equality information report 2021

1

Equality Information Report 2021

3.2% of employees in

the highest positions

in Professional

Services are BAME

27.1% of Professors are

women as opposed to

49.1% in the highest

Professional Services

grades

65.5% of employees

disclosed their religion and

out of these 49% said that

they do not have any

religion or belief

6.3% of employees

disclosed that they

are disabled

29.9% of students who

started in 2020/21 came

from overseas and 7.6%

came from EU countries

32.5% of UK Domiciled

Undergraduate students, 26.3% of

Postgraduate Taught and 15.1% of

Postgraduate Research students

who started their studies in

2020/21 were ethnic minorities

2

Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………4

Staff Equality Information……………………………………………………….5

Age…………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Disability ………………………………………………………………………………….10

Ethnicity……………………………………………………………………………………13

Gender……………………………………………………………………………………..20

Recruitment…………………………......................................................25

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion…………………….27

Nationality………………………………………………………………………………..32

Student Equality Information…………………………………………………34

Age…………………………………………………………………………………………..35

Disability…………………………………………………………………………………..36

Ethnicity……………………………………………………………………………………38

Domicile……………………………………………………………………………………39

Gender……………………………….…………………………………………………….40

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion........................41

Postgraduate…………………………………………………………………………….43

3

Foreword

Equality, diversity and inclusion are central to our University vision and strategy.

Diversity is a huge strength of our institution and a source of great pride.

However, we acknowledge that we must continually work hard to ensure we

tackle all forms of discrimination and guarantee all staff and students are given

opportunities to thrive. We have made progress, demonstrated through the

achievement of Athena SWAN awards which recognises commitment to the

career advancement of women; the Race Equality Charter Mark award which

aims to improve the representation, progression and success of minority ethnic

staff and students within higher education; and recognition from Stonewall for

creating an inclusive workplace as a top 100 employer for LGBT colleagues - but

we are also aware that there is still much to do. We will continue to embed our

commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion across all our processes and this

report is a great example of our continued work in this area

Professor Nalin Thakkar

Vice-President Social Responsibility

4

Introduction

The University of Manchester is one of Britain’s largest single site universities.

We employ over 11,000 staff and educate approximately 40,000 students. The

University is committed to promoting equality and providing an environment

where all members of its community are treated with respect and dignity. We

are proud to strive to employ a workforce and educate a student body that

reflects the diverse community we serve.

As a Higher Education Institution we have specific equality duties, as outlined by

The Equality Act (2010). These require public authorities to tackle

discrimination, victimisation and harassment, advance equality and foster good

relations. It is also our responsibility to publish our equality information on an

annual basis, and review and publish specific and measurable equality objectives

every 4 years.

University of Manchester Equality Objectives 2016 – 2020

1. Improve the representation of women and black and minority ethnic

(BME) staff in senior leadership, academic and professional support

positions.

2. Take action to further understand and improve the experience of

disabled staff as indicated in the staff survey.

3. Take action to further understand and address any differential outcomes

of undergraduate students in relation to access, retention, attainment

and progression to a positive graduate destination in relation to

disability, ethnicity, gender and socio-economic status.

4. Take action to understand and address any inequalities for researchers.

5. To better understand the challenges, obstacles and barriers faced by

different groups at the University and to foster good relations between

people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do

not share it.

6. Better understand the potential impact of University functions on

certain groups by improving disclosure rates and reporting mechanisms

for age, disability, ethnicity, caring responsibilities, religion or belief

(including lack of belief) sexual orientation and gender reassignment.

5

Staff Equality Information: Key Findings Age: The age of staff at the University has increased since 2018- the proportion of employees

within ‘36 to 45’ age range increased year on year. 29.9% of all staff at the University in 2020

were within 36 to 45 bracket- an increase of 0.3% since 2018 (see Figure 1, p.7). The data

from 2020 shows that Professional Services (PS) staff and part-time staff are older than

academic and full time staff (see Figure 2 and Figure 3, pp.7-8).

Disability: 6.3% of staff at the University have disclosed their disability status on their staff

record (see Figure 7, p.10). The proportion of disabled staff working at the University started

increasing since 2016 (see Figure 11, p.12). The most prevalent disability type declared by

staff, accounting for 23.8% of all disabilities, is a long standing illness or health condition such

as cancer, HIV, diabetes, chronic heart disease, or epilepsy (see Figure 8, p.11).

Ethnicity: There has been a 3.3% increase in BAME staff across the university since 2016 up

to 16.9% in 2020. 21.2% of academic staff and 13.4% of Professional Services staff are BAME

(see Figure 17, p.15). The largest represented ethnic group is Asian accounting for 58.4% of

all BAME staff (see Figure 13, p.13). 39.8% of BAME staff are from overseas and 5.1% from EU

countries.

Gender: The percentage of female staff at the University increased by 1% between 2016 and

2020 up to 50.5% (Figure 28, p.21). 42.4% of academics are females as opposed to 57.2% of

PS staff. There is a difference in representation of females at the highest level for seniority

between academic and PS staff: 27.1% of Professors and 37.1% of Senior Lecturers/Readers

are females (see Figure 29, p.21); in comparison there is much higher proportion of females

at the highest positions in PS: 49.1% of Grade 8/9 and 53.5% of Grade 7 PS staff are females

respectively (see Figure 30, p.22).

Recruitment: Only 35.5% of applications for core academic positions were sent by females

and 46.9% by BAME Candidates in the period studied. Only 29.2% of applications for PS (both

Faculty-based and central) were sent by BAME candidates and only 0.9% of BAME applications

were successful in comparison to 2.4% of White candidates’ applications (see recruitment

tables, pp.25-26).

Promotions: In all core academic promotions, females are more successful than Males, but

are less likely to apply for a promotion. BAME candidates are less likely to be successful than

White candidates in promotion applications to all roles but are more likely to apply than

White candidates (see promotion section for Gender, p.23 and Ethnicity, p.16).

Leavers: Overall the percentage of female and BAME staff leaving the University in the past

year has increased by 3.4% (see Figure 34, p.24) and 2.9% (see Figure 23, p.18) respectively.

On further analysis it was determined that the increase is driven by fixed term contracts

ending as turnover rates for BAME PS and Academics on permanent contracts were stable

between 2017 and 2020 (see Figure 24, p.19).

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion: 65.2% of employees of the University

responded to question about sexual orientation and religion. Response rates to questions

about sexual orientation and religion increased between 2017 and 2020 (pp.27-31).

6

Internationalisation: The University of Manchester has more than 2000 members of staff

who declared nationality different than ‘British’. This group comes from more than 100

different countries. China, Italy and Germany top 3 countries of origin of University’s

international staff (see international section and the Map, pp.32-33).

Methodology

Data of current staff in this report relates to the 2019/20 academic year and has come from

the Annual Performance Review dataset produced by the Human Resources Systems Team.

The data is current and up to date as of 31st July 2020 and has been analysed by the Equality,

Diversity and Inclusion team. Data related to Recruitment is taken from Job train/Yellowfin

system and data related to Academic promotions is collected by Human Resource partners.

Throughout this report the data is split by Academic staff and Professional Support Services

(PS) staff. Academic staff are split by Professor, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Lecturer.

Research staff include Researchers, Research Fellows and Senior Research Fellows. When the

term ‘Academic’ is used in this report it groups together both Academic and Research Staff.

PS staff are in a range of roles such as administration and technical roles.

7

Age

4.1%

25.7% 29.5%23.7%

14.7%

2.2%

4.3%

25.6%

29.6%

23.6%

14.5%

2.3%4.1%

24.6%

29.9%

23.7%

15.3%

2.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

25 or less 26 to 35 36 to 45 46 to 55 56 to 65 66 and above

Figure 1: All Staff by Age

2018 2019 2020

4.6%

27.9%

28.5%23.9%

14.0%

1.1%2.2%

13.3%

34.6%

22.9%

19.6%

7.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


Figure 2: Full-Time and Part-Time Staff by Age 2020

Full-Time Part-Time

The university has a wide range of ages of staff, with most staff at the University being aged from 36 to 45 (29.9%-

see Figure 1). Full time staff as well as part time staff at the University tend to be aged from 36 to 35 (Figure 2).

Both, most Academic and PS staff ages show most academics are aged between 36 and 45 years old (Figure 3).

8

0.7%

28.5%30.6%

22.5%

14.4%

3.3%

6.8%

21.4%

29.2%

24.7%

16.0%

1.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


Figure 3: Academics and PS Staff by Age 2020

Academics Professional Services

88.1%

87.8%

73.9%

78.2%

71.1%

33.8%

11.9%

12.2%

26.1%

21.8%

28.9%

66.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

25 or less

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

66 and above

Figure 4: All Staff by Age, 2020

Full-Time Part-Time

The percentage of staff working full-time at the University increases as age decreases, with the exception of the

age bracket 36-45 (Figure 4). Staff of age 25 or less are most likely to be working full time (Figure 4) - this is the

case for both Academic and PS staff (Figures 5 and 6).

9

88.2%

89.6%

76.2%

80.7%

76.1%

30.5%

11.8%

10.4%

23.8%

19.3%

23.9%

69.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

25 or less

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

66 and above

Figure 5: Academic Staff by Age, 2020

Full-Time Part-Time

88.1%

85.9%

71.9%

76.3%

67.4%

38.6%

11.9%

14.1%

28.1%

23.7%

32.6%

61.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

25 or less

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

66 and above

Figure 6: Professional Services Staff by Age, 2020

Full-Time Part-Time

10

Disability

6.3%

93.0%

0.6%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes - has a disability Not known to be disabled Prefer not to say

Figure 7: Disability of staff, 2020

6.3% of staff at the University have disclosed their disability status on their staff record. The

percentage of all staff disclosing a disability has more than doubled since the publication of the

Equality Act, with staff in PS being more likely to disclose a disability than academic staff. Holding

the most complete and accurate information enables the University to effectively tackle

discrimination and equalise opportunity in its community. The most prevalent disability type

declared by staff is a long standing illness or health condition such as cancer, HIV, diabetes, chronic

heart disease, or epilepsy. This accounts for 23.8% of all disabilities declared (Figure 8).

11

0.3%

1.1%

1.4%

2.3%

3.5%

6.7%

10.2%

13.9%

17.3%

19.5%

23.8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

General Learning Disability

Blind or Serious Visual Impairment

Cognitive Impairment

Prefer not to say/Question not answered

Deaf or Serious Hearing Impairment

Other Type of Disability

Physical Impairment or Mobility Issues

Unknown Disability

Mental Health Condition

Specific Learning Disability

Long-Standing llness/Health Condition

Figure 8: Breakdown of Disabilities 2020

38.9%

50.0%

59.2%

61.1%

50.0%

40.8%

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

Prefer not to say

Not known to be Disabled

Yes - has a disability

Figure 9: Disability by Gender 2020

Female Male

75.0%

81.3%

86.0%

15.3%

17.2%

12.3%

9.7%

1.4%

1.7%

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

Prefer not to say

Not known to be Disabled

Yes - has a disability

FIgure 10: Disability by Ethnicity 2020

White BAME Information unknown or refused

12

3.5%

2.7%2.9%

3.2%3.5%

Academics, 3.8%

7.9%

6.8%7.1%

7.6% 7.8%

Professional Services, 8.4%

5.8%

4.9%5.2%

5.6%5.8%

Overall, 6.3%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 11: Disabled staff in PS and Academic Roles

Among members of staff who disclosed disability, majority of females: 59.2% while among staff

with no known disabilities proportions are 50%/50% (Figure 9). For the past five years the

percentage of PS staff declaring a disability is consistently higher than the percentage of academic

staff (Figure 11). Between 2019 and 2020 there has been a 0.5% increase in the percentage of all

staff declaring a disability.

13

Ethnicity

1.5%

16.9%

81.6%

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

Information unknown or refused

BAME

White

Figure 12: All Staff by Ethnicity 2020

‘Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic’ (BAME) is a term referring to those of non-White descent, and

encompasses a wide range of different ethnicities irrespective of a person’s origin or nationality. Of all

respondents, Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic staff make up 16.9% of our staff population (Figure 12).

14

White, 83.2%

White, 79.9%

Asian, 9.0%

Asian, 10.7%

Other/Mixed, 2.6%

Other/Mixed, 2.8%

Black, 4.2%

Black, 4.4%

No Info, 0.9%

No Info, 2.1%

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

Female

Male

Figure 16: Ethnicity by Gender, 2020

Of all BAME staff working at the university 58.4% are Asian (Figure 13). However, when analysed in terms of their

functions at University, there is a significant difference in the proportion of Asian staff in academic posts when

compared with PS. 45.5% of BAME PS staff (Figure 14) are Asian in comparison to 68.3% of BAME academic staff

(Figure 15). Out of Academics who identify as Asian:

>36% declared British Nationality

>28% declared their nationality as Chinese or Hong Kong-Chinese

>13.2% declared Indian nationality

Only 7.1% of Academic staff are Black (Figure 15) in comparison to 27.5% of Academics (Figure 14).

The proportion of Ethnic minorities is lower among females than males (see Figure 16).

15

16.5%

18.6%19.0%

20.0%

Academics, 21.2%

11.1%11.7%

12.5%13.1%

Professional Services, 13.4%13.6%

14.9%15.4%

16.2%Overall, 16.9%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 17: Proportion of BAME Staff in PS and Academic Roles

Please note: y axis does not start at 0

The percentage of BAME staff in academic roles has been consistently higher than the percentage in

PS roles over the past five years (Figure 17). Since 2016 there has been a 3.3 % increase of BAME staff

across the university with a 4.7% increase in BAME academics and a 2.3% increase in BAME PS staff.

Between 2016 and 2020 there has been a year on year increase in the percentage of BAME staff in both

academic and PS roles.

16

52, 6.6%

43, 82.7%

9, 7.7%

4, 44.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

% of applications from those eligible % of successful applications

Figure 18: Promotions to Chair by Ethnicity 2020 (Count,Percentages)

White BME

27, 4.2%

25, 92.6%

7, 7.4%

6, 85.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Figure 19: Promotions to Reader by Ethnicity 2020 (Count,Percentage)

White BAME

88, 8.4%

67, 76.1%

23, 8.5%

17, 73.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Figure 20: Promotions to Senior Lecturer/Senior Research Fellows by Ethnicity 2020 (Count, Percentage)

White BME

17

13.4%14.1%

14.8%

16.2% 16.3% Grade 1 - 4, 16.4%

9.2%9.7%

10.2% 10.6%

12.0%Grade 5 & 6, 13.0%

6.2%5.9%

6.8% 7.1%7.8%

Grade 7, 7.2%

5.9% 5.9% 4.5%3.7% 3.9%

Grade 8 & 9, 3.2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 21: Proportion of BAME in Professional Services Staff Grades

Between 2015 and 2020 there was increase in the percentage of BAME PS staff across all grades with the

exception of Grades 8-9 which has seen a small decrease over the period discussed (Figure 21).

Between 2015 and 2020 there has been an increase in BAME staff across all academic job levels.

BAME academics were more likely to apply for all core Academic positions (Figures 17, 18 and 19).

In the 2017/18 promotion round BAME candidates were less likely to be successful than White

candidates when applying for a promotion at every level, however the count of individuals is small which

makes interpretation difficult (Figures 18, 19 and 20).

18

8.0% 8.3% 8.8% 9.3%10.3%

Professor, 11.3%11.9% 11.9% 12.3% 12.5% 13.0%

Senior Lecturer/Reader,

13.4%

15.2%16.5%

17.8%19.2% 19.2%

Lecturer, 20.7%20.9% 21.2%

24.8% 25.0%

26.7%

Research and other academics, 28.5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 22: Proportion of BAME in Academic Staff Levels

21.2%

22.6%

26.4%

24.4%

Academics, 26.0%

13.3%

11.4% 10.9%

15.8% Professional Services, 14.5%

17.5% 17.7%

19.7%20.5% Overall, 20.1%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

24.0%

26.0%

28.0%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 23: Proportion of BAME among Leavers


Between 2016 and 2020 the percentage of BAME leavers at the University has increased by 2.9%. With

the percentage of BAME academics leaving the University increasing by 2.6% and the percentage of PS

staff increased by 1.2% (Figure 23). One of the reasons why employees leave the University is that their

fix-term contract of employment came to the end. In order to account for that this report indicates

turnover rates for employees on permanent contracts: they remained stable over the period analysed

for both BAME Academic and PS staff (Figures 24 and 25).

20

Gender

42.4%

57.2%

50.5%

57.6%

42.8%

49.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Academic

Professional Support

Overall

Figure 26: Staff by Gender 2020

Female Male

29.8%

46.3%

49.0%

49.3%

47.5%

51.6%

70.2%

53.7%

51.0%

50.7%

52.5%

48.4%

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

Unknown

Asian

Black

Other/Mixed

BAME Total

White

Figure 27: Gender by Ethnicity 2020

Female Male

There are similar proportions of male and female staff working at the University (Figure 26). However,

when analysed in terms of their functions at University, there are is a much larger proportion of females

among professional services staff – 57.2% as opposed to academic staff -42.4%.

Of all BAME staff at the University 47.5% are female compared with 51.6% of White staff being female

(Figure 27).

21

41.9% 42.4% 42.0% 42.3% Academic, 42.4%

56.0% 56.0% 56.4% 56.6%Professional

Services, 57.2%

49.5% 49.8% 49.9% 50.2% Overall, 50.5%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 28: Proportion of Females in PS and Academic Roles


23.3% 24.0% 24.4%25.6% 26.1%

Professor, 27.1%

36.0%37.4%

38.2%37.3% 36.9%

Senior Lecturer/Reader,

37.1%

44.6% 44.2% 44.2%45.3%

47.0%

Lecturer, 48.3%48.1%

48.9%49.9%

48.5%48.5%

Research and other academics,

48.0%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 29: Proportion of Female in Academic Staff Levels


22

57.9% 57.7% 57.6%

57.2%

57.7% Grade 1 - 4, 57.6%

55.2%56.0%

57.0%

57.6%

58.1%Grade 5 & 6, 59.5%

48.3%

49.7%49.8%

50.8%51.6%

Grade 7, 53.5%

49.8%

52.7%

49.4%48.7%

49.8%Grade 8 & 9, 49.1%

45%

47%

49%

51%

53%

55%

57%

59%

61%

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 30: Proportion of Females in Professional Services Staff Grades


The percentage of female staff at the University increased by 1% between 2016 and 2020 (Figure 28). In

that period there has been a 0.5% increase in female academics and a 1.2% increase in proportion of

female PS staff.

The percentage of females in all academic roles has increased at all academic levels with exception of

Researchers category. In 2020 the proportion of females among lecturers increased to 48.3% (Figure 29).

The percentage of females among PS staff has been fluctuating but increased at Grades 5-6 and Grade 7

has increased between 2015 and 2020. Between 2015 and 2020 the percentage of female staff on Grades

1-4 and Grades 8 & 9 fluctuated but remained stable (Figure 30).

23

23, 6.7%

22, 95.7%

39, 6.8%

26, 66.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

% of applications from thoseeligible

% of successful applications

Figure 31: Promotions to Chair by Gender 2020 (Count,Percentages)

Female Male

6, 2.1%

6, 100.0%

30, 6.6%

27, 90.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

% of applications from thoseeligible

% of successful applications

Figure 32: Promotions to Reader by Gender 2020 (Count,Percentages)

Female Male

47, 7.3%

39, 83.0%

66, 9.1%

47, 71.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


Figure 33: Promotions to Senior Lecturers/Senior Research Fellows by Gender 2020

(Count,Percentages)

Female Male

A higher percentage of males that were eligible applied for promotions for in the case of all core

academic positions. A higher percentage of females were successful in applications for all core

academic promotions (Figures 31, 32 and 33).

24

40.8%

46.9%

45.7%

47.3%

Academics, 44.2%

54.0%

57.9% 58.2% 58.2%Professional

Services, 56.2%

47.0%

51.7%51.1%

52.3%

Overall, 50.4%

40%

42%

44%

46%

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 34: Proportion of Females among Leavers


Overall the percentage of females among leavers at the University has increased by 3.4% between

2015 and 2020, but there was a small decrease in 2020 (Figure 34).

25

Recruitment

Table 1: Recruitment stages of core academic positions (Professorships,

Senior lectureships and lectureships) split by gender and ethnicity, 2019

Table 2: Recruitment stages of Researchers and other academics (Senior

Research Fellows, Research Fellows, Researchers and others) split by gender

and ethnicity, 2019

1. Core Academics (Professorships, Senior Professorships and lectureships)

Gender All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications

Male 1313 62.3% 112 47.9% 8.5% 23 38.3% 20.5% 1.8%

Female 747 35.5% 120 51.3% 16.1% 36 60.0% 30.0% 4.8%

Unknown 47 2.2% 2 0.9% 4.3% 1 1.7% 50.0% 2.1%

Total 2107 100.0% 234 100.0% 11.1% 60 100.0% 25.6% 2.8%

Ethnicity All Applications % Shortlisted %-All As % of Applications Successful %-All As % of Shortlisted As % of Applications

White 999 47.4% 157 67.1% 15.7% 47 78.3% 29.9% 4.7%

BAME 989 46.9% 73 31.2% 7.4% 12 20.0% 16.4% 1.2%

Unknown 119 5.6% 4 1.7% 3.4% 1 1.7% 25.0% 0.8%

Total 2107 100.0% 234 100.0% 11.1% 60 100.0% 25.6% 2.8%

2. Researchers and other academics (SRF,RF and others)


Male 3007 56.2% 371 53.4% 12.3% 108 51.2% 29.1% 3.6%

Female 2202 41.1% 312 44.9% 14.2% 99 46.9% 31.7% 4.5%

Unknown 144 2.7% 12 1.7% 8.3% 4 1.9% 33.3% 2.8%

Total 5353 100.0% 695 100.0% 13.0% 211 100.0% 30.4% 3.9%


White 2015 37.6% 375 54.0% 18.6% 122 57.8% 32.5% 6.1%

BAME 2973 55.5% 281 40.4% 9.5% 78 37.0% 27.8% 2.6%

Unknown 365 6.8% 39 5.6% 10.7% 11 5.2% 28.2% 3.0%

Total 5353 100.0% 695 100.0% 13.0% 211 100.0% 30.4% 3.9%

Gender: 41.1% of applications for research academic positions were sent by females in the period studied.

The proportion of females increases among shortlisted candidates to 44.9% and is 46.9% among successful

candidates. It seems that females are doing well throughout the recruitment process, especially during the

shortlisting.

Ethnicity: 55.5% of applications for research academic positions were sent by BAME candidates. The

proportion of BAME candidates decreased to 40.4% among shortlisted and again to 37.0% among successful

candidates. It seems that shortlisting provides particular challenge for BAME candidates- only 9.5% of BAME

applications were shortlisted in comparison to 18.6% of White candidates’ applications.

Gender: Only 35.5% of applications for core academic positions were sent by females in the period studied.

However, females seem to be more successful during the shortlisting the interview stages which means that

there is more females among shortlisted and successful candidates.

Ethnicity: 46.9% of applications for core academic positions were sent by BAME candidates. In addition,

BAME candidates are underrepresented among shortlisted-31.2% of shortlisted candidates were BAME as

well as successful candidates-20% of successful candidates were BAME.

26

Table 3: Recruitment stages of Professional Services split by gender and

ethnicity, 2019

3. Professional Services


Male 5114 37.8% 475 32.0% 9.3% 74 26.6% 15.6% 1.4%

Female 8021 59.2% 924 62.2% 11.5% 180 64.7% 19.5% 2.2%

Unknown 409 3.0% 87 5.9% 21.3% 24 8.6% 27.6% 5.9%

Total 13544 100.0% 1486 100.0% 11.0% 278 100.0% 18.7% 2.1%


White 9002 66.5% 1101 74.1% 12.2% 217 78.1% 19.7% 2.4%

BAME 3956 29.2% 292 19.7% 7.4% 35 12.6% 12.0% 0.9%

Unknown 586 4.3% 93 6.3% 15.9% 26 9.4% 28.0% 4.4%

Total 13544 100.0% 1486 100.0% 11.0% 278 100.0% 18.7% 2.1%

Gender: 59.2% of applications for PS (both Faculty-based and central) positions were sent by females in the

period studied. The proportion of females increases among shortlisted candidates to 62.2% and again to 64.7%

among successful candidates. It seems that females are doing well throughout the recruitment process.

Ethnicity: Only 29.2% of applications for PS (both Faculty-based and central) were sent by BAME candidates.

The proportion of BAME candidates decreases to 19.7% among shortlisted and again to 12.6% among

successful candidates.

27

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion

53.1%57.6%

62.8%65.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 35: Sexual Orientation: Response rates

0.7%

1.6%

2.4%

3.1%

8.1%

84.2%

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

Other

Gay woman/lesbian

Bisexual

Gay man

Information refused

Heterosexual

Figure 36: Sexual Orientation of Employees, 2020 (Known Data)

28

93.4%89.0%

70.0%

50.2%

39.6%

27.8%

Average Response Rate, 65.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Figure 37: Response rates of staff members to question about their sexual orientation by age, 2020

Whilst there is still work to do on data disclosure for Sexual Orientation, we have seen some

improvement thanks to:

The University maintaining a Top 100 position in the annual Stonewall Workplace Equality

Index for six consecutive years (no index in 2020)

Using the results of the Staff Survey to positively reinforce the importance of accurate data

disclosure

Positive reinforcement by members of the SLT and BoG by recorded videos

A campaign for all staff to include their pronouns on their signatures and Zoom screens

Conducting a survey for all members of ALLOUT and using the findings to inform activities

and to raise awareness to the EDI Governance Group

Further increasing the number of ALLOUT allies who have proactively promoted the

importance of data completion in MyView

Continued work with all areas to improve their data quality and emphasis on this during

induction and periodic reminders throughout the year

Ensuring members of ALLOUT (The LGBT Staff Network Group) have updated their own data

and encourage colleagues to do so

We will continue to improve in 2021 by:

Committing to communicate more regularly about trans and non-binary identities to improve

disclosure rates for these areas

Bespoke campaigns in Faculty of Life sciences and the Library

29

Table 4: Gender Identity: Is your gender identity the same as the gender you

were originally assigned at birth? (see footnote below)1

2018 2019 2020

Academic Professional

Support Grand Total


Support Grand Total


Support Grand Total

Yes 97.4% 98.1% 97.8% 87.3% 86.8% 87.0% 78.6% 79.8% 79.2%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Unknown 2.6% 1.9% 2.2% 12.7% 13.2% 13.0% 21.4% 20.2% 20.8%

Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1 This data is pulled from our HR system and based on the information that people submit either as anew starter or through the self service system MyView. Whilst we have a very high completion of this field, the low numbers from such a high volume of staff(11,139) do give a 0% return on the gender identity field. We know however that number those who answered no to question about gender identity is higher than 0% simply because the recent staff survey indicated that numbers were less than 0.1%

30

Religion

53.2%57.6%

62.8%65.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 38: Religion: Response rates

0.2%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.4%

2.0%

4.8%

8.1%

32.0%

49.3%

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

Sikh

Jewish

Spiritual

Buddhist

Other Religion or Belief

Hindu

Muslim

Prefer not to say/Information refused

Christian (inc CofE, Catholic etc)

No Religion or Belief

Figure 39: Religion of Employees, 2020 (Known Data)

31

93.2%88.7%

69.5%

51.0%

39.9%

27.8%

Average Response

Rate, 65.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Figure 40: Response rates of staff members to question about their religion by age, 2020

65.2% of staff at the University were willing to disclose their religion (an increase from the last year

by 2.4%), of these 49.3% declared themselves as non-Religious (Figures 37 and 38). Response rates

are related to age: younger employees are far more likely to disclose their religion (Figure 39).

32

International Staff

Table 5: International staff count and percentage- Top 10 Countries 2020

Country Number of staff

members As a % of International

Staff

Chinese 231 10.0%

Italian (Includes Sardinia, Sicily) 188 8.1%

German 170 7.3%

Spanish (includes Ceuta, Melilla) 147 6.3%

Irish 126 5.4%

Indian 118 5.1%

American 116 5.0%

French (includes Corsica) 110 4.7%

Greek 101 4.4%

Polish 87 3.7%

The University of Manchester has more than 2000 members of staff who declared nationality different than

‘British’. This group comes from more than 100 different countries. Table 5 below indicates 10 most common

nationalities of the University of Manchester International Staff.

33

Map: University of Manchester International staff by nationality 2020

The darker red colour the more non-UK staff identified that particular country as their nationality

34

Student Equality Information: Key Findings

In order to achieve consistency and clarity in terms of understanding of the recruitment

trends, attainment, retention and graduate destinations (progression) of students, we would

advise the reader to investigate Office for Students Access and participation data dashboard

which includes information about students’ diversity for the University of Manchester and

other Higher Education institutions. The information below, provides general overview of the

student population at the University of Manchester.

Undergraduate

Age: In 2020/21 7.0% of all undergraduate students were considered ‘mature’ (20 years old

or less when starting course). The proportion of mature students have been declining for the

last 5 years (see Figure 2, p.36).

Disability: 9.5% of all undergraduate students have a disability– most of them report learning

difficulties and mental health conditions (see Figure 3 and Figure 4, pp.36-37).

Ethnicity: The percentage of UK domicile BAME students at the University has increased by

0.5% points in the past year to 32.5% in 2020/21 (see Figure 6, p.38).

Domicile: In 2020/21 the percentage of UK domicile students dropped by 1.2% to 62.5%- the

lowest level in 5 years. 29.9% of students are from overseas and 7.6% from EU countries (see

Figure 7, p.39).

Gender: In 2020/21 55.6% of undergraduate students were female and 44.4% were male. In

the last five years there have consistently been more undergraduate female students than

male students (see Figure 8, p.40).

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Religion: In 2020/21 51.0% of UK domicile students

on full-time courses have no religion (see Figure 9, p.41) and 79% described their sexual

orientation as Heterosexual (see Figure 10, p. 42). 0.6% answered ‘No’ to the question ‘Is your

Gender the same as assigned at birth?’ which suggests that this was a proportion of known

transgender students at the University in 2020/21 (see Table 1, p.42).

Postgraduate

Domicile: In 2020/21 56.7% of postgraduate students come from overseas i.e. outside of the

UK/EU. The proportion of postgraduate students domiciled in the UK increased slightly to

39.1% and proportion of students from the EU decreased to 4.3% in 2020/21 (see Figure 11,

p.43).

Ethnicity: In 2020/21 26.3% of postgraduate taught students were BAME (see Figure 13, p.45)

compared with 15.1% for postgraduate research students only (see Figure 15, p.46). Asian is

the next largest ethnic group for postgraduate study - 7.1% of postgraduate research students

and 16.3% of postgraduate taught students are Asian.

https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/access-and-participation-data-dashboard/

35

Gender: The proportion of females within postgraduate population increased in 2020/21 to

63.8%. The proportion of females increased on both postgraduate taught and research

programmes (see Figure 16, p.47).

Methodology

Data of current students in this report relates to 2020/21 year and has come from the 1st of

December dataset produced by the Directorate of Planning. The data is current and up to date

as of 1st December 2020 and has been analysed by the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion team.

Age

2.8%

53.1%

28.9%

8.2%7.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Under 18 18 19 20 21 and over (Mature)

Figure 1: Undergraduate Students by Age 2020/21

The most common age to start an undergraduate course at the University is 18, with 53.1% of all

undergraduates starting in 2020/21 of that age (Figure 1).

Undergraduate students can be divided into two categories; young and mature. Young students are those

aged under 21 on the start date of the term in which their course commences. Mature students are 21 or over

by this date.

Over the past five years there has been a 1.6% decrease in mature students, with a 0.5% decrease in the past

year (Figure 2).

36

Disability

9.6% 9.1% 8.6% 8.1% Mature , 7.0%

90.4% 90.9% 91.4% 91.9% Young, 93.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Figure 2: Undergraduate Students by Mature and Young

8.3%

9.0%

9.3%

10.3%

9.5%

7.5%

8.0%

8.5%

9.0%

9.5%

10.0%

10.5%

11.0%

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/2021

Figure 3: Disabled Undergraduate Students


37

0.7%

1.0%

2.0%

4.8%

5.7%

7.1%

13.7%

28.5%

36.4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Blind/Partially Sighted

Deaf/Partial Hearing

Wheelchair/Mobility

Autistic/Asperger Syndrome

Multiple Disabilities

Unseen Disability

Other Disabilities

Mental Health

Learning Difficulty

Figure 4: Disabled Undegraduate Students, 2020/21

9.5% of all undergraduate students have a disability. This is an increase of 1.2% since 2016/17 (Figure 3).

Most disabled students report Learning Difficulties and Mental Health Conditions (see Figure 4.)

38

Ethnicity

0.1%

4.8%

7.9%

19.8%

67.4%

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

Unknown

Black

Other/Mixed

Asian

White

Figure 5: UK Domicile Undergraduate Students by Ethnicity 2020/21

27.9%

30.2%

30.9%

32.0%32.5%

24%

25%

26%

27%

28%

29%

30%

31%

32%

33%

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Figure 6: Percentage of UK Domicile BAME Students


32.5% of UK domicile undergraduate students at the University are Black, Asian and

Minority Ethnic (BAME) students. This is an increase of 4.6% in the last five years (Figure 6).

The largest represented BAME group is Asian representing 19.8% of the undergraduate

student population. Only 4.8% of UK domicile students are Black making it the least

represented ethnic group (Figure 5).

39

Domicile

6.7% 7.2% 7.7% 8.9% 8.1% EU, 7.6%

22.2% 22.4%24.7% 25.8%

28.2% Overseas, 29.9%

71.1% 70.4%67.6%

65.3% 63.7% UK, 62.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Figure 7: Undergraduate Students by Domicile

In 2020/21 the percentage of UK domicile students dropped by 1.2% to 62.5%, the lowest it has been

within the period considered. There has been a 1.7% rise in overseas students and a 0.5% decrease

in EU domicile students between 2019/20 and 2020/21 (Figure 7). This is a second consecutive

decrease in the proportion of EU students after year on year increases up to 2018/19.

40

Gender

52.6%

54.5%

53.4%

54.1%

54.7%

Females, 55.6%

47.4%

45.5%

46.6%

45.9%

45.3%

Males, 44.4%

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

2015/16

2016/17

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

2020/21

Figure 8: Undergraduate Student Gender

Females Males

The undergraduate student population consists 55.6% female and 44.4% male students. There has been

an increase in the proportion of females since 2017/18. In the last five years there have consistently been

more undergraduate female students than male students.

41

Religion

0.4%

0.7%

1.0%

1.0%

1.5%

1.6%

5.5%

15.2%

22.1%

51.0%

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

Buddhist

Jewish

Sikh

Any other religion or belief

Spiritual

Hindu

Information refused

Muslim

Christian

No religion

Figure 9: Religion of UK Full-Time Undergraduate Students 2020/21 (based on known data: 99.9%)

51.0% of UK domicile students on full-time courses have no religion or belief and 5.5% refused to

give any religious information. Christian and Muslim are the highest represented religions with

22.1% and 15.2% respectively (Figure 9).

42

Sexual Orientation

Table 1: Gender Identity of UK Full-time Undergraduate Students 2020/21

(based on known data: 99.9%)

Is your Gender the same as assigned at birth? %

Yes 96.7%

No 0.6%

Information refused 2.7%

1.1%

1.6%

2.2%

7.6%

8.6%

79.0%

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

Gay woman/lesbian

Other

Gay man

Bisexual

Information refused

Heterosexual

Figure 10: Sexual Orientation of UK Domicle Full-Time Undergraduate Students 2020/21

(based on known data: 99.8%)

79.0% of UK domicile students on full time courses are heterosexual. 8.6% of students refused to

disclose their sexual orientation (Figure 10).

43

Postgraduate

51.7% 52.0%54.6%

56.1% Overseas, 56.7%

6.2% 6.0% 5.4% 5.7%EU, 4.3%

42.1% 42.1%39.9%

38.2% UK, 39.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Figure 11: Postgraduate Students by Domicile

In 2020/21 56.7 % of postgraduate students come from overseas i.e. outside of the UK/EU. The proportion

of postgraduate students domiciled in the UK increased to 39.1% in 2020/21. There also have been a

decrease in proportion of postgraduate students from the EU to 4.3% - the lowest level in 5 years (Figure

11).

Students completing postgraduate study can be divided into those on postgraduate taught courses and

those on postgraduate research courses. Postgraduate research can be further broken down into doctoral

training and masters degrees.

Postgraduate research masters degrees include MSc by Research, Master of Enterprise (MEnt) and Master

of Philosophy.

Doctoral Training results in different degree types. These can include Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Doctor

of Medicine (MD), Clinical Psychology (ClinPsyD), Education (EdD), Educational Psychology (DEdPsy),

Educational and Child Psychology (DEdChPsychol), Engineering (EngD), Enterprise (EntD), Counselling

Psychology (DCounsPsych), Doctor of Business Administration (DBA), Doctor of Professional Studies

(DProf) and Doctor of Clinical Science (DClinSci).

In 2020/21 94.1% of postgraduate research students started doctoral training and 5.9% are completing

research masters.

44

15.0% 14.6%

16.6%15.5% POSTGRADUATE

RESEARCH, 15.1%

21.7%22.8%

25.5%26.7%

POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT, 26.3%

20.7% 21.2%

23.9%25.0% All POSTGRADUATE ,

24.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Figure 12: UK Domicile Postgraduate BAME Students

In 2020/21 the proportion of UK BAME students on postgraduate taught courses decreased slightly to 26.3%.

The percentage of UK BAME students on postgraduate research courses decreased year on year between

has been decreasing year on year since 2018/19 to 15.1% in 2020/21 (see Figure 12).

45

0.4%

4.3%

5.5%

15.1%

74.7%

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

Unknown

Black

Mixed/Other

Asian

White

Figure 13: Postgraduate Students by Ethnicity 2020/21

In 2020/21 74.7% of postgraduate taught students were White (Figure 13) compared with 84.1%

for postgraduate research students only (Figure 15). Asian is the next largest ethnic group for

postgraduate study - 7.1% of postgraduate research students and 15.2% of postgraduate taught

students are Asian.

46

0.3%

4.5%

5.5%

16.3%

73.4%

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

Unknown

Black

Mixed/Other

Asian

White

Figure 14: Postgraduate Taught by Ethnicity 2020/21

0.8%

2.9%

5.2%

7.1%

84.1%

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

Unknown

Black

Mixed/Other

Asian

White

Figure 15: Postgraduate Research by Ethnicity 2020/21

47

Gender

44.5%

46.7%46.0%

44.4%

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH, 48.4%

60.2%61.1%

62.2%63.5%

POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT, 65.5%

58.1%58.8%

59.9%61.1%

All POSTGRADUATE , 63.8%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21

Figure 16: Female Postgraduate Students


The proportion of females within postgraduate population increased in 2020/21 to 63.8%. The

proportion of female students increased for both postgraduate taught as well as research programs

(see Figure 16).

48

37.5%

60.7%

59.2%

64.6%

60.5%

60.1%

62.5%

39.3%

40.8%

35.4%

39.5%

39.9%

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

Unknown

Mixed/Other

Asian

Black

Overall BAME

White

Figure 17: Postgraduate Student Gender by Ethnicity 2020/21

Females Males

In 2020/21 60.5% of BAME postgraduate students were female. 64.6% of Black postgraduate

students are female (Figure 17).

equality information report 2021

Documents