professional service representation on these committees is from staff at Faculty (rather than School) level.

0 1 2 3 4 or More

no. % no. % no. % no. % no. %

Academic Female 4 9% 7 16% 7 16% 1 2% 3 7%

Male 2 13% 1 6% 2 13% 2 13% 1 6%

Research only

Female 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Male 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Table 5.6.iv.1: Staff survey response to ‘How many, if any, work-related steering groups or influential committees

outside of the University are you a member of? NB. No professional/ support or technical staff reported

engagement with any committees.

Influential institution Committees

2015/16

Female Male Total

Academic 1 0 1

Senior Manager Academic (incl Prof.) 0 2 2

Total in % 33% 67% 3

Table 5.6.iv.2 – SoHP staff on ‘external’ UoP influential and management committees, split by gender.

5.6.iv ACTION POINT:

1. Conduct annual audit of committee membership on influential external committees and steering groups (Faculty, University and Outside of UoP).

2. SEG to identify opportunities for SoHP staff to join committees (using AP 5.6.iv.1) and establish protocol for supporting staff to be put forward for committees, ensuring balanced

representation.

of 106

5.6.v Workload model

All SoHP staff complete a Workload Allocation Model) (WAM), mapping their activity to a tariff of hours, annually, which is reviewed by the DHoS. The model is split into four sections, following the domains required for progression within the University (research, teaching, management and external engagement). The WAM is used during PDRs to inform the following year’s activity.

Administrative roles for academic staff are allocated according to suitability and capacity and at the discretion of the relevant manager. The PDR process informs this by giving individuals, line managers and senior staff opportunities to balance the needs of the School and the training needs of the workforce. Candidates are referred to HR before allocation, providing a tier of scrutiny. Additionally, a system of constraints notification exists whereby staff can notify Timetabling of times when they are unavailable for teaching, enabling staff with caring duties to manage their working time.

The staff survey showed staff are unhappy with the current model and it requires revision. Workload allocation is poorly communicated (Figure 5.6.v.1) and there is a poor perception of equity in the allocation of roles (Figure 5.6.v.2) (Action 5.6.v.1. Most importantly, there is a lack of transparency in the current policy (Figure 5.6.v.3) (Action 5.6.v.2). Some written feedback also suggested that part-time status often lead to being overlooked for these opportunities, a change in culture or practice is required (Action 5.6.v.3). On a positive note, staff do not perceive any gender imbalance in workloads (Table 5.6.v.1).

Figure 5.6.v.1: Staff response to ‘The criteria for Workload Allocation are communicated clearly

communicated.’ PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and

Research staff.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

F

M

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R

of 106

Figure 5.6.v.2: Staff response to ‘There is equity in the allocation of roles, duties, and responsibilities.’ PS,

S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

Figure 5.6.v.3: Staff response to ‘There is transparency in the allocation of roles, duties, and responsibilities.’ PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

Figure 5.6.v.4: Staff response to ‘There are no gender biases concerning workloads.’ PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R

of 106

5.6.v ACTION POINT:

1. SEG and HoS to create standard school wide role descriptors for administrative roles performed by academic staff.

2. SEG to create a comprehensive guide to WAM, to increase clarity of criteria and typical completion/ workload for role and contract type. Present this to staff at staff open forum.

3. Review breakdown of Full/Part time status of academic staff performing administrative roles. SEG to encourage staff of all contract types to be offered roles by Line Managers.

5.6.vi Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings

Meetings are routinely scheduled between 9.00am and 5.00pm (Action 5.6.vi.1). Minutes are circulated to all those invited to attend. If unable to attend, staff can utilise conference-calling facilities. When part-time staff are required to attend specific meetings, their restrictions are taken into account where possible and they are given the opportunity to alter working hours/days wherever possible, but it’s not a requirement. In the case of teams whose part-time staff working days do not overlap, meeting times vary across the week to allow all staff to attend some of the meetings. All regular meetings, panel and board dates can be seen by all staff in the SoHP calendar on the intranet and are scheduled far in advance.

All SoHP staff are invited to School Away Days, which are scheduled within working hours. The events take place away from the PAHC building at the staff’s request, but within the city centre, close to transport and parking facilities. All academics and some professional service staff are encouraged to participate in formal Graduation, Welcome and Open Day events. Social gatherings are usually arranged within programmes informally, and generally take place outside of working hours at a time agreed by the individual teams. There are occasional cream tea events for staff leavers or celebrating an achievement. These are arranged during normal working hours and paid for by the School.

Academic Male staff were more likely to suggest that the timings for events were poorly chosen and a large proportion of academic females felt the same or were merely ambivalent about this (Figures 5.6.vi.1&2). This warrants further investigation (Action 5.6.vi.2).

Figure 5.6.vi.1: Staff response to ‘My School tries to time meetings so that all staff can fully participate in key events (e.g. Away day, Faculty Briefing).’ PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R

of 106

Figure 5.6.vi.2: Staff response to ‘When social gatherings are arranged, efforts are made to ensure that the timing, cost (financial) and culture (setting/activity) of the occasion is inclusive so that people who want to can attend’ PS, S & T = Professional Services, Support and Technical Staff. A & R = Academic and Research staff.

5.6.vi ACTION POINT:

1. SEG to create formal policy for staff meetings to occur between set core hours (e.g. 10:00-16:00) 2. Gather staff feedback via School Staff Forums, Away Day and Team Meetings and staff survey on

inclusivity and accessibility of key events and social gatherings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

M

F

M

F

PS,

S &

TA

& R

of 106

5.6.vii Visibility of role models

Figures 5.6.vii.1, 5.6.vii.2 and 5.6.vii.3 demonstrate the gender dominance in external and internal publicity e.g. fliers and University website photos, as well as internal and external events. Females feature predominantly on most of the School’s outward and inward facing publicity. Whilst this reflects the allied health care gender split, it risks characterising these professions as only suitable for women. As seen in section 4.1 and 4.2, we attract more female students and staff, and the predominance of females in the external publicity may be another reason for the lower acceptance of male students. It is perhaps desirable that these sources be more balanced (AP 5.6.vii.1).

Figure 5.6.vii.1: Gender balance seen in external publicity produced by the School.

Figure 5.6.vii.2: Gender balance seen in internal publicity produced by the School.

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Neutral 1 10 1

Both 17 31 20

Male 3 10 3

Female 19 35 21

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

External Publicity

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Neutral 11 26 23

Both 2 6 9

Male 4 8 12

Female 6 41 52

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Internal Publicity

of 106

Figure 5.6.vii.3: Gender balance of the subjects featured in publicised events

We surveyed staff to understand the gender balance of chairs and speakers at SoHP-organised events. Table 5.6.vii.1 shows that while there have been consistently more female than male speakers/chairs in absolute terms, males are actually slightly over-represented as chairs/speakers when compared to their proportion in the School. This is not necessarily unwelcome given the School’s ambition to encourage men into the health professions and the necessity of providing male role models (AP 5.6.vii.2). Data on chairs/speakers were collected retrospectively in February 2017 and rely on memory – we will develop a system for recording the gender of chairs and speakers (AP 5.6.vii.3).

FEMALE CONTRIBUTORS (Contributions NOT Unique Individuals)

MALE CONTRIBUTORS (Contributions NOT Unique Individuals)

Year SoHP Events

External Chairs

External Speakers

Internal Chairs

Internal Speakers

TOTAL External Chairs

External Speakers

Internal Chairs

Internal Speakers

TOTAL

14/15 15

0 6 8 10 24 56%

0 4 7 8 19 44%

15/16 27

3 37 16 17 73 66%

1 14 13 10 38 34%

16/17 13

1 2 12 11 26 81%

1 5 0 0 6 19%

TOTAL 55

4 45 36 38 123 66%

2 23 20 18 63 34%

Table 5.6.vii.1: Speakers and Chairs at SoHP-organised events – gender balance of contributors

5.6.vii ACTION POINTS:

1. Ensure external and internal facing publicity is more balanced in its presentation of gender split. 2. Maintain a gender balance of speakers invited to the school conferences that reflects the gender

split of the school. Ensuring that role models of both genders are seen. 3. Develop an effective system for recording chairs and speakers data at School level in consultation

with the UoP AS data collection hub team so that this can be monitored for gender imbalances by SEG.

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Neutral 7 12 26

Both 1 0 1

Male 3 4 7

Female 6 20 23

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gender split of the subject of publicity event

of 106

5.6.viii Outreach activities

Outreach data were gathered by self-reporting in a School-wide survey during spring 2017. There is no formal system to record this data at present (AP 5.6.vii.1).

The gender split across staff delivery of outreach, is similar to the staff population (Table 5.6.viii.1) with exception of 2016/17 which as an over-representation of men. As we need to actively encourage more male applicants, a slight over-representation of male role models may be beneficial in this area (APs 4.1.ii.3, 4.1.iii.1 & 5.6.vii.1). The school would benefit in maintaining a slight over-representation of males, while still ensuring a strong female representation at these events (AP 5.6.viii.1).

SoHP STAFF SoHP STUDENTS* AUDIENCE

(Attendances NOT (Attendances NOT (Approximate Numbers)

Unique Individuals) Unique Individuals)

Year No. of Events

F % M % TOTAL F % M % TOTAL F % M % TOTAL

14/15 22 20 71% 8 29% 28

Data not currently available but will be tracked in the future

433 82% 97 18% 530

15/16 14 13 72% 5 28% 18 299 68% 141 32% 440

16/17 9 8 57% 6 43% 14 479 71% 196 29% 675

TOTAL 45 41 68% 19 32% 60 1211 74% 434 26% 1645

Table 5.6.viii.1: Outreach 2014/15 to 2016/17 – SoHP – Presenters and Audience

5.6.viii ACTION POINTS:

1. Develop an effective system for recording outreach data at School level in consultation with the UoP AS data collection hub team to allow SoHP to monitor and control gender balance at activities to appropriate balance.


of 106

7. Further information

N/A


of 106

8. Action plan

Key for SAT team responsibilities in Action Plan:

Person Responsible Person Categories

A E&D admin support Staff survey, New Survey/ focus groups, Reporting Systems for SoHP

B SAT member 2 Signposting, Promoting information or opportunities to the School

C SAT member 3 Admissions, Marketing, Recruitment, Student Experience

D SAT member 4 Investigating Possible Gender Bias, Cultural changes needed in SoHP

E SAT member 5 Career Development for SoHP staff

F Chair Updates for School, Liaison with SEG or external to school e.g. UoP Sat, EDIC, HR, Central Hub or doctoral training centres

NB – We have deliberately avoided inserting specific names for roles, as the members of the SAT will rotate (and possibly other roles in the school). The actions will

remain associated with a particular role over the 4 year period e.g. B, C or HoS. This will allow for continuity in the action plan.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref

Planned Action Rationale Key Outputs and Milestones

Start Date End date Person Responsible

Success criteria and Outcomes

3.ii 1 4.1.ii

Consult with the student population using surveys and focus groups to gain data on the student experience of the Athena Swan process and actions.

There was limited student engagement in the initial Athena Swan process. This action is to gain deeper understanding of the student's perceptions and student experience in SoHP through surveys and focus groups.

Review results of relevant surveys including NSS, SPQ, DLHE, PTES and PRES. Conduct focus groups and run internal school survey.

Sept 2018 April 2019 A

Data gathering and analysis completed and fed back in to School E & D monitoring. School survey completed by 60% of student population. Refine/develop further action points in response to the results as appropriate/if required.

3.iii 1 Formal review of SAT ToRs annually and update as required

To ensure ToR are realistic, up to date and meet the needs of the SAT.

Annual review of ToRs completed

Jan 2018 Repeat Jan 2019,20 & 21)

F & SAT team

ToRs reviewed and revised as appropriate by SAT team.

3.iii 2

Review SAT membership and rotation of responsibilities and staff members

To ensure fair distribution of work across the School. Also, to gain fresh input from new members in the team. Rotation of half the team every year – allowing 2 years terms will allow a fresh view point, avoid exhausting staff and maintain continuity/ momentum.

Annual review of SAT membership

Jan 2018 Repeat Jan 2019,20 & 21

F & SAT team

SAT membership and responsibilities reviewed and updated as appropriate. New members join the SAT annually.

3.iii 3

Repeat AS SoHP staff survey every 18 months to monitor staff experience and perceptions of policy implementation. Include all staff.

Initial staff survey responses demonstrated variation in staff experience across the school. Repetition of the survey every 18 months will allow us to monitor for changes in perception of all staff (not just core staff) in response to AS application and actions put in place by the school.

Conduct staff survey and analysis of results. Present data to school executive committee and summarise findings for school and incorporate findings back into action plan and report to faculty EDIC.

April 2018

Repeat Sept 2019 & April 2021

A

Completion of survey by 80% of staff (at each repeat) - results demonstrating positive impact following AS submission. Refine/develop further action points in response to the results as appropriate/if required.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




3.iii 4 Continue to provide regular updates to staff on AS progress actions.

SoHP staff need to be kept informed of AS process and progress. This will help encourage feedback and allow the SAT to monitor the impact of actions.

Updates completed at key staff meetings. Including SEG, School Away Days and Team Meetings

Dec and June 2018

Repeat every Dec and Jun 2019,20 & 21

F

Updates given at key meetings. Feedback fed into SAT meetings as appropriate.

4.1.ii 1

Assess interview and selection process to identify reasons behind difference in offer rates between male and female applicants

Disparity in offer rates made to male and female students (2016 – F39%, M30%). The reasons and potential bias behind this needs further exploration and potential changes made to process/ additional training for admissions tutors. Action points to address to bias/ disparity need to be established once reasons identified.

Process reviewed and key actions to improve disparity identified. Potential Actions to be presented and approved by SEG

Sept 2018 Sept 2019

C, SoHP and Central Admissions and Marketing Teams

Key factors influencing offers identified over one cycles. Actions taken to balance offer rates - Increase of male offers by 3-5% by 2021.

4.1.ii 2 3.ii.1

Explore the applicant journey to identify possible factors influencing acceptance amongst male applicants. Consult current students and those attending open days/ offered a place at the university.

Currently males are less likely to accept an offer than females (2016 – F22% vs M14%). The team need to explore the applicant journey and interview current students to gain insight on the potential reasons an applicant will accept or decline the offer. Central administration could help with development of survey of students who decline the places. This will allow the development of actions to try and increase male acceptance rates.

Student consultation completed – survey of students at open days and those who receive offers, factors identified, solutions proposed and implemented and monitored for success.

Sept 2018 Sept 2020


Consultation completed, qualitative data analysed and solutions implemented and tracked. Increase in offer acceptance of 2-3% by 2020.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




4.1.ii 3

Explore marking, assessment practice and support provided to undergraduates across all programmes. Identify areas of potential bias affecting the attainment. Include review of use of anonymous marking in exams.

Current trend indicates that male students are more likely to get a ‘good degree’ than their female peers. This reveals a potential bias in the degree that is affecting attainment. This warrants further investigation. Actions including sharing of good practice found in different disciplines to increase moderation and decrease any potential bias.

Identification of factors, if any that appear to influence apparent gender imbalances in degree attainment.

Jan 2018 Jan 2019

D, HoS, SoHP Teaching and Learning Committee

Analysis completed and recommendations proposed and implemented, to address imbalance if found.

4.1.iii 1 5.6.viii.1

Create a gender balance in the promotional material and recruitment activities for Post- graduate taught programmes.

There is an under-representation of males in PGT programmes. While offer and acceptance rates are similar across the genders, far few males apply (3x less). We need to encourage more male applicants. A gender imbalance (identified in 5.6.vii) is seen in programme promotional materials, outreach and activities. Improvement to the balance may help increase male numbers.

Promotional PGT materials display more even gender balance.

Jan 2018 Sept 2018


Promotional PGT materials and other recruitment activities display more even gender balance. Increase in number of male applicants by 5-10% by 2020.

4.1.iv 1

Explore the applicant journey to identify possible factors influencing application and acceptance amongst male PGT/R applicants.

There is a difference in application rates between male and females for PGR programmes- this is similar to UG and PGT programmes. Males are also less likely to accept the place if given. It warrants further investigation of the marketing and promotion and applicant journey of the courses- to see if there is any gender bias, attracting more females.

Current students and candidates surveyed for reasons for accepting or declining a place over two academic years. Actions proposed

Jan 2018 Sept 2019


Review of journey and promotional material completed. Data collected from surveys and reviewed Actions implemented

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




4.1.iv 2

SAT administrator to liaise with UoP central AS Hub data team and doctoral training centres to develop a more accurate tracking system of PG student completion data for future analysis.

The current system for tracking PG completion has been poorly maintained; this made any analysis of the data very difficult. A new system will make the process of accessing data for analysis is smoother at School level.

Access to comprehensive PG completion reports readily available via the central AS data Hub.

Jan 2018 Jan 2019

A, Data Hub manager, Doctoral Training Centre Manager

Access to comprehensive PG completion reports readily available via the central AS data Hub.

4.1.v 1

Survey male 3rd year UG students to identify reasons that may be discouraging them from going on to apply for PG studies.

The number of male applicants for PG programmes is lower than female students. This will allow investigation into some reasons why. This will allow the development of strategies or recommendations to improve the application rate.

Data and findings from the survey analysed and recommendations presented to SEG.

Jan 2018 July 2018


Key potential reasons for lower male applications to PG degrees identified and actions developed to address these in the future cycles 2019 onwards.

4.2.i 1

Encourage more national and international BME applicants to apply for posts in SoHP and relocate to Plymouth. Increase national and international advertisement with balanced ethnicity and promotional material for Plymouth the city.

The Southwest has very low diversity regionally. In order to increase the number of BME applications, more national and international candidates will need to apply for the posts rather than local candidates. They will also need to be willing to move to Plymouth, which is a remote area of the UK and may be a significant move. Addressing recruitment and promotional material to encourage a higher level of BME applications for available posts may increase numbers.

Marketing addressed and altered for balance ethnicity. Increase international and national recruitment advertisement. Creation of promotional material for living in Plymouth.

Sept 2018 Sept 2020

C, Central Recruitment Marketing Teams UoP SAT

Increase in the ethnic diversity of applicants for jobs advertised over the period of 2019-2021.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




4.2.ii 1

Review promotion and recruitment practices for any bias or barriers against different contract types that would prevent promotion to senior roles in the SoHP

There are no PT readers and only one FT female professor in the school. This indicates potential barriers or bias in the promotion of females or PT staff in research roles. This requires further investigation into the recruitment and promotion practices for these roles within the school. This will allow the development of recommendations to encourage and develop more opportunities for female and PT staff.

Exploration undertaken and recommendations identified and presented to the SEG for approval and application.

April 2018 Sept 2020 E, SEG, EDIC Rep

Recommendations implemented. Part-time staff occupying 20-30% of senior positions and Female Staff occupying 50% of professor positions in the School by Sept 2021.

4.2.iii 1 5.1.iv.1

Review of Work Load Analysis by SEG to create realistic workloads, especially for part-time employees.

Reason for leaving data and informal feedback from part-time workers has indicated that workloads in part-time workers can seem unfair compared to full-time staff members.

SEG successfully reviews and, if/where appropriate, implements an adjustment to workload, especially for part-time workers.

April 2018 Sept 2018 E, SEG, EDIC Rep

Reduction in workload being cited as a reason for leaving in exit interviews. Staff survey shows agreement that workload transparent and fair increases by 10%

4.2.iii 2

Flag poor uptake of exit interview with central HR team. Request a review of exit interview process to increase numbers taking part. SEG to review reason for leaving data annually for positive impact/ changes since introduction of other actions.

As the central HR team runs this, the SAT will have to flag this issue and request action be taken. There has been poor uptake of exit interviews in previous years. Increase in the numbers of those who take part, would increase a useful source of data. The exit interview data is a very useful source of information on staff perspectives and experience. This data can be used to improve the policies and experiences for the current staff.

Discussion with central HR team RE: review of process Potential changes outlined. Review of exit interviews data annually by SEG (Jun/Jul each year)

April 2018 Review April annually

April 2019, 20 & 21

F, HR Business Partner, SEG.

Review of current system considered by HR team Data from exit interviews analysed each year and positive impact of AS actions seen changes of reasons cited.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




4.2.iii 3 5.1.iii.1

Line Managers to advertise developmental opportunities to all staff actively support and encourage development opportunities for promotion.

Some of the feedback from the staff survey suggested people were leaving in order to progress their career. The school can retain these staff members by promoting and developing their own. While most staff felt they could communicate their development needs, many reported that they were not given the option to apply for various roles and opportunities that help with development and career progression.

Line managers advertise all promotion and other opportunities to all staff in teams to all interested staff to apply.

Sept 2018 Sept 2021 B, SEG, EDIC rep

Increase in positive responses to staff survey questions regarding career development support through their Line Manager by 10%.

5.1.ii 1

Line managers to ensure that 100% new SoHP recruits are allocated time to attend standard University-wide face-to-face induction event within the first 12-weeks of starting

It is up to line managers to ensure that all staff are able to attend the university –wide staff induction. This will probably need to include ensuring that time is specifically allocated for attending the training event, as this is the only way to ensure that all staff are familiarised with University-wide policies, procedures and culture.

A key component of the new formal school induction checklist is that a staff member has attended as induction event.

April 2018 Sept 2018

F, SoHP Admin, HoS

Increase in the number of new SoHP staff attending University-wide induction event to 100%.

5.1.ii 2

Formalise standard school (SoHP) policies for induction of new staff and ensure they are adhered to on an on-going basis.

Some line managers in the school were not adhering to the current system of induction in the SoHP. Formalisation of the process and monitoring of the checklist by administration will increase parity of the experience across all new staff.

Administration tracking all induction checklists for completion in the year period.

Jan 2018

Aug 2018 (Repeat review annually - Jan)

F, SoHP Admin, HoS

A report on induction process for all new staff at SoHP can be readily provided.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.1.ii 3 5.3.iii.1

Revise mentor questions in School Staff survey to further explore perception and experience of staff mentorship.

In order to assess the success of the mentorship process used for all new staff, we need to survey the staff who have gone through this process for their experience and opinion of its success.

Mentoring questions are revised and implemented in next staff survey. Review responses

Jan 2018 April 2018 A, SAT

Senior management have a better understanding of experiences, and any potential improvements required from mentorship.

5.1.iii 1 4.2.iii.3

Increase awareness of the new FHSS promotion support group within the School and run annual promotions preparations workshops at staff away days

Less than 50% of staff felt that they understood the promotion process and 60% felt it was not fair and transparent. If staff were made aware of the support group, they would be more likely to make use of it and will be more informed about the process. It will also help improve transparency of the process.

Line managers and HoS to advertise support group to the school. Signposting during PDRs. Review relevant AS staff survey questions annually. New workshop created and run at staff away day 2018

April 2018

Sept 2018 Workshops annually - April 2019, 20 &21)

B, SAT, Line Managers, HoS

Increased participation in the promotion support group. Staff attendance at workshop during away day. An increase in staff agreeing that the promotion criteria are clear by 10-20%.

5.1.iv 1

Develop a School-wide policy and process to support research active staff to re-commence research activity upon return to work after a prolonged absence e.g. parental leave within first year of return.

Staff survey comments revealed that research-active staff returning from prolonged absences are not given any support to re-commence research activity in the School. As this mostly affects women, this may help to explain the lower % of females submitted to the REF.

SEG to create a policy to adjust work-load for research-active staff returners. Liaison with UoP SAT regarding this issue Staff survey questions developed to measure satisfaction of this staff group.

Sept 2018 Sept 2021 F, SEG, UoP SAT

Positive responses to the relevant staff survey questions developed to assess success. Increase in % eligible female staff being submitted to REF2021 by 10%.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.1.iv 2 4.2.iii.1

Monitor Workload Allocation Model (WAM) to ensure all research-active staff have protected time to conduct research within their allocation

Even though all research –active staff have time allocated for scholarly activity, the AS School staff survey suggests that this is often compressed by other administrative and teaching duties. This time needs to be protected for all staff (FT and PT), to allow staff to maintain their research activity. Review the metrics that research time is assessed by e.g. include allocation for presenting at conferences and publishing papers.

HoS and DHoS to review and monitor work load allocation and metrics used to assess it. HoS to work with line managers to protect research time for this staff group. Development of a staff survey questions specifically regarding time to research.

Sept 2018 Sept 2020 E HoS, DHoS

Workload analysis review for research time by HoS/DHoS. Positive response to staff survey questions concerning workload and research time.

5.1.iv 3

Create gender balanced panels and blind reviewing process for REF 2021.

Female research active staff are less likely to be submitted than their male peers. A potential cause of this could be in the review panel; unconscious bias may work against female researchers as there was no blind reviewing. This has been a problem in review panels for research journals in the past. Gender balanced review panels and blind reviewing may help improve chance of submission for female staff. This is also good practice.

Open call for internal reviewers for REF 21 submission. Create mixed gender. Create blind reviewing process for future submission.

Jan 2018 Jan 2021

D, HoS, Associate Head of Research

Review panel for REF 2021 has gender split between 65:35% to 50:50% F: M. Review process is blind to gender when assessing submission.

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.1.iv 4

Conduct focus groups and survey of research –active staff to assess the support given for research activities that result in REF submission.

As stated in 5.4.iv.3, Female researchers are less likely to be submitted for REF than their male counterparts. Another reasons for this could be lack of support for female (or all) research staff in the school. Focus groups and surveys can help identify the issues preventing women carrying out the work that can be submitted to the REF. Once this is done, changes can be put in place to address these issues.

Focus group and survey carried out of all research –active staff to identify the support that is required to facilitate research activity.

Jan 2018 Jan 2021

D (& E) HoS, Associate Head of Research

Survey and focus group data collected and analysed. Issues surrounding support for research staff identified and new actions created to address these put in place by 2021.

5.3.i 1

Work with HR and central team to develop a process to monitor staff attendance and satisfaction with any training currently provided within the School, Faculty and within the UoP.

There is almost no data on attendance at staff training by SoHP and no data on staff satisfaction with training provided. This data would allow us as a school to ensure that the training is appropriate and useful. Most importantly, find out what training staff want. It will allow us to make changes to school training and provide feedback to the Faculty and UoP.

Development of monitoring process for attendance and feedback/ rating system for sessions.

Jan 2019 Sept 2020

A, Central Training Team, SoHP Admin staff

SEG and managers have access to staff satisfaction data. Satisfaction with training provided 60% or greater by 2020. Changes required to school training implemented.

5.3.i 2

HoS to ensure that 100% of SoHP staff have carried out all mandatory training.

Not all staff have been included in the mandatory training requirements. This has now changed. The HoS will need to lead the enforcement of this change and ensure that all staff are aware of the requirement and complete it.

All SoHP staff are instructed by the HoS and line managers to complete the online mandatory training. Completion is monitored by HoS/ administration.

Jan 2018 Dec 2018 A, HoS, SoHP Admin

100% of SoHP staff have completed mandatory training by Dec 2018 (as seen in the new monitoring reports).

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.3.i 3

Work with central training team to develop report to monitor online mandatory training in health and safety, E&D and unconscious bias by ALL staff (including ‘associate lecturers’ and ‘demonstrators’).

Historically, non-core staff have been excluded from reported figures and mandatory training requirements. Central UoP E&D are currently working with the training teams and HR to ensure the reports are amended to include all staff.

Monitoring of all staff online mandatory training uptake is conducted.

Jan 2018. April 2018

A, SoHP Admin staff, HR Business Partner

SoHP is able to monitor updates of online mandatory training for all staff from the reports provided by HR.

5.3.ii 1

Monitor satisfaction with and efficacy of the PDR for both male and female staff with HoS actively enforcing mandatory completion of new PDR by all staff (5.3.ii.1).

Not all staff have completed their PDR annually. The 2016 SoHP PDR completion rate lies at 90%, and below the University average. The PDR process is mandatory and should be available to all staff, to ensure that everyone is supported while working in the SoHP. There was also a disparity in uptake between male and female staff members. Monitoring the efficacy of and satisfaction with the PDR process allows any failing of the process to be identified and addressed by HoS and provides feedback to the Faculty/ UoP on the PDR process. This can be done through the staff survey annually.

HoS monitors PDR completions rates and enforces mandatory completion by all staff. Staff survey questions relating to satisfaction with the PDR process are monitored and analysed. PDR process is reviewed if required.

Sept 2018 Jan 2018

E, HoS, SoHP admin, SEG

100% of SoHP staff completes PDR by Dec 2018 (as seen in the new monitoring reports). 2018-20 SoHP staff survey responses show 70% or more staff agree that they are satisfied with the PDR process and feels that it is effective

5.3.iii 1 5.1.ii.3

Formalise and improve the peer mentoring scheme availability within SoHP in order to make it available to all staff looking for

Mentoring can be produce effective support and guidance for anyone looking to progress in their career. Formalising the mentoring process will allow more staff to have access to a mentor.

SEG create formal mentoring policy that includes workload allocation for the staff involved.

Jan 2019 April 2020 E, SEG, SoHP admin

Staff uptake of scheme. 2020 staff survey results show a 5-10% increase in the number of staff with a mentor

of 106

support with career development

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.3.iv 1

Conduct a student survey and focus groups to assess the number of students accessing career support services and the effectiveness of support received.

We have no feedback or data on the uptake of career support services by SoHP students. This means we have no way of knowing how effective it is and if the students are aware of it/ feel it is useful.

Student survey created and distributed among students. Student focus group organised. Data from survey / focus group analysed.

April 2018 April 2021

C, Central Careers Service Manager

Student survey and focus group completed. Data analysed and relevant actions made for future improvements, if needed.

5.3.iv 2

Establish a system to encourage transition of PhD students to postdoc research posts and other academic posts.

We have no formal system in place to support the transition from PGR to academic - either post-doc or other post – within SoHP. This does not support the retention of our own students and the career path for these students.

SAT to liaise with the Doctoral College to create a formal system of support for PGR career paths within the SoHP.

Sept 2018 April 2021 F, Doctoral Training College

Formal career support provided to all PGR students from Sept 2021.

5.3.v 1

Develop school wide protocol with research clusters to include early career researchers as named applicants on grant applications.

There is no formal protocol to include early researchers in grant applications. This may be a good means of boosting and supporting the research careers of staff, particularly females, who are less lily to be included in the REF. (see 5.1.iv).

SEG representative and Research group to consult on a policy for early career researchers and grant applications from the school. Feed up to UoP SAT.

Jan 2019 Jan 2020

F, SEG, School Research group, F

New policy developed for school. Early career researchers included on grant applications (seen in annual reviews).

of 106

5.5.i 1

Line Managers to signpost access to all family- related policies such as maternity, adoptive, paternity and parental leave to all staff.

Less than 50% of academic or professional staff were aware of the family-related leave policies for SoHP/ UoP. However, these are accessible on the intranet. Line managers can help signpost all staff to the HR pages where polices such as these can be found e.g. in team meetings or PDR. Staff survey question can access the success of this.

Line Managers signpost access to polices to all staff in teams Staff survey related question shows increase in awareness.

April 2018 April 2020 B, Line Managers

Staff awareness of polices increases in the 2020 and 2021 staff survey by 10-15%.

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.5.ii 1

SEG to review the support provided during and after extended leave by line managers in SoHP by conducting focus groups with and a survey of those who have gone on extended leave.

Staff survey responses suggested that the level and type of support provided during and after extended leave was variable and did not meet the standards and protocols outlined in the UoP policy in many cases. Many of the respondents within this group felt unfairly treated and that their needs were not met, especially in terms of cover for work when away and upon return to work.

Review undertaken – including focus groups and a survey. Data analysed and key areas of change highlighted. New protocol outlined and approved by SEG. Roll out of new protocol to all line managers in SoHP

April 2019 Sept 2020 F, HoS, SEG

Review completed. New protocol created and rolled out by SEG Evidence in success seen in more positive staff survey comments regarding extended leave

5.5.iii 1

SEG to identify a private and clean room for nursing parents/ a family room within PAHC where the majority of SoHP staff are based.

Staff survey results have highlighted the fact that there is no space provided for nursing or expressing breast milk in the PAHC building. However, this is one of the established UoP polices and those on the main campus do have a room.

SEG undertakes the review and finds a suitable room/ space.

Jan 2018 Jan 2019

F, SEG, School Admin

Nursing/family room identified and allocated at PAHC.

of 106

5.5.vi 1

SEG to review flexible working and working at home policies and their implementation across the School, in order to create fair and transparent practices

Staff indicated that they did not feel that flexible working were fairly offered across SoHP. This includes flexible working hours associated with most academic roles as well as changes to contracted hours or restrictions on timetables. There is almost no data on flexible working requests or practices by staff and granted by line mangers in the School. A review will help to highlight any disparities and allow the HoS to ensure a fair implementation across all departments.

A report on the current practices of flexible working and home working offered in the school. HoS implementing a formal and fair policy for all staff through line managers. Policy documents accessible to all staff.


F (& B), SEG, School Admin

Review of current practices completed and disparities highlighted. A fair and transparent policy is developed and implemented across the school. AS School staff survey reports a 10% increase in positive response to the implementation of the policies by 2020.

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.5.vii 1

SEG to work with line managers and HR to formally record requests for increase in hours and success rates for requests.

There is no system in place currently to record request to increase hours after a career break, or otherwise. There is also no means of reviewing the success of such requests and therefor the support for staff in this position.

SEG create system to allow line managers to record request and success of requests.

Sept 2018 Sept 2019

A, SEG, Line Managers, School Admin

Reporting system created. SEG can review data on the requests and success rates of requests made by SoHP staff.

5.6.i 1

SEG to assess the feasibility of a designated area at PAHC solely for staff use.

There is a staff/student common room; however, this is currently predominantly used by students and offers no privacy for staff. Staff have indicated that they would like a separate space away from their office to eat or meet with other colleagues.

Feasibility review completed by HoS and SEG for a room A room is identified for this purpose.

Jan 2018 April 2018 D, HoS, SEG

Review completed by SEG and findings communicated to staff. A room allocated for staff use.

of 106

5.6.i 2

Increase student participation in relevant School meetings and committees, using incentives such as the Plymouth Award credit awarded for participation

There is variable uptake of student attendance at the various forums and committees that they are invited to. It is hoped that highlighting the benefits of attendance, such as the credit towards the Plymouth Award, may improve attendance and participation.

Year tutors liaising with student reps, highlight the incentives to students. Student reps are given clear guide on responsibilities and incentives associated with role.

Sept 2018 Sept 2021

C, Year tutors, Programme Leads

All relevant School groups and committees have student membership and student attendance increases at meetings in by 2021.

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.6.ii 1

Increase the number of SoHP line managers taking part in central UoP workshops on HR policies within the School.

There has been very poor SoHP staff attendance at the central UoP staff learning and development team offers training sessions on ‘HR Policies for Managers’. Increasing the number of line managers attending these events may improve the dissemination of the information and inform practice. This will need to be achieved through advertisement and HoS support for eligible staff attending.

Forthcoming sessions advertised in School. HoS/ SEG encourages eligible staff to attend the workshops and creates time in workday to do so.

Sept 2018 Sept 2021 B, HoS, SEG

10% of eligible staff attends workshop by 2019. 20% of eligible staff attends by 2020 and 30% of eligible staff attended by 2021 workshop

5.6.iii 1

Develop a formal system within the School for recording membership of School Committees and ensure that records are kept for at least five years.

Records of committee membership have been poorly collected in the past and have not been kept for any period of time. A formal recording procedure for all committees, that is kept for a minimum length of time will allow better monitoring of diversity of the representatives.

A formal system for recording membership is developed and kept by the SoHP administration.

Jan 2018 Sept 2018

D, SoHP Admin Staff

Staff and student membership of School Committees is readily available for analysis or review.

of 106

5.6.iii 2 5.6.iii.3

SEG to review SoHP committee membership by gender to ensure it is representative of the school

The gender balance on some committees is not reflective of gender balance within the school. The SEG needs to review the membership allocation process to gain a better balance of genders in all committees. Review of roles will also help (x ref 5.6.iii.3)

SEG and HoS review the committee memberships. New allocation process and term or membership implemented

Jan 2018 Jan 2019

D, SEG, Committee chairs

Ratio of all committee members roughly 30% Men, 70% women by Jan 2019

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.6.iii 3 5.6.iii.2

Review gender balance across different administrative and senior roles performed by academic staff in the school.

The school committee roles performed by academic staff are determined by the administrative and senior roles performed by academic staff. While the SEG can address the imbalance of the committees directly (cross ref 5.6.iii.2), A gender imbalance is likely to be a result of an imbalance in role distribution in the school.

SEG and HOS produce review of gender distribution across the administrative and senior roles. SEG to address process for role selection, to avoid gender bias.

Sept 2018. Sept 2019 D, HoS SEG,

Review completed by SEG. New transparent and fair process for role selection that avoids gender bias.

5.6.iv 1 5.6.iv.2

Conduct annual audit of committee membership on influential external committees and steering groups (Faculty, University and Outside of UoP).

Staff participation and membership in any influential committees outside of the school or university has been poorly monitored up to this point. Auditing this information across the school, will allow us to assess the balance in opportunities across staff genders and grades and work on strategies to improve, this if needed.

Audit completed each year by the SEG/ administration and data collated and reviewed by SEG.

Jan 2018

Repeat annually Jan 2019, Jan 2020, Jan 2021

A, School Admin Staff, SEG

Audit carried out in the school annually and SEG reviewed data.

of 106

5.6.iv 2 5.6.iv.1

SEG to identify opportunities for SoHP staff to join committees (using AP 5.6.iv.1) and establish protocol for supporting staff to be put forward for committees, ensuring balanced representation

There is limited information on participation in influential committees by SoHP staff. Participation on such committees can be key in both career and skills development. Finding opportunities and encouraging more staff to take part in these committees will be beneficial to most SoHP staff.

SEG advertising places on external committees to all SoHP staff. Protocol developed for line managers/ SEG to identify key candidates and provide support for membership.

April 2018 Jan 2021 F (&E), SEG

Balanced representation of SoHP staff participation in influential committees by seen in annual audit by end of 2020.

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.6.v 1

SEG and HoS to create standard school wide role descriptors for administrative roles performed by academic staff.

The staff survey showed many staff felt the allocation and workload of administrative roles are not transparent/ defined. Clear role descriptors, would clarify and standardise the responsibilities associated with the roles and assist with workload allocation

Standard role descriptions developed for all administrative roles performed by academic staff and available for all staff to view.

Jan 2018 Sept 2018

E, SEG, School Admin Staff

All staff can access role descriptor for all administrative roles and responsibilities within the school.

5.6.v 2

SEG to create a comprehensive guide to WAM, to increase clarity of criteria and typical completion/ workload for role and contract type. Present this to staff at staff open forum.

The staff survey reported that only 41% of academic and 47% of professional staff thought that WAM criteria was clearly communicated. A clear guide of the criteria and some examples of what is expected in certain roles and contract types would also be helpful. The DHoS can present these at the staff open forum, to make sure that staff are informed.

SEG produces guide to WAM, accessible for all staff.

Sept 2018 April 2019 B, SEG

WAM guide produced for SoHP Staff reporting agreement that WAM criteria is clearly communicated increases to 60% in the following staff survey (April 2019)

5.6.v 3

Review breakdown of Full/Part time status of academic staff performing administrative roles.

The staff survey feedback suggest that factors such as full and part time status affect an individual’s chances of being offered additional administrative roles.

Review of current contract status of academic staff members with


D, SEG, Admin staff

Data of full time and part time status of the academic staff performing

of 106

SEG to encourage staff of all contract types to be offered roles.

As these can be seen as roles that offer career development and progression, lack of opportunity can put the roughly 50% of staff members on PT contracts at a disadvantage. A review of the current spread of full and part time members in each role will allow the SEG to encourage promotion of all staff and reduce limitation for PT opportunities.

administrative responsibilities. Policy developed to offer roles to a balance of staff in different contracts.

administrative roles produced. 40% of roles filled by PT staff by 2021.

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.6.vi 1

SEG to create formal policy for staff meetings to occur between set core hours (e.g. 10:00-16:00)

Informal feedback gathered by SAT suggested that meeting time restrictions between 10am – 4pm would be much more inclusive than 9-5pm. It takes into account the restrictions of those with restricted hours or commitments outside of work.

SEG to approve formal policy of meeting time restrictions

Jan 2018 Jan 2018

D, SEG, Line Managers

Policy introduced Positive feedback in culture section of staff survey 2018.

5.6.vi 2

Gather staff feedback via Staff Forums, Away Day and Team Meetings and staff survey on inclusivity and accessibility of key events and social gatherings

There is limited feedback on the inclusivity or accessibility of key events or social gatherings. The SAT will look to actively gather feedback at staff events/ and add new questions on staff survey.

Feedback gathered and analysed

April 2018 April 2020 D, SAT

Data on staff opinion gathered and analysed. Action plans for improvement developed if needed. Staff survey response agree with timings increases by 15%.

5.6.vii 1 4.1.ii.3

Ensure external and internal facing publicity is more balanced in its presentation of gender split.

Females feature predominantly and, although, this reflects the current allied health care gender split it risks perpetuating the status quo and female dominance among students as well as staff. AP 4.1.ii highlighted that males are less likely to apply or accept offers and this may be

Monitoring system developed to track the gender balance annually Increase in males seen in publicity materials

Jan 2018 Jan 2019

C, Media & Communic-ations Officer

Annual monitoring demonstrates a more even representation of men and women in internal and external publicity

of 106

one factor that need to be addressed.

5.6.vii 2

Maintain a gender balance of speakers invited to the school conferences that reflects the gender split of the school. While, still ensuring that role models of both genders are seen

It is important to maintain a balance of speakers that represents the school and professional population. However it is also important to ensure that staff and students are exposed to diverse range of role models. The school should actively try to maintain the gender balance of speakers to avoid over –representation of either gender.

SEG to monitor gender split of speakers invited to the SoHP for events. Gender balance representative of the school maintained that allows for diversity of chairs and speakers

Jan 2018 Sept 2020

F, Associate Head of Research, SEG

Gender balance of chairs and speakers representative of school seen in new recording system by 2019 (70:30% F:M)

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Cross Ref




5.6.vii 3

Develop an effective system for recording chairs and speakers data at School level in consultation with the UoP AS data collection hub team so that this can be monitored for gender imbalances by SEG.

There is no system in place to review or monitor the chairs and speakers at school level for the SoHP. In order to review the gender balance of this, the school will need to help develop a system within the School for recording chairs and speakers data in the future.

Better understanding of the number and characteristics of chairs and speakers at events organised by the SoHP.

Jan 2018 Jan 2019

A, School Admin Staff, AS Central Hub Team, SEG

System for recording chairs and speakers set up Data can be accesses and reviewed. Any imbalances highlighted can be addressed by SEG

5.6.viii 1 4.1.ii.3

Develop an effective system for recording outreach data at School level in consultation with the UoP AS data collection hub team to allow SoHP to monitor and control gender balance at activities to appropriate balance.

There is no system in place to review or monitor the outreach activities held by or taken part in by staff from the SoHP. In order to review the gender balance of this, the school will need to help develop a system within the School for the data.

Better understanding of the number and characteristics of staff and students who are involved in the School's Outreach activities


A, School Admin Staff, AS Central Hub Team, SEG

A single system for recording Outreach data at School level is developed and implemented. SEG actively balances the gender split of staff carrying outreach to 60%:40% F:M.

of 106

Gant Chart of Proposed Action Plan Timeline

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Jan 2018

April 2018

Sept 2018

Jan 2019

April 2019

Sept 2019

Jan 2020

April 2020

Sept 2020

Jan 2021

April 2021

Sept 2021

3.ii 1

3.iii 1

3.iii 2

3.iii 3

3.iii 4

4.1.ii 1

4.1.ii 2

4.1.ii 3

4.1.iii 1

4.1.iv 1

4.1.iv 2

4.1.v 1

4.2.i 1

4.2.ii 1

4.2.iii 1

4.2.iii 2

4.2.iii 3

5.1.ii 1

5.1.ii 2

5.1.ii 3

5.1.iii 1

5.1.iv 1

5.1.iv 2

5.1.iv 3

5.1.iv 4

5.3.i 1

5.3.i 2

5.3.i 3

5.3.ii 1

5.3.iii 1

5.3.iv 1

5.3iv 2

5.3.v 1

5.5.i 1

of 106

Section/ Reference

Action No.

Jan 2018

April 2018

Sept 2018

Jan 2019

April 2019

Sept 2019

Jan 2020

April 2020

Sept 2020

Jan 2021

April 2021

Sept 2021

5.5.ii 1

5.5.iii 1

5.5.vi 1

5.5.vii 1

5.6.i 1

5.6.i 2

5.6.ii 1

5.6.iii 1

5.6.iii 2

5.6.iii 3

5.6.iv 1

5.6.iv 2

5.6.v 1

5.6.v 2

5.6.v 3

5.6.vi 1

5.6.vi 2

5.6.vii 1

5.6.vii 2

5.6.vii 3

5.6.viii 1

Preparation for Next Award Submission

of 106

Responsibilities and Categories of Actions

Section Action No.

SAT Person

Other Category

3.ii 1 A Survey/ focus groups

3.iii 3 A SoHP admin Survey

4.1.iv 2 A Data Hub Manager, DTC Manager Reporting Systems

5.1.ii 3 A SAT Staff survey

5.3.i 1 A Central Training Team and SoHP Admin Reporting Systems

5.3.i 2 A HoS, SoHP Admin Reporting Systems

5.3.i 3 A SoHP Admin, HR Business Partner Reporting Systems

5.5.vii 1 A SEG, Line Managers, School Admin Reporting Systems

5.6.iv 1 A School Admin, SEG Reporting System

5.6.vii 3 A (& F) School Admin, AS Central Hub Team, SEG Reporting System (Liaised SEG)

5.6.viii 1 A (& F) School Admin, AS Central Hub Team, SEG Reporting System (Liaised SEG)

4.2.iii 3 B SEG, EDIC rep Promoting info/ Signposting

5.1.iii 1 B SAT, Line Managers, HoS Promotion of Info

5.5.i 1 B Line Managers, Signposting Information

5.6.ii 1 B HoS, SEG Promoting opportunities

5.6.v 2 B SEG Promoting Information

4.1.ii 1 C Admissions and Marketing Admissions & Marketing

4.1.ii 2 C Admissions and Marketing Admissions & Marketing

4.1.iii 1 C Admissions and Marketing Admissions & Marketing

4.1.iv 1 C Admissions and Marketing Admissions & Marketing

4.1.v 1 C Admissions and Marketing Admissions & Marketing

4.2.i 1 C Recruitment and Marketing Recruitment & Marketing

5.3.iv 1 C Central Careers Service Student Experience

5.6.i 2 C Year Tutors, Programme Leads Student Experience

5.6.vii 1 C Media & communications Officer Marketing

4.1.ii 3 D HoS , T & L committee Gender Bias/ Culture

5.1.iv 3 D HoS, Associate Head of Research Gender Bias/ Culture

5.6.i 1 D HoS, SEG Culture

5.6.iii 1 D SoHP Admin Gender Bias/ Culture

of 106

Section Action No.

SAT Person

Other Category

5.6.iii 2 D SEG, Committee Chairs Gender Bias/ Culture

5.6.iii 3 D HoS, SEG Gender Bias/ Culture

5.6.v 3 D SEG, Admin Staff Gender Bias/ Culture

5.6.vi 1 D SEG, Line Managers Culture

5.6.vi 2 D SAT Culture

5.1.iv 4 D (&E) HoS, Associate Head of Research Gender Bias/ Culture

4.2.ii 1 E SEG, EDIC representative Career Development

4.2.iii 1 E SEG, EDIC representative Career Development

5.1.iv 2 E HoS, DHoS Career Development

5.3.ii 1 E SoHP admin, HoS, SEG Career Development

5.3.iii 1 E SoHP admin, SEG Career Development

5.6.v 1 E SEG, School Admin Career Development

3.iii 1 F AS SAT

3.iii 2 F AS SAT

3.iii 4 F SoHP/ SEG updates

4.2.iii 2 F HR business Partner, SEG Liaison outside school - HR

5.1.ii 1 F SoHP Admin, HoS Liaison with HoS/ Admin

5.1.ii 2 F SoHP Admin, HoS Liaison with HoS/ Admin

5.1.iv 1 F SEG, UoP SAT Liaison with SEG/ UoP SAT

5.3iv 2 F Doctoral Training College Liaison external to School

5.3.v 1 F SEG, School Research Group, UoP Liaison with SEG

5.5.ii 1 F SEG, HoS Liaison with SEG

5.5.iii 1 F SEG, School Admin Liaison with SEG

5.6.vii 2 F SEG, Associate Head of Research Liaison with SEG

5.5.vi 1 F (& B) SEG, School Admin Liaison with SEG (signpost)

5.6.iv 2 F (&E) SEG Liaison with SEG (Career Dev)