university of kent institution application bronze award · 2019-06-14 · 1 name of institution...
TRANSCRIPT
University of Kent Institution Application Bronze Award Public version
1
Name of institution University of Kent
Date of application 30 November
Award Level Bronze
Date joined Athena SWAN 1 July 2010
Current award Date: April 2014 Level: Bronze
Contact for application Professor Sarah Vickerstaff
Email [email protected]
Telephone 01227-827730
Erratum
p.47 The original wording relating to the University’s family friendly policy states “Our
family friendly policy recommends that staff should have a reduced teaching load on
return to work (equivalent to that of someone on probation) though implementation varies
between Schools.“
This is the policy in Maths for their teaching colleagues. This is not the University policy
for all colleagues. The University Family Friendly policy requests colleagues to discuss
and agree their post-leave working pattern with their manager and to complete a Flexible
Working Request Form as required
Changes to the data presented in this public version of the submission have been made
in order to protect confidentiality. Where numbers are less than 5, they have been
suppressed, the totals they effect have been rounded to the nearest 5 and the
percentages that relate to that line of data have been hidden. Some grand totals will
appear different from expected as they are rounded from the raw data as opposed to a
sum of their rounded totals.
2
1. LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FROM THE HEAD OF INSTITUTION
Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Actual: 510 words
3
4
DATA CONVENTIONS AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS (261 words)
1. Both absolute numbers and percentages are included in all tables.
2. Headcount data is used throughout. Full-person equivalent (FPE) data is not currently available from
Kent’s legacy HR system (used for this application since the new Staff Connect HR system launched
in 2015 cannot provide historical data from 2013). However, we will investigate future options for FPE
reporting on Staff Connect to facilitate benchmarking with ECU data.
3. Data is presented by calendar year as per the 1 October census, unless otherwise specified.
4. Data relates to staff on substantive contracts only, unless otherwise specified.
5. Staff with multiple roles are assigned to a primary role determined by (i) highest grade and (ii) FTE.
6. Graduate Teaching Assistants are treated as students (and thus included in our student number data)
since their employment at Kent is dependent on their primary role as students.
7. Staff are designated Professor on the basis of their Managerial & Professorial pay scale rather than
title and thus all Heads of School and Deans are included.
AHSSBL Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Business and Law
ASWG Athena SWAN Working Group
ECR(N) Early Career Researcher (Network)
ECU Equality Challenge Unit
EDI Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity
EG Executive Group
FPC Faculty Promotions Committee
FPE Full Person Equivalent
FTE Full Time Equivalent
HPL Hourly Paid Lecturer
SAT Self-Assessment Team
SPC Staff Policy Committee
SPP School Promotions Panel
STEMM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine
RDWG Researcher Development Working Group
REEP Recognising Excellence in Education Project
UPC University Promotions Committee
WAM Work Allocation Model
5
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION
Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Actual: 512 words
“We are firmly committed to equality, diversity and inclusivity in all our
activities.” University Plan (2015-2020)
Equality, diversity and inclusivity (EDI) are at the core of the University of Kent’s institutional culture and
ethos, championed by the Vice-Chancellor and Executive Group colleagues, reflected in our strategies
and policies and promoted via a range of staff development and awareness-raising activities.
Wishing to improve the career progression opportunities of our female staff and students, Kent joined the
Athena SWAN (AS) charter in 2010 and committed to the post-May 2015 principles last year. The
University achieved an institutional bronze award in November 2013 and since then six STEMM Schools
plus Psychology have gained departmental bronze awards.
The strategic importance we attach to AS is evidenced in our University Plan which sets the aspirational
target for all STEMM Schools to have achieved silver, and all other Schools a bronze, by 2020. Five
Schools are applying for awards in November 2017: two STEMM Schools seeking bronze reaccreditation
and two aiming for silver, plus a new bronze application by the School of History. If successful, at least
one School in each faculty will then hold an award.
Established in 1965, Kent is a research-intensive institution which has been consistently within the top 20
universities in the UK for the quality of our research and student experience. The 2014 Research
Excellence Framework determined 97% or our research to be of international quality and we were
awarded Gold in the recent Teaching Excellence Framework. We are proud to have been shortlisted for
University of the Year by Times Higher Education in 2015 and The Times and Sunday Times in 2016.
University Staff Celebrate Kent’s 50th Anniversary in 2015
We have two UK campuses: our original – and main – site in Canterbury and a newer campus in
Medway linked by a regular shuttle bus. In addition, we have a part-time study centre at Tonbridge and
6
four small postgraduate centres in Athens, Brussels, Paris and Rome (Figure 2.1). Staff and students in
these Centres are included in the data presented in this application.
Figure 2.1: Location of Kent’s UK Campuses, Tonbridge and European Centres
The University comprises 21 Schools (academic departments) organised into three faculties: Sciences
(STEMM), Humanities and Social Sciences (collectively AHSSBL) as shown in Figure 2.2. This Figure
provides an overview of the subject areas in which we conduct our teaching and research.
7
Figure 2.2: Kent’s Academic Structure
8
The University has 3,124 academic, research, and professional and support staff on substantive
contracts of whom 55.2% are women (Table 2.1).
2016 2014/15
Contract Type Kent ECU (FPE)1
F M Total % F % F
Academic 331 539 870 38.0
%
44.4
% Research 105 85 190 55.3
%
46.7
% Professional and Support 1,289 775 2,064 62.5
%
62.7
% TOTAL 1,725 1,399 3,124 55.2
%
54.0
% Table 2.1: Gender Profile of Academic and Research Staff by Type (Headcount)
The proportion of women is higher for our professional and support staff at 62.5%, although there are
significant variations by functional area (Table 2.2).
2016
Department or Functional Area Staff
F M Total % F
Pro
fes
sio
nal
an
d S
up
po
rt
Academic Division 186 65 251 74.1
% Commercial Services 190 121 311 61.1
%
Corporate Communications & Development Office 26 9 35 74.3
% Estates 88 177 265 33.2
%
Finance 49 28 77 63.6
% Human Resources 44 9 53 83.0
%
Information Services 96 116 212 45.3
% Kent Innovation and Enterprise 20 5 25 80.0
%
Research Services 14 9 23 60.9
% Student Services 98 23 121 81.0
%
Faculty and School Support Staff 341 138 479 71.2
% Other 137 75 212 64.6
%
Total 1,289 775 2,064 62.5
% Table 2.2: Gender Profile of Professional and Support Staff (Headcount)
1 “Equality in higher education: statistical report 2016” Table 4.11 for Academic and Research contracts and Table 3.2
for Professional and Support Staff. Weighted Total based on the rounded ECU data.
9
2016 2014/15
Academic School Academic and Research ECU (FPE)2
F M Total % F % F
ST
EM
M
Biosciences 34 47 81 42.0
%
48.3
% Computing 6 51 57 10.5
%
22.2
% Engineering and Digital Arts <5 36 40 ..
%
14.4
% Maths, Statistics and Actuarial Science 17 39 56 30.4
%
23.0
% Pharmacy 17 18 35 48.6
%
48.8
% Physical Sciences 18 34 52 34.6
%
22.6
% Sport and Exercise Science 6 13 19 31.6
%
37.4
% STEMM Total 100 240 340 30.0
%
33.2
%
AH
SS
BL
Architecture <5 15 20 .. 32.7
% Arts 23 18 41 56.1
%
49.4
% English 22 24 46 47.8
%
55.5
% European Culture and Languages 32 41 73 43.8
%
55.6
% History 19 24 43 44.2
%
39.6
% Music and Fine Art <5 13 15 .. 42.5
%
Humanities Total 103 135 238 43.3
%
47.5
% Anthropology and Conservation 15 27 42 35.7
%
49.7
% Economics 9 26 35 25.7
%
28.8
% Journalism <5 7 5 .. N/A
Kent Business School 32 56 88 36.4
%
42.4
% Kent Law School 42 32 74 56.8
%
50.2
% Politics and International Relations 15 24 39 38.5
%
35.5
% Psychology 27 26 53 50.9
%
60.3
% Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research 91 53 144 63.2
%
59.0
% Social Sciences Total 231 251 482 47.9
%
47.5
% AHSSBL Total 334 386 720 46.4
%
47.5
% GRAND TOTAL 436 624 1,060 41.1
%
42.0
% Table 2.3: Gender Profile of Academic and Research Staff by School (Headcount)
Table 2.3 gives academic and research staff numbers per School by gender.
As of 2016 we had 23,211 students, the vast majority on the Canterbury (78.0%) and Medway (13.7%)
campuses. This is a headcount figure for our entire student community including 1,197 students on short
and non-degree courses who are not assigned to a specific School and hence excluded from the student
numbers in Table 2.4. At 53.5%, the proportion of female students is lower than that for all staff (55.2%)
but significantly higher than that for academic and research staff (41.1%).
2 “Equality in higher education: statistical report 2016” Table 4.11a.
10
2016
Academic School Students
F M Total % F S
TE
MM
Biosciences 550 378 928 59.3
% Computing 176 1,028 1,204 14.6
%
Engineering and Digital Arts 172 565 737 23.3
% Maths, Statistics and Actuarial Science 335 603 938 35.7
%
Pharmacy3 1,002 518 1,520 65.9
% Physical Sciences 392 709 1,101 35.6
%
Sport and Exercise Science 158 388 546 28.9
% STEMM Total 2,785 4,189 6,974 39.9
%
AH
SS
BL
Architecture 279 251 530 52.6
% Arts 599 319 918 65.3
%
English 671 250 921 72.9
% European Culture and Languages 1,096 560 1,656 66.2
%
History 393 487 880 44.7
% Music and Fine Art 218 215 433 50.3
%
Humanities Total 3,256 2,082 5,338 61.0
% Anthropology and Conservation 401 175 576 69.6
%
Economics 202 551 753 26.8
% Journalism 61 60 121 50.4
%
Kent Business School 1,247 1,502 2,749 45.4
% Kent Law School 1,052 543 1,595 66.0
%
Politics and International Relations 573 577 1,150 49.8
% Psychology 830 184 1,014 81.9
%
Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research
1,366 378 1,744 78.3
% Social Sciences Total 5,732 3,970 9,702 59.1
% AHSSBL Total 8,988 6,052 15,040 59.8
%
GRAND TOTAL 11,773 10,241 22,014 53.5
Table 2.4: Gender Profile of Students by School (Headcount)
3 The Medway School of Pharmacy is a partnership with the University of Greenwich and students are randomly allocated 50:50 to each institution. Headcount figures for all Pharmacy students are used here to show the overall gender balance. 280 Graduate Teaching Assistants are included in these figures.
11
3. THE SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Recommended word count: Bronze: 1000 words | Actual: 966 words
(i) A description of the self-assessment team
The Athena SWAN Working Group (ASWG), which has met termly since autumn 2010, is at the heart of
Kent’s gender equality activities (Figure 3.1). ASWG members act as an interface between Schools,
professional and support departments, staff equalities networks and the AS team, and as ambassadors
for gender equality.
As the scope of AS has expanded, so has ASWG membership. In addition to two representatives
nominated by each School, we have invited new members from all major professional and support
departments. The Vice Chancellor, President of the Students Union and President of the Universities and
College Union (UCU) Kent branch also joined the group in 2017.
There are now 49 members: 35 academics and 14 professional and support staff. Female members
predominate (69%) and as we refresh the membership each year we will seek to increase male
participation so that ASWG reflects the institution’s overall gender profile (Action 3.1). The role of ASWG
Chair is rotated by faculty. The current Chair, Professor Sarah Vickerstaff from Social Sciences will be
replaced after three years by the Deputy Chair, the Dean of Humanities. The Chair will keep the ASWG’s
name and Terms of Reference under regular review (Action 3.2).
A sub-group of ASWG was created in July 2017 to act as the institutional self-assessment team (SAT)
for this application. The SAT has met monthly in the approach to submission, with regular email
communication between meetings. In putting this team together, great care was taken to include
representatives from all staff groups (academic, research and professional and support) and levels of
seniority (from postdoctoral researcher to the Vice Chancellor). Members are drawn from central
services, all three faculties and both Canterbury and Medway campuses. Ten of the sixteen members
are women and we will seek to improve the team’s gender balance in future (Action 3.1).
Collectively, SAT members offer a broad range of AS-related expertise, for example in EDI, promotions
and organisational development. The inclusion of experienced senior staff who are members of
influential University committees has ensured that our action plan is well-informed, well-integrated and
implementable. Profiles of SAT members are given in Table 3.1.
(ii) An account of the self-assessment process
Following Kent’s unsuccessful bronze renewal application in 2016, we realised that we would be unable
to achieve our ambitions for advancing the AS agenda unless it was prioritised and adequately
resourced. As a result, in spring 2017 Executive Group approved a major investment which has been
used to buy out 0.2FTE of the ASWG Chair’s time as strategic lead for AS and to fund the following new
full-time posts:
A Grade 9 Project Manager to manage AS activity.
A Grade 7 AS Postdoctoral Research Associate to undertake qualitative research that informs the
gender equality agenda at Kent and beyond.
A Grade 6 Data Analyst to support the planning and analysis of AS work.
These posts supplement that of the existing AS Adviser, whose primary remit is to support School
activities.
12
Table 3.1: Institutional Self-Assessment Team
Sarah Vickerstaff
Professor of Work and Employment
Chair of ASWG and SAT. Member UPC, SPC, REF Steering Group, Honorary Degrees Committee, Women's Network
Researches older workers with a special interest in intersectionality of age and gender
Adoptive parent
Simon Kirchin
Dean, Faculty of Humanities
Deputy Chair of ASWG and SAT. Member of UPC, JSNCC; REF Steering Group; Mentor for UK Society for Women in Philosophy
Parent of two school-age children
Karen Cox
Vice Chancellor and President
Institutional Gender and LGBT+ Champion
Member of Executive Group, Senate and Council
Parent of two children, one of school age
Donna Arnold
Senior Lecturer in Chemistry and Forensic Science
School SAT lead Chair, External Facilities Access Committee
Peter Clarkson
Professor of Mathematics
School SAT lead. Member of UPC, SPP, SPC, Staff Disability Network; Member ECU's ASWG,
AS Panelist and Chair
Member of staff with a disability
Farzin Deravi
Head of School, Engineering and Digital Arts
Member of SPP; Co-Chair, School EDI Committee and SAT
Carer to elderly parents
Tina Edwards
Assistant HR Director, Learning and Organisational Development
Member EDI Governance Group and REEP; Leadership development lead
Laura Garcia
Lecturer in Television and Multimedia Journalism
School SAT lead
Part-time member of staff
13
Toni Haastrup
Lecturer in International Security
School SAT lead
Minna Janhonen
AS Adviser and Secretary to Institutional SAT
Trained ECU Panelist
Louise Naylor
Director of Unit for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching
Member of REEP, Student EDI Operations/Student Success Project; Chair, Women's Network; Aurora Role Model; Unconscious Bias Trainer
Two daughters
Daniel Rautio
Interim HR/EDI Manager Co-Chair EDI Network; member of all staff network groups
LGBT+ employee
Sue Shepherd
AS Interim Project Manager
Member EDI Governance Group and Women's Network
Researches gender and organisations
Edmond Smith
Research Fellow and Associate Lecturer, History
Tutor for The Access Project
Researches institutional cultures and networks
Denise Twomey
Head of Administration, Faculty of Humanities
Paul Verrion
School Business and Administration Manager, Kent Business School
Manager, KBS School Student Success Team
New parent
Key ECRN Early Career Researcher Network SPC Staff Policy Committee JSNCC Joint Staff Negotiating Consultative Committee SPP School Promotions Panel REEP Recognising Excellence in Education Project UPC University Promotions Committee
14
These new arrangements will permit a step change in our ability to undertake the planning, analysis and
delivery of AS activity at institutional level and to provide proactive and bespoke support for School
SATs, including data provision and the sharing of good practice (see Section 5 xii).
The new AS team has worked under the guidance of the institutional SAT to prepare this application.
Specifically, we have:
Commissioned the ECU to deliver bespoke consultancy for us on using data for AS submissions.
Collated and analysed quantitative data, primarily from our HR systems.
Analysed qualitative data from the first two phases of the new University-wide staff survey (all staff
will be surveyed annually in a rolling programme from 2017/18), School and researcher surveys,
and promotions focus groups.
Conducted a survey on Keeping in Touch (KIT) days.
Organised four half-day consultative workshops/focus groups run by external facilitators on themes
including promotion, appraisal and flexible working. These were attended by SAT members and
around 70 staff from across the institution.
Invited feedback from ASWG, Women’s and LGBT+ Network members.
Consulted with Executive Group members regarding issues in their respective portfolios.
Utilised all these data sources to inform our analysis and identify our objectives.
Worked with senior HR colleagues on developing the action plan.
Consulted AS staff at UCL and QMUL as external critical friends.
Submitted a near-final draft to a mock panel of ECU-trained assessors.
ASWG Meeting October 2017
15
Figure 3.1: Kent’s Athena SWAN Organisational and Reporting Structure
16
Figure 3.1 presents the organisational structure and reporting lines for AS at Kent. This shows how the
ASWG forms the hub of a University-wide virtual EDI network encompassing the AS team, Executive
Group Equality Champions, staff and student EDI teams and networks. Oversight of EDI, including AS,
falls within the remit of the Staff Policy Committee, which is a management committee of Executive
Group. ASWG formally reports to Senate and Council (the governing body) which receives an annual
EDI report and action plan.
(iii) Future plans for the SAT
Following submission of this application, the institutional SAT will meet termly to review progress against
the action plan and approve its future development (Action 3.3). The SAT will provide an annual
progress report to Council (Action 3.4) and members will continue to sit on ASWG, which will be kept
updated on AS developments by the Chair.
We recognise the importance of raising awareness of AS activities and engaging with staff and students
beyond the existing EDI network via a programme of events, an improved website, articles in Kent’s e-
newsletter and social media activity (Action 3.5).
There will be annual progress reviews of the investment in the AS team and its integration with other EDI
activities (Action 3.6). The team will continue to work closely with HR colleagues to ensure that the new
HR and e-recruitment systems facilitate AS reporting requirements, with the aim of making the AS team
largely self-sufficient in servicing EDI data needs at institutional and School level (Action 3.7).
Actions
3.1 Refresh membership of the ASWG annually and encourage more male participation to
improve the gender balance of both AWSG and its sub-group: the institutional SAT.
3.2 Keep ASWG’s name and Terms of Reference under regular review to ensure they remain
fit for purpose.
3.3 SAT team to meet termly for the life of the action plan to receive progress reports and
amend the plan as required.
3.4 SAT Chair to give a formal progress report to Council on an annual basis and keep ASWG
updated on developments.
3.5 Raise awareness of AS activities across the University via AS events and a range of
communications channels.
3.6 Review the success of the investment in the AS team and its integration into wider EDI
activities.
3.7 Continue to work with HR colleagues to ensure systems are developed with AS reporting
requirements in mind and build capacity within the AS team to service institutional and
School data needs.
3.5 Annual EDI report to Council
17
4. A PICTURE OF THE INSTITUTION
Recommended word count: Bronze: 2000 words | Actual: 2,393 words
The analysis presented in this section identifies some areas for improvement in relation to the
gender profile and career pipeline of our academic workforce. These have shaped the development
of our objectives which, in turn, form the thematic priorities for the action plan. Actions on contractual
and pay issues are included here and the remainder are under the relevant heading (recruitment,
promotion etc.) in Section 5.
4.1 Academic and research staff data
(i) Academic and research staff by grade and gender
The proportion of female academic and research staff on substantive contracts at Kent has
increased by 0.9% since 2013 (Table 4.1) and currently stands at 41.1% - a few percentage points
below the most recent ECU benchmark of 45.3% (Table 4.2).
2013 2016 Change Over Time4 Role F M Total % F F M Total % F F M Total % F
ST
EM
M
Researcher 35 33 68 51.5
%
39 56 95 41.1
%
4 23 27 (10.4)
% Lecturer 31 66 97 32.0
%
32 61 93 34.4
%
1 (5) (4) 2.4
% Senior Lecturer 20 49 69 29.0
%
23 60 83 27.7
%
3 11 14 (1.3)
% Reader
<5 17 20 ..
%
<5 17 20 ..
%
1 0 1 4.5
% Professor <5 45 50 ..
%
5 44 49 10.2
%
1 (1) 0 2.0
%
STEMM Total 90 210 300 30.5
%
100 240 340 30.0
%
10 28 38 (0.5)
%
AH
SS
BL
Researcher 57 37 94 60.6
%
66 29 95 69.5
%
9 (8) 1 8.8
% Lecturer 121 124 245 49.4
%
113 125 238 47.5
%
(8) 1 (7) (1.9)
% Senior Lecturer 60 83 143 42.0
%
79 93 172 45.9
%
19 10 29 4.0
% Reader
33 33 66 50.0
%
29 40 69 42.0
%
(4) 7 3 (8.0)
% Professor 38 109 147 25.9
%
47 99 146 32.2
%
9 (10) (1) 6.3
%
AHSSBL Total 309 386 695 44.5
%
334 386 720 46.4
%
25 0 25 1.9
% GRAND TOTAL 401 596 997 40.2
%
436 624 1,060 41.1
%
35 28 63 0.9
% Table 4.1: Gender Profile of Academic and Research Staff by STEMM and AHSSBL: 2013 and 2016 with Change over Time
The limited change within our overall gender profile reflects the static employment landscape at
Kent, with relatively little expansion (63, or 5.9%) in the overall number of academic and research
posts since 2013. Low staff turnover rates (Table 4.11) and an ageing senior workforce (40% of
senior staff on the Managerial and Professorial pay scale are over 55, including 11% aged 65 and
over) somewhat constrains our potential to change our staff profile.
Figures 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate this point using models of employee flow-through for female and male
academics. They present an at-a-glance comparison of current numbers of staff (central box), new
recruits (left-hand arrow), leavers (right-hand arrow) and promotions (up arrow) in 2016. These
figures show how small the overall change in the academic population is, with very few leavers,
promotions or new recruits above lecturer level.
4 Brackets indicate a negative number
18
Whilst we are realistic about the scale of the challenge (we estimate that to reach the ECU
benchmark of 45.3% we would need to recruit approximately 80 more women than men, assuming
an equal proportion of male and female leavers), we nevertheless aim to increase the proportion of
female academics and have set ourselves specific objectives and targets (see Action Plan p.63).
Figure 4.1: Illustrative Employee Flow Graph Based on 2016 Data: Female Academic Staff
Figure 4.2: Illustrative Employee Flow Graph Based on 2016 Data: Male Academic Staff
0
0
5
33
52
32
102
145
1
0
1
10
8
5
13
0 50 100 150 200
Professor
Reader
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer
Recruited Current Left Promoted
6
1
5
35
143
57
153
186
6
2
6
12
5
14
22
0 50 100 150 200 250
Professor
Reader
Senior Lecturer
Lecturer
Recruited Current Left Promoted
19
The problem is not just the number of female academics, but where they are located within the
academic hierarchy. Currently, women are disproportionately represented at more junior grades.
This reflects a national trend (Table 4.2). Figures 4.3 and 4.4, which contrast the academic career
trajectories of men and women in STEMM and AHSSBL, illustrate the decline in the proportion of
women at higher grades at Kent. Whilst the overall pattern above lecturer level is the same for both,
the differential is much more pronounced in STEMM Schools.
2016 2014/15
2014/15
Kent Grade Xpert HR Code Kent (Headcount)
ECU (FPE) ECU (FPE)5
F M Total % F % F
6 Level L 17 10 27 63.0
%
51.3
% 7 Level K 110 106 216 50.9
%
50.2
% 8 Level J 120 155 275 43.6
%
48.1
% 9/10 Level I 137 210 347 39.5
%
38.9
% M&P6 5A 52 143 195 26.7
%
23.1
% Total 436 624 1,060 41.1
%
45.3
% Table 4.2: Gender Profile of Academic and Research Staff by Grade in 2016 against ECU
Benchmark
The issues for female academics begin at career entry level. Despite an increase in the number of
researcher posts in STEMM, the additional post holders are mainly men (Table 4.1). Accordingly, the
proportion of women at this level has declined by over 10% since 2013. AHSSBL Schools, on the
other hand, are attracting an increasing proportion of women to researcher posts (with the increasing
under-representation of men a source of concern).
At lecturer level, the number of jobs has decreased slightly in both STEMM and AHSSBL, limiting
the opportunities for researchers to make the transition onto an open-ended contract at Kent. This is
a key pipeline problem for women. The proportion of women drops off significantly between
researcher and lecturer level particularly in AHSBBL – from 69.5% to 47.5% (Table 4.1). Our first
objective is thus to improve career development support for researchers and increase the proportion
of female lecturers.
Although the proportion of female lecturers and senior lecturers is broadly in line with that of the
overall female population in both STEMM and AHSSBL (as illustrated by the weighted total line in
Figures 4.3 and 4.4), it starts to fall at senior lecturer level in STEMM and drops off dramatically for
readers in STEMM and to a lesser extent in AHSSBL.
Improvements to promotions procedures (Section 5.1) have led to considerable progress since 2013
in increasing the number and proportion of female professors in AHSSBL – from 38 to 47, or 25.9%
to 32.2%. The number of female professors in STEMM, on the other hand, has only increased by
one during that period. Nevertheless, with an overall figure of 26.7% Kent is well above the ECU
benchmark of 23.1%. According to the Times Higher Education (25 May 2017), we have shown the
second largest improvement in the proportion of female professors between 2012/13 and 2015/16
amongst all UK universities with 150+ professors. Figure 4.1 shows that this has been achieved by
promotion rather than recruitment as there were no women appointed at this level in 2016.
5 “Equality in higher education: statistical report 2016” Table 4.8. This mapping of Xpert HR code is as per Kent’s Higher Education Statistics Agency returns. 6 Managerial and Professorial.
20
Figure 4.3: The Career Progression Pipeline of Female and Male Staff in STEMM Schools in 2016
with Weighted Totals
Figure 4.4: The Career Progression Pipeline of Female and Male Staff in AHSBBL Schools in 2016
with Weighted Totals
From an intersectionality perspective, we have five female BME professors: one in STEMM and four
in AHSSBL. This represents 11.1% of all female professors for whom ethnicity is known (5 of 45),
slightly above the figure of 10.9% for male professors (13 of 119). This compares to 6.3% for the
county of Kent (2011 Census).
41.1%
34.4%
27.7%
15.0%10.2%
58.9%
65.6%
72.3%
85.0%89.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Researcher Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor
Female Female Total Male Male Total
69.5%
47.5%45.9%
42.0%
32.2%
30.5%
52.5%54.1%
58.0%
67.8%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Researcher Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor
Female Female Total Male Male Total
21
Whilst the increase in the number of female professors is welcome, further progress is unlikely
unless we increase the size of the female pool at reader level across the University and particularly
in STEMM Schools. This is the second major point at which the proportion of women decreases in
the pipeline and where the differential experience of men and women is most stark (Figures 4.3 and
4.4). Improving the promotion prospects of women from senior lecturer to reader is thus the second
objective of our action plan.
However, even with robust promotion processes, there are currently insufficient numbers of women
to move up the pipeline from lecturer, senior lecturer to reader in STEMM. This reflects the fact that,
unlike AHSSBL, STEMM Schools have on balance increased the number of men in post since 2013
(Table 4.1) and appear to be moving in the wrong direction overall with regard to female
representation. Whilst we acknowledge that recruiting senior women is problematic in STEMM given
the limited pool of candidates in the sector, we nevertheless wish to increase the proportion of
qualified female applicants across the University and especially in STEMM Schools. This is our third
objective.
(ii) Academic and research staff on fixed-term, open-ended and zero-hour contracts by gender
There has been virtually no change since 2013 in the proportion of substantive academic and
research staff on fixed-term contracts. At 22.2% (Table 4.3) we are significantly below the sector
benchmark of 37.8%. This reflects the University’s policy of using fixed-term contracts only where
there is an objective and justifiable reason, such as maternity cover.
Furthermore, whenever a fixed-term contract of more than two years’ duration is not renewed, the
School is required to identify any suitable alternative employment opportunities and the member of
staff is placed on a Redeployment Register and given preferential consideration if they apply for
another post at Kent.
2016 2014/15
Contract Type Kent (Headcount) ECU (FPE)7
% All Staff % F % All Staff % F
Fixed-Term 22.2
%
45.5
%
37.8
%
48.1
% Open-Ended 77.8
%
39.9
%
62.2
%
43.3
% Table 4.3: Kent Academic and Research Staff by Contract Type in 2016 against ECU Benchmark
There was very little difference between STEMM and AHSSBL in the overall proportion of staff on
fixed-term contracts in 2013, though their use had increased from 21.9% to 28.5% in STEMM and
reduced slightly in AHSSBL from 22.2% to 19.2%. As expected, most fixed-term contracts are at
early career level, i.e. researchers and - to a lesser extent – lecturers (Table 4.4). However, there
are also a small number of professorial fixed-term posts providing a form of employment flexibility for
the most senior staff.
There has been little change in the gender balance of those staff on fixed-term contracts. At 45.5%
the proportion of women is close to the sector benchmark of 48.1% (Table 4.3). Nevertheless,
women are slightly more likely than men to be on fixed-term, rather than open-ended, contracts:
24.5% (107 of 436) versus 20.5% (128 of 624). We will continue to monitor the gender profile of our
fixed-term staff and act on any gender inequalities that arise (Action 4.1).
7 “Equality in higher education: statistical report 2016” Table 4.4.
22
2013 2016
Role Fixed-Term Open-Ended Fixed-Term Open-Ended
F M Total % F F M Total % F F M Total % F F M Total % F
ST
EM
M
Researcher 23 29 52 44.2 12 <5 15 .. 33 52 85 38.8 6 <5 10 .. Lecturer <5 5 10 .. 28 61 89 31.5 <5 8 10 .. 29 53 82 35.4 Senior Lecturer
<5 <5 0 .. 20 48 68 29.4 <5 <5 0 .. 23 60 83 27.7 Reader
<5 <5 0 .. <5 17 20 .. <5 <5 0 .. <5 17 20 .. Professor <5 5 5 .. <5 40 45 .. <5 <5 0 .. 5 43 48 10.4 STEMM Total
25 40 65 39.4 65 170 235 28.0 35 60 95 37.1 65 175 245 27.2
AH
SS
BL
Researcher 40 33 73 54.8 17 <5 20 .. 48 24 72 66.7 18 5 23 78.3 Lecturer 28 17 45 62.2 93 107 200 46.5 20 27 47 42.6 93 98 191 48.7 Senior Lecturer
<5 <5 5 .. 57 79 136 41.9 <5 <5 0 .. 78 92 170 45.9 Reader
<5 <5 0 .. 33 32 65 50.8 <5 <5 0 .. 29 39 68 42.6 Professor <5 24 30 .. 34 85 119 28.6 <5 14 15 .. 45 85 130 34.6 AHSSBL
Total 75 80 155 48.7 234 305 540 43.3 70 65 140 51.4 263 319 582 45.2
GRAND TOTAL
100 120 220 45.9 300 475 775 38.6 105 130 235 45.5 330 495 825 39.9
Table 4.4: Academic and Research Staff by Contract Type and Gender: 2013 and 2016
The number of staff on zero hours contracts has nearly halved since 2015 from 582 to 296 (Table
4.5). The University has been working closely with the trade unions to transfer Hourly Paid Lecturers
(HPLs) and some Sessional Demonstrators onto Guaranteed Minimum Hours (GMH) contracts to
afford them more security of employment. This process is ongoing and all HPLs will be moved onto
GMH contracts by 2018 where this is an appropriate contact basis for the work they are doing. In
addition, a pilot project will be started in 2018 to consult with staff on the offer of full academic
contracts.
The profile of HPLs does not suggest any current gender inequalities (Table 4.5). Nevertheless, we
will remain vigilant and evaluate the impact of the pilot project from a gender perspective (Action
4.2).
20158 2016 2017
F M Total % F F M Total % F F M Total % F
Zero hours
HPL 228 216 444 51.4 201 194 395 50.9 108 111 219 49.3
Sessional Demonstrator
49 89 138 35.5 44 73 117 37.6 37 40 77 48.1
Total 277 305 582 47.6 245 267 512 47.9 145 151 296 49.0
Guaranteed Minimum
Hours
HPL <5 <5 0 .. 45 39 84 53.6 110 100 210 52.4
Sessional Demonstrator
<5 <5 0 .. <5 <5 0 .. 10 33 43 23.3
GMH Total <5 <5 0 .. 45 40 85 53.5 120 133 253 47.4
GRAND TOTAL 275 305 585 47.5 290 305 600 48.7 265 284 549 48.3
Table 4.5: Transfer of Zero Hours HPL and Sessional Staff to Guaranteed Minimum Hours Contracts (2015 to 2017)
We have also analysed the gender profile of our part-time staff. Although there has been relatively
little change in the number of academic and research staff working part time since 2013 (141 to
144), the proportion of part-time staff who are women has increased from 53.2% to 56.3% over the
same period (Table 4.6).
Women predominate in part-time posts across all staff groups, accounting for 77.4% of professional
and support staff and 56.3% of academic and research staff – broadly in line with the ECU
8 Data in this table is taken from the new Staff Connect HR system as legacy system data used elsewhere in the application was found to be unreliable in reporting HPL numbers as not all expired contracts have been closed.
23
benchmarks of 79.7% and 55.1% respectively (Table 4.7). However, a far smaller proportion of
female academic and research staff than professional and support staff work part time: 18.6% (81 of
436) versus 40.8% (526 of 1289). One interpretation is that academic posts are typically conceived
as full-time jobs. This may be problematic for those staff who, for whatever reason, would prefer to
work part time.
2013 2016
Full Time Part Time Full Time Part Time
Part Time
F M Total % F F M Total % F F M Total % F F M Total % F
ST
EM
M
Researcher 29 31 60 48.3 6 <5 10 .. 33 51 84 39.3 6 5 11 54.5
Lecturer 25 61 86 29.1 6 5 11 54.5 25 58 83 30.1 7 <5 10 ..
Senior Lecturer 17 47 64 26.6 <5 <5 5 .. 16 55 71 22.5 7 5 12 58.3
Reader <5 17 20 .. <5 <5 0 .. <5 16 20 .. <5 <5 0 ..
Professor <5 38 40 .. <5 7 5 .. <5 40 45 .. <5 <5 5 ..
STEMM Total 75 194 270 28.4 15 15 30 48.4 80 220 300 26.9 20 20 40 53.8
AH
SS
BL
Researcher 27 28 55 49.1 30 9 39 76.9 39 24 63 61.9 27 5 32 84.4
Lecturer 104 118 222 46.8 17 6 23 73.9 93 118 211 44.1 20 7 27 74.1
Senior Lecturer 55 77 132 41.7 5 6 11 45.5 75 84 159 47.2 <5 9 15 ..
Reader 31 31 62 50.0 <5 <5 5 .. 25 38 63 39.7 <5 <5 5 ..
Professor 32 82 114 28.1 6 27 33 18.2 42 77 119 35.3 5 22 27 18.5
AHSSBL Total 249 336 585 42.6 60 50 110 54.5 274 341 615 44.6 60 45 105 57.1
GRAND Total 325 530 855 38.1 75 65 140 53.2 355 561 915 38.8 80 65 145 56.3
Table 4.6: Academic and Research Staff on Full- and Part-Time Contracts in STEMM and AHSSBL Schools (2013 to 2016)
Changes tracked from here
Further analysis reveals that there are two part-time populations – a sizeable number of women at
junior levels and a small number of mainly male professors - six women and 26 men (Table 4.6).
We suspect that part-time work is advantageous to the latter group and potentially detrimental to the
former. However, we currently lack the qualitative data to understand the consequences of part-time
working on the career progression of female academics. We will address this gap (Action 4.3) and
improve the way we support part-time staff, including those returning from career breaks (see 5.5).
This is the fourth objective of our action plan.
2016 2014/15
Kent (Headcount) ECU (FPE)9
F M Total % F ↓ % M ↓ % F % F
Academic and
Research
Full Time 355 561 916 81.4
%
89.9
%
38.8
%
40.0
% Part Time 81 63 144 18.6
%
10.1
%
56.3
%
55.1
%
Total 436 624 1,060 41.1
%
45.0
% Professional and Support
Full Time 763 621 1,384 59.2
%
80.1
%
55.1
%
54.6
% Part Time 526 154 680 40.8
%
19.9
%
77.4
%
79.7
%
Total 1,289 775 2,064 62.5
%
62.7
% GRAND Total 1,725 1,399 3,124 55.2
%
54.0
% Table 4.7: Full- and Part-Time Contracts by Academic and Research and Professional and Support Staff (2016)
9 “Equality in higher education: statistical report 2016” Table 4.3
24
(iii) Academic staff by contract function and gender: research-only, research and teaching, and
teaching-only
The majority of Kent academics (68.4%) are on teaching and research contracts. This is significantly
higher than the sector benchmark of 49.1% (Table 4.8). Accordingly, the proportion of staff on
teaching and scholarship contracts is far lower at 13.7% than the sector average of 26.4%, although
the absolute number has increased from 122 to 145 since 2013 mainly due to change in AHSSBL
Schools (Table 4.9).
2016 2014/15
Contract Function Kent (Headcount) ECU (FPE)10
% All Staff % F % All Staff % F
Teaching and Scholarship 13.7 46.9 26.4 52.3
Research Only 17.9 55.3 24.5 46.7
Teaching and Research 68.4 36.3 49.1 40.2
Table 4.8: Academic and Research Staff at Kent by Contract Function and Gender in 2016 against ECU Benchmark
The overall proportion of teaching and scholarship staff who are female (46.9%) is below the
benchmark of 52.3%, though the figure is higher in AHSSBL (52.9%) than STEMM (32.6%),
reflecting the lower numbers of women in STEMM (Table 4.9). Nevertheless, a slightly higher
proportion of female than male academics are on a teaching and scholarship contract: 15.6% (68 of
436) versus 12.3% (77 of 624).
10 “Equality in higher education: statistical report 2016” Table 4.11
Actions
4.1 Keep the gender profile of our fixed-term staff under review and report any gender
inequalities that may arise.
4.2 Analyse from a gender perspective the impact of the pilot project to consult with HPLs on
the offer of full academic contracts.
4.3 Undertake qualitative research to understand the consequences of part-time working on
the career progression of female academic and research staff and make
recommendations for action as required.
25
2013 2016 Change
Over Time11
F M Total % F F M Total % F % F
ST
EM
M Teaching and Scholarship 14 30 44 31.8
%
14 29 43 32.6
%
0.7
% Research 35 33 68 51.5
%
39 56 95 41.1
%
(10.4)
% Teaching and Research 43 147 190 22.6
%
49 153 202 24.3
%
1.6
% STEMM Total 92 210 302 30.5
%
102 238 340 30.0
%
(0.5)
%
AH
SS
BL
Teaching and Scholarship 39 39 78 50.0
%
54 48 102 52.9
%
2.9
% Research 57 37 94 60.6
%
66 29 95 69.5
%
8.8
% Teaching and Research 213 310 523 40.7
%
214 309 523 40.9
%
0.2
% AHSSBL Total 309 386 695 44.5
%
334 386 720 46.4
%
1.9
% GRAND Total 401 596 997 40.2
%
436 624 1,060 41.1
%
0.9
% Table 4.9 Academic and Research Staff by Contract Function and STEMM/AHSSBL: 2013 and 2016 with Change over Time
We acknowledge that contract function has an important influence on career progression
opportunities. Currently, there is limited potential for staff on teaching and scholarship contracts to
be promoted beyond senior lecturer, with only one reader (male in STEMM) and one professor
(female in AHSSBL) on teaching and scholarship contracts (Table 4.10).
2013 2016
Change Over Time
Role F M Total % F F M Total % F % F
ST
EM
M
Teaching and
Scholarship
Lecturer 9 14 23 39.1 8 16 24 33.3 (5.8) SL 5 15 20 25.0 6 12 18 33.3 8.3 Reader <5 <5 0 .. <5 <5 0 .. .. Professor <5 <5 0 .. <5 <5 0 .. ..
Research Only
Researcher 35 33 68 51.5 39 56 95 41.1 (10.4)
Teaching and
Research
Lecturer 22 52 74 29.7 24 45 69 34.8 5.1 SL 15 34 49 30.6 17 48 65 26.2 (4.5) Reader <5 17 20 .. <5 16 20 .. .. Professor <5 44 50 .. 5 44 49 10.2 ..
STEMM Total 90 210 300 30.5 100 240 340 30.0 (0.5)
AH
SS
BL
Teaching and
Scholarship
Lecturer 31 29 60 51.7 41 37 78 52.6 0.9 SL 8 9 17 47.1 12 11 23 52.2 5.1 Reader <5 <5 0 .. <5 <5 0 .. .. Professor <5 <5 0 .. <5 <5 0 .. ..
Research Only
Researcher 57 37 94 60.6 66 29 95 69.5 8.8
Teaching and
Research
Lecturer <5 <5 0 .. <5 <5 0 .. .. SL 90 95 185 48.6 72 88 160 45.0 (3.6) Reader 52 74 126 41.3 67 82 149 45.0 3.7 Professor 33 33 66 50.0 29 40 69 42.0 (8.0)
AHSSBL Total 310 385 695 44.5 335 385 720 46.4 1.9 GRAND TOTAL 400 595 995 40.2 435 625 1,060 41.1 0.9
Table 4.10: Academic and Research Staff by Contract Function, Level and Gender: 2013 and 2016
11 Brackets indicate a negative number
26
A major University initiative is underway to address this issue The Recognising Excellence in
Education Project (REEP) is undertaking broad-based consultation and analysis to better recognise,
support and reward excellence in teaching. We will continue to monitor the gender profile of staff on
teaching and scholarship contracts (Action 4.4) and work with colleagues to analyse the impact of
the REEP project on career progression from a gender perspective (Action 4.5).
(iv) Academic leavers by grade and gender
2013 2016
Role Headcount
Turnover as % F/M
Population Headcount
Turnover as % F/M
Population
F M Total % F % M F M Total % F % M
ST
EM
M
Lecturer 5 <5 5 .. .. <5 <5 5 .. ..
Senior Lecturer <5 <5 5 .. .. <5 <5 5 .. ..
Reader <5 <5 0 .. .. <5 <5 0 .. ..
Professor <5 <5 5 .. .. <5 <5 0 .. ..
STEMM Total 10 10 15 14.0
%
5.1
%
0 10 10 3.2
%
4.9
%
AH
SS
BL
Lecturer 11 7 18 9.1 5.6 8 10 18 7.1 8.0
Senior Lecturer <5 <5 5 .. .. <5 <5 5 .. ..
Reader <5 <5 5 .. .. <5 <5 0 .. ..
Professor 6 11 17 15.8 10.1 <5 <5 5 .. ..
AHSSBL Total 20 25 45 7.5
%
6.9
%
10 15 25 3.7
%
4.8
% GRAND TOTAL 25 35 60 8.7
%
6.3
%
10 25 40 3.6
%
4.8
% Table 4.11: Academic Staff Leavers by Role and STEMM/AHSSBL Schools in 2013 and 2016
The number of academics leaving the institution has fallen since 2013 from 60 to 38 (Table 4.11).
Numbers and turnover rates are small, with AHSSBL lecturers comprising the largest group.
Table 4.12 presents data on leavers by reason and shows that 50.0% of academic leavers resigned.
This figure falls to 29.7% for researchers, the majority of whom may be assumed to be leaving at the
end of a fixed-term contract. The turnover rate for researchers is therefore significantly higher than
for academics: 19.5% versus 4.4%.
Actions
4.4 Analyse the gender profile of staff on teaching and scholarship contracts over time.
4.5 Analyse the impact of REEP on career progression from a gender perspective.
27
2013 2016
Leavers by Reason Headcount
Turnover as % F/M
Population
Headcount Turnover as
% F/M Population
F M Total %F %M F M Total %F %M
STEMM Resignation Only 5 <5 5 .. .. <5 <5 5 .. .. Other Leavers <5 7 10 .. .. <5 5 5 .. .. STEMM Total 10 10 15 14.0
%
5.1
%
0 10 10 3.2
%
4.9
% AHSSBL
Resignation Only 13 14 27 5.2 4.0 5 8 13 1.9 2.2 Other Leavers 6 10 16 2.4 2.9 5 9 14 1.9 2.5 AHSSBL Total 19 24 43 7.5
%
6.9
%
10 17 27 3.7
%
4.8
% GRAND TOTAL 25 35 60 8.7
%
6.3
%
10 25 40 3.6
%
4.8
% Table 4.12: Academic Staff Leavers by STEMM and AHSSBL Schools in 2013 and 2016
2013 2016
Leavers by Reason Headcount
Turnover as % F/M
Population Headcount
Turnover as % F/M
Population
F M Total %F %M F M Total %F %M
STEMM Resignation Only <5 <5 5 .. .. <5 <5 5 .. .. Other Leavers 6 10 16 17.1
%
30.3
%
5 11 16 12.8
%
19.6
%
STEMM Total 10 10 20 25.7
%
30.3
%
5 15 20 17.9
%
25.0
% AHSSBL
Resignation Only 7 7 14 12.3
%
18.9
%
<5 <5 5 .. .. Other Leavers 15 13 28 26.3
%
35.1
%
8 <5 10 .. .. AHSSBL Total 22 20 42 38.6
%
54.1
%
10 5 15 16.7
%
17.2
% GRAND TOTAL 30 30 60 33.7
%
42.9
%
20 20 35 17.1
%
22.4
% Table 4.13: Research Staff Leavers by STEMM and AHSSBL Schools in 2013 and 2016
The voluntary turnover rate (i.e. resignations) for academic and research staff combined is very low
(2.8%) compared to the sector average of 6.4%12 reinforcing the point made earlier about the static
nature of Kent’s workforce. There does not appear to be a gendered aspect to leaver patterns,
though numbers are too small for meaningful analysis.
12 DLA Piper HE Workforce Performance Indicators 2014: academic and research staff only.
28
(v) Equal pay audits/reviews
We undertook an Equal Pay Audit in 2015. This revealed that there are no significant13 gender pay
gaps by grade except within the managerial and professorial (M&P) group where the gap was 6.6%
in favour of men (Figure 4.5). This disappears after staff have been employed at Kent for five years.
Action has already been taken to address the pay gap at this grade via a HAY job evaluation for
directors of professional services and a new Academic Leadership Allowances policy which clarifies
procedures for academics taking on Head of School and other management roles.
There are no pay gaps by grade when comparing full versus part-time staff, or taking into account
ethnicity and disability. Our overall pay gap has fallen by almost five percentage points since the
previous audit in 2008 – from 25% to 20.2% - and is within one 1% of the sector average of 19.2%14.
Figure 4.5: Gender Pay Gap by Pay Scale (2015)
We also gave staff on the lowest 16 points on the national pay scale a proportionately higher award
in the 2016/17 pay round to ensure that their hourly pay reached the current Voluntary Living Wage
level, benefiting women who are in the majority (60.3%) in the lowest pay quartile at Kent.
13 That is pay gaps which exceed the 5% trigger threshold for investigation identified by Equality and Human Rights Commission and Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff. 14 Equality in higher education: statistical report 2015” Table 4.22. English higher education institutions outside London
-0.2%
-0.2%
1.9%
0.2%
-0.4%
6.6%
-7% -5% -3% -1% 1% 3% 5% 7% 9%
6
7
8
9
10
M&P
Gender Pay Gap
Pay Scale
Gender Pay Gap in Favour ofMen
Gender Pay Gap in Favour ofWomen
29
There is more to do and addressing the gender pay gap is the fifth objective of our action plan. In
addition to the actions proposed elsewhere in this application for improving the career progression of
women to senior roles – which should in turn help alleviate the vertical pay gap - we will undertake
systematic analysis and change our practice to ensure that women are not disadvantaged either at
the point of appointment, i.e. starting salary (Actions 4.6 and 4.7) or in the rate of within-grade
salary progression via the award of accelerated increments or discretionary pay points (Actions 4.8
and 4.9). We are also committed to developing a clear policy and procedure on pay and reward
(Action 4.10).
Actions
4.6 Require Chairs of appointment panels to review gender-based institutional salary data
(and, where appropriate, market data) and undertaken a comparability check with existing
staff to inform and justify starting salary decisions.
4.7 Analyse the starting salaries of staff at different grades to understand if there are any
gender inequalities and make recommendations for change as required.
4.8 Analyse the rate of within-grade progression of a sample of staff from starting salary to the
top discretionary point of their grade to identify whether there are any gender differences
(and, if so, undertake follow-up research to understand the extent to which the
requirement to self-apply for discretionary pay points may act as a perceived barrier).
4.9 Assess the desirability from an equal pay perspective of segmenting the Managerial and
Professorial pay scale according to specific criteria to facilitate more consistent and
justifiable pay decisions.
4.10 Develop reward policies to clarify procedures and increase transparency on pay and
reward.
30
5. SUPPORTING AND ADVANCING WOMEN’S CAREERS
Recommended word count: Bronze: 5000 words |Actual: 5,512 words
5.1 Key career transition points: academic staff
(i) Recruitment
Data in this section were manually extracted from our recruitment system. A tendering process is
underway for a new e-recruitment system which will better meet AS reporting requirements (Action
5.1.1), evidencing our commitment to improving EDI data analysis.
Applications
The overall number of job applications increased by 11.6% between 2014 and 2016 (Table 5.1.1).
This is due to a rise in 20.9% rise in applications from men; applications from women have fallen by
3.8% (after slight rise in 2015). Accordingly, the proportion of all applications from women has fallen
from 37.6% to 32.4%.
In STEMM, the number and proportion of applications from women have increased since 2014,
though 97.6% of these in 2016 are for researcher or lecturer posts, with virtually none at senior
lecturer level or above. In AHSSBL, the number of applications from women has fallen by 18.3% -
versus a 19.4% increase for men – resulting in a decline in the proportion of applications from
women from 48.2% to 38.9%. Women submit the majority (52.2%) of applications for researcher
posts but the proportion drops at more senior levels.
The data provide clear evidence that action is needed to increase the number and proportion of
qualified female applicants across the University, particularly above senior lecturer level and in
STEMM Schools where there is an urgent need to increase the number of women in the pipeline
(see 4.1). We have identified several actions to achieve this aim (Actions: 5.1.2; 5.1.3; 5.1.4 and
Action 5.1.5).
Success Rates
Table 5.1.1 shows that there has been a decline since 2014 both in the absolute number of women
being shortlisted and in the proportion of shortlisted applicants who are women (from 44.1% to
34.1%). With the exception of reader, the proportion of shortlisted applicants who are women
declines at each level of seniority in AHSBBL. Furthermore, shortlisted applicants for senior lecturer
posts in AHBSSL are more likely to be male than female even when the pool of applicants is
accounted for: 75.7% of men who applied were shortlisted versus 62.8% of women (Table 5.1.1).
Progress since 2013
Recruitment and selection training required for chairs of appointment panels.
All academic appointment panels to include both male and female members.
Agreed a policy on the use of Positive Action Statements in recruitment adverts to encourage
applications from under-represented groups.
31
2014
Role
Applied Short Listed Offered Application to
Offer Rate F M F % F M F % F M F % F % M %
ST
EM
M
Researcher 82 306 21.1 31 55 36.0 15 21 41.7 18.3 6.9 Lecturer 165 863 16.1 26 74 26.0 7 19 26.9 4.2 2.2 Senior Lecturer <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Reader <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Professor 5 18 21.7 <5 13 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. STEMM Total 250 1,185 17.5 60 140 29.0 20 40 34.4 8.7
%
3.5
%
AH
SS
BL
Researcher 582 470 55.3 343 285 54.6 16 11 59.3 2.7 2.3 Lecturer 647 827 43.9 515 721 41.7 24 24 50.0 3.7 2.9 Senior Lecturer 81 113 41.8 55 82 40.1 <5 <5 .. .. .. Reader <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Professor <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. AHSSBL Total 1,310 1,410 48.2 915 1,090 45.7 40 35 53.2 3.2
%
2.6
% GRAND TOTAL 1,565 2,595 37.6
%
970 1,230 44.1
%
65 80 44.8
%
4.1
%
3.0
%
2015
Role
Applied Short Listed Offered Application to
Offer Rate F M F % F M F % F M F % F % M %
ST
EM
M
Researcher 182 459 28.4 55 112 32.9 14 25 35.9 7.7 5.4 Lecturer 130 493 20.9 23 58 28.4 6 10 37.5 4.6 2.0 Senior Lecturer <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Reader <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Professor 5 13 27.8 <5 5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. STEMM Total 315 965 24.7 80 175 30.8 20 35 35.1 6.3
%
3.8
%
AH
SS
BL
Researcher 215 234 47.9 155 183 45.9 18 10 64.3 8.4 4.3 Lecturer 991 1285 43.5 833 1106 43.0 31 30 50.8 3.1 2.3 Senior Lecturer 79 173 31.3 67 162 29.3 <5 <5 .. .. .. Reader <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Professor 41 116 26.1 25 91 21.6 5 10 33.3 12.2 8.6 AHSSBL Total 1,325 1,810 42.3 1,080 1,540 41.2 55 55 50.9 4.2
%
3.0
%
GRAND TOTAL 1,645 2,775 37.2
%
1,160 1,715 40.3
%
75 90 45.5
%
4.6
%
3.3
%
2016
Role
Applied Short Listed Offered Application to
Offer Rate F M F % F M F % F M F % F % M %
ST
EM
M
Researcher 201 481 29.5 70 136 34.0 18 31 36.7 9.0 6.4 Lecturer 222 930 19.3 92 389 19.1 11 16 40.7 5.0 1.7 Senior Lecturer 13 27 32.5 11 21 34.4 <5 <5 .. .. .. Reader <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Professor <5 11 .. <5 5 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. STEMM Total 440 1,450 23.3 175 550 24.1 30 50 36.3 6.6
%
3.5
%
AH
SS
BL
Researcher 410 375 52.2 216 181 54.4 26 15 63.4 6.3 4.0 Lecturer 573 1094 34.4 443 827 34.9 26 26 50.0 4.5 2.4 Senior Lecturer 78 185 29.7 49 140 25.9 5 5 50.0 6.4 2.7 Reader 5 9 35.7 <5 8 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. Professor 5 20 20.0 <5 17 .. <5 <5 .. .. .. AHSSBL Total 1,071 1,683 38.9 715 1,173 37.9 55 50 53.3 5.3
%
3.0
%
GRAND TOTAL 1,510 3,130 32.5
%
890 1,725 34.1
%
85 100 46.0
%
5.7
%
3.2
%
Table 5.1.1: Recruitment to Academic and Research Posts by Gender 2014 to 2016
32
The overall application-to-offer rate is higher for women than for men (5.7 versus 3.2 in 2016) and
has been increasing since 2014. Nevertheless, whilst women are more likely to be hired than men
at researcher and lecturer level (and senior lecturer in AHSBBL), at higher grades the opposite is
true.
We must therefore continue our efforts to improve recruitment practice to ensure that women are
not disadvantaged. We will review and refresh our recruitment and selection training provision to
incorporate unconscious bias (Action 5.1.6) and develop bespoke executive training for Executive
Group members and Deans who chair most academic appointment panels (Action 5.1.7). Panel
Chairs will be asked to record panel membership and training details (Action 5.1.8). With the
implementation of our new e-recruitment system we will explore the potential for automated blind
shortlisting to increase the consistency and transparency of decision making (Action 5.1.9)
Actions
5.1.1 Commission and implement a new e-recruitment system.
5.1.2 Commission the University’s new creative advertising agency to explore options to
reach more potential female applicants, particularly in STEMM.
5.1.3 Analyse a selection of our job advertisements and conduct focus groups to improve our
understanding of what may be attractive/off-putting to women.
5.1.4 Review our website, adverts and other recruitment-related material to ensure that they
promote our commitment to AS and EDI.
5.1.5 Roll out Positive Action Statements and evaluate their impact.
5.1.6 Review and refresh the current Recruitment and Selection online training provision and
enhance the EDI element of our Recruitment and Selection face-to-face training,
including unconscious bias.
5.1.7 Design and provide bespoke Executive Recruitment and Selection training for Executive
Group members and Deans.
5.1.8 Panel Chairs to record panel membership and training they have undertaken on the
interview outcome form to permit future monitoring.
5.1.9 Explore the introduction of automated blind shortlisting with the launch of the new e-
recruitment system to ensure consistency and transparency of the shortlisting process
against essential criteria.
33
(ii) Induction
It is a condition of probation that all staff attend the half-day University Staff Induction and Information
Fair, held regularly on both campuses. Approximately 50-65 academic and research staff attend these
induction events each year (Table 5.1.2). Since attendance is mandatory, the gender profile of
participants closely reflects that of new starters.
F M F % F % Appointed
2013 21 30 41.2 - 2014 26 30 46.4 44.8 2015 26 32 44.8 45.5 2016 27 38 41.5 46.0
Table 5.1.2: Uptake of University Induction for Academic and Research by Gender
Our commitment to EDI including gender equality is signalled at induction events via a presentation
on Working in an Inclusive Environment, which will in future incorporate an unconscious bias
element (Action 5.1.10).
New staff also receive a local induction which introduces them to the culture and working practices of
their School. A checklist and good practice guide are provided to facilitate this process. According to
the 2017 RDWG survey, only 66.7% of postdoctoral researchers reported that they had had an
induction and we wish to increase their access to induction via the Early Career Researcher Network
so they are fully supported from the outset (Action 5.1.11).
Action
5.1.10 Incorporate an unconscious bias element into the EDI section of the University’s
induction events.
5.1.11 Improve the promotion of induction processes and events to researchers via the Early
Career Researcher Network.
34
(iii) Promotion
Most academics that apply for promotion are successful but women have a consistently higher
success rate than men: between 79.2% and 92.5% (Figure 5.1.1). However, the proportion of
women in the eligible pool (i.e. the number at the grade below) applying for promotion has
decreased by four percentage points since 2016, whilst the figure for men has hardly changed
(15.3% to 14.6%). Anecdotal evidence from the ASWG suggests that women may delay their
applications in contrast to men until they feel that their case is rock solid.
Women are more likely to be successful when applying for promotion to a more senior post i.e.
reader and above (Table 5.1.3). Women were more likely to apply for promotion to professor in 2016
(28.1% compared to 10.5% men) than they were in 2013 (11.4% compared to 14.0% men). 2016
was the first year in which more women applied for promotion to professor than men - a step-change
in behaviour.
Figure 5.1.1: Promotions Applications and Success Rates by Gender 2013 to 2016 with
Weighted Totals
3792.5%
1979.2%
2987.9%
2683.9%
4273.7%
3276.2%
2261.1%
4170.7%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Total
F M
Progress since 2013
Introduced School Promotion Panels in 2014 to support and encourage promotion applicants.
Adjusted promotions criteria to require explicit comment on ‘good citizenship’ practices,
including AS.
Published profiles of successful candidates, including those who have been recognised for the
strength of their teaching practice, to provide positive role models.
Increased female representation on the University Promotions Committee.
35
2013
Role Applied For Pool Applied Successful
F M F% F M F% F M F%
ST
EM
M
Senior Lecturer 31 66 32.0 5 11 31.3 <5 6 ..
Reader 20 49 29.0 <5 6 .. <5 5 ..
Professor <5 17 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 ..
STEMM Total 55 132 28.6
%
5 20 25.0 5 10 29.4
AH
SS
BL
Senior Lecturer 121 124 49.4 16 22 42.1 15 18 45.5
Reader 60 83 42.0 14 11 56.0 14 7 66.7
Professor 33 33 50.0 <5 6 .. <5 5 ..
AHSSBL Total 214 240 47.1
%
35 39 46.6 30 30 51.6
GRAND TOTAL 265 372 41.8
%
40 55 41.2 35 40 46.8
2014
Role Applied For Pool Applied Successful
F M F% F M F% F M F%
ST
EM
M
Senior Lecturer 32 61 34.4 5 12 29.4 <5 9 ..
Reader 22 53 29.3 <5 6 .. <5 <5 ..
Professor <5 20 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 ..
STEMM Total 55 134 29.5 5 20 20.8 5 10 20.0
AH
SS
BL
Senior Lecturer 118 122 49.2 12 12 50.0 9 11 45.0
Reader 65 90 41.9 5 8 38.5 5 7 41.7
Professor 35 31 53.0 <5 <5 .. <5 <5 ..
AHSSBL Total 218 243 47.3 20 25 45.2 15 20 44.4
GRAND TOTAL 275 377 42.1 25 40 36.4 20 30 37.3
2015
Role Applied For Pool Applied Successful
F M F% F M F% F M F%
ST
EM
M
Senior Lecturer 33 68 32.7 <5 11 .. <5 8 ..
Reader 23 60 27.7 <5 <5 .. <5 <5 ..
Professor <5 16 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 ..
STEMM Total 60 144 29.1 5 15 23.5 5 10 23.1
AH
SS
BL
Senior Lecturer 110 126 46.6 16 14 53.3 14 6 70.0
Reader 74 90 45.1 9 7 56.3 8 5 61.5
Professor 35 33 51.5 <5 <5 .. <5 <5 ..
AHSSBL Total 219 249 46.8 30 25 55.8 25 10 68.4
GRAND TOTAL 280 393 41.4 35 35 47.8 30 20 56.9
36
2016
Role Applied For Pool Applied Successful
F M F% F M F% F M F%
ST
EM
M
Senior Lecturer 32 61 34.4 5 15 25.0 <5 9 ..
Reader 23 60 27.7 <5 7 .. <5 5 ..
Professor <5 17 .. <5 <5 .. <5 <5 ..
STEMM Total 60 138 29.6 5 25 23.3 5 15 28.6
AH
SS
BL
Senior Lecturer 113 125 47.5 10 18 35.7 9 13 40.9
Reader 79 93 45.9 6 12 33.3 <5 9 ..
Professor 29 40 42.0 8 5 61.5 7 <5 ..
AHSSBL Total 221 258 46.1 24 35 40.7 20 25 43.5
GRAND TOTAL 280 396 41.3 30 60 34.8 25 40 38.8
Table 5.1.3: Promotion to Substantive Academic and Research Posts by Gender 2013 to 2016
As previously noted (Table 4.10), promotion above senior lecturer level is problematic for staff on
teaching and scholarship contracts. This issue is being addressed by REEP, the output from which
will be a clear set of criteria on behaviour and performance at all levels of the academic pathway,
initially for teaching but then to be expanded to include research and citizenship – the other two core
criteria for promotion (Action 5.1.12). By making the requirements more transparent, it is anticipated
that the process will become more equitable.
The introduction of School Promotions Panels was designed to ensure that staff are supported in
preparing promotion applications and that the situation of any academic who has not been promoted
in the last five-year period is considered. Their impact will be evaluated (Action 5.1.13) and
qualitative analysis conducted to improve our understanding of perceived barriers to application
(Action 5.1.14). Despite extensive online information and promotion briefings, feedback from the AS
consultative workshops and REEP focus groups suggests a lack of clarity about promotions criteria
and we will improve support for applicants (Actions 5.1.15 and 5.1.16).
“It feels like a game where nobody really understands the rules.” REEP
Focus Group Participant
We do not currently have data on promotions data disaggregated by full or part time, although the
numbers of academics on part-time contracts is small. Data on gender pay issues can be found in
Section 4 (v).
37
(iv) Staff submitted to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) by gender
The number of both genders submitting for the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) was
significantly higher than that for the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). In 2014, 81% of
eligible women were submitted compared to 85% of men (Table 5.1.4). The gender balance of the
eligible pool improved from 2.3 males to every female in 2008 to 1.77 in 2014 and the gender gap in
inclusion rates closed by four percentage points.
At 84%, the inclusion rate in the 2014 REF of women who had taken maternity leave was in line with
that for all staff and slightly higher than that for women as a whole. This suggests that women taking
maternity leave were suffering no detriment. However, the inclusion rate was significantly lower for
part-time female than part-time male staff: 65.6% versus 86.7%. We will continue to analyse
available data on gender and other protected characteristics and make improvements for REF 2021
to address areas of under-representation (Action 5.1.17).
Actions
5.1.12 Complete the REEP consultation process (and accompanying data analysis) and make
recommendations to improve the promotions success rates of applications based
primarily on the strength of the candidate’s teaching practice.
5.1.13 Review the operation of School Promotions Panels with a view to identifying and
sharing examples of good practice, improving panel guidance and protocols to enhance
consistency of practice across Schools.
5.1.14 Undertake additional qualitative research designed to understand the reasons that
some staff may take longer to apply for promotion and ascertain whether the self-
application process may be leading to gendered outcomes.
5.1.15 Analyse unsuccessful promotions applications for reader (which include written
feedback for applicants) to understand the reasons for rejection with the aim of
improving the quality of future applications and success rates.
5.1.16 Update the Preparing for Promotions briefings as required based on any feedback from
the Women’s Network.
Progress since 2013
An Equality and Diversity in the REF training programme was designed with the ECU and
delivered to all 2014 REF decision makers.
A REF Equality Impact Analysis was undertaken leading to the development of an action plan to
improve future practice.
38
2008 RAE (FTE) 2014 REF (Headcount)15
Gender Final Sector Pilot Final
Eligible Submitted % % Eligible Submitted % Eligible Submitted %
Male 412 284 69 67 435 353 81 468 399 85
Female 200 122 61 48 233 178 76 277 225 81
Total 612 406 66 - 668 531 79 745 624 84
Table 5.1.4: Gender Profile of Eligible and Submitted Staff for the 2008 RAE and 2014 REF
The University’s REF Equality Impact Analysis led to a commitment to create a more balanced
gender composition in each REF Working Group for the 2021 submission to more closely reflect the
gender composition of the eligible pool. The Chair and Deputy Chair of ASWG are members of the
University’s REF Steering Group and are taking forward that agenda (Action 5.1.18). All Kent
decision makers will receive EDI training including in unconscious bias (Action 5.1.19). We will also
continue to encourage female staff to seek nomination to external REF panels as a means of
furthering their career development (Action 5.1.20).
15 The 2008 RAE was calculated based on FTE so the published FTE results are provided. The 2014 REF was based on headcount so comparisons of the two data sets need to consider this difference.
Actions
5.1.17 Analyse the characteristics of those being considered for submission to REF 2021
during the planning stages and take remedial action where any inequalities emerge.
5.1.18 Expand the pool of female decision makers for the REF 2021 submission, including
REF Coordinators in Schools.
5.1.19 All REF decision makers at Kent to receive tailor-made EDI training, including on
unconscious bias.
5.1.20 Encourage female staff to seek nomination to external REF panels.
39
5.3 Career development: academic staff
(i) Training
“All staff are provided with development opportunities that help them
maximise their contribution within their current roles and where possible
supported to develop their careers and maximise their learning
potential.” Staff Development Policy (2017)
Every member of staff has access to development opportunities and a broad range of training
provision, signposted by a new gateway page on the website. The timing and location of training
events facilitates the participation of part-time staff (of whom the majority are female) and those on
the Medway campus. Staff success is celebrated at an annual Learning & Development Awards
ceremony.
Leadership Development
There are four leadership programmes designed for staff at different career levels. New Senior
Leaders is for Heads of School and professional services directors. Amongst academic staff, men
predominate on this programme (Table 5.3.1) as they outnumber women at this level (Section 5.6
iii). The Leadership for Areas of Significant Responsibility (LASR) programme is for staff in grades 9
and 10. EDI issues are incorporated throughout to reinforce principles of managing individual
difference. Female academics are well represented on LASR (Table 5.3.1).
Developing Management Skills (DMS) is designed for professional and support staff at grades 6 and
7, whilst the new Foundations of Management builds essential people management skills in staff at
grades 5 and 6. Leadership Forums have been created enabling a community of networked leaders.
There are also a number of workshops for managers, which are well supported by professional and
support staff (Table 5.3.1).
Women’s uptake of leadership programmes is in line with their gender representation: 40.6% for
academic and research staff and 57.6% for professional and support staff.
Progress since 2013
Developed a suite of leadership development programmes for staff at all career stages.
Published a new Staff Development Policy which sets out the responsibilities of managers for the
training and development of their staff.
Participated in the Aurora programme since 2014, with 36 alumni to date.
Created a Researcher Development Portal, cited as a model of good practice, to signpost
development opportunities and employability information.
Introduced a CPD Framework to support teaching staff without a formal teaching qualification to gain
fellowship status.
40
2016 Academic &
Research Professional
and Support
Training & Support Total F % F M F M
Leadership New Senior Leaders <5 11 <5 <5 20 .. LASR 10 8 <5 5 25 .. DMS (For P&S staff only) <5 <5 30 18 50 ..
Leadership Total 15 20 35 25 90 51.6
% Management RPD (Appraisal) 11 15 28 9 63 61.9
Recruitment and Selection 8 19 36 11 74 59.5
Management Total 19 34 64 20 137 60.6
%
GRAND TOTAL 30 55 100 45 230 57.0
%
Table 5.3.1: Uptake of Leadership and Management Training for All Staff by Gender
Aurora
Kent has participated in Aurora since 2014. Places are oversubscribed (Table 5.3.2) and participants
are selected via a competitive application process. The University centrally funds eight places with
the remainder funded by Schools and departments. As an impact measure, we have tracked the
progress of academic Aurora alumni and found that two lecturers (one each in STEMM and
AHSSBL) have subsequently gained promotion.
Given the acute pipeline issue for women in STEMM Schools, we will seek to increase the relatively
low number of STEMM participants (Action 5.3.1).
2014 2015 2016 2017
Role
App
lied
Su
cc
essfu
l
App
lied
Su
cc
essfu
l
App
lied
Su
cc
essfu
l
App
lied
Su
cc
essfu
l
ST
EM
M
Researcher <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Lecturer <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Senior Lecturer <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Reader <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Professor <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 STEMM Total 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 0
AH
SS
BL
Researcher <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Lecturer 8 <5 5 <5 5 <5 7 <5 Senior Lecturer 5 5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Reader <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 Professor <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 <5 AHSSBL Total 15 10 10 5 10 5 10 5
Professional and Support 7 <5 <5 <5 22 <5 17 8 GRAND TOTAL 25 10 20 15 35 10 30 15
Table 5.3.2 Uptake of Aurora Training by All Staff since Inception
41
Poster for Learning & Development Awards 2016
42
Academic Development
The Graduate School and Research Services provide an extensive programme of events, including
grant writing and research impact, for early career researchers (the majority of whom are female). A
cross-faculty Researcher Development Working Group (RDWG) supports the career development of
researchers and evaluates the impact of initiatives via biennial surveys. Its 2017 survey found that
training uptake has increased since 2013 and 75% of researchers now feel supported or well
supported in their development. We will continue to raise awareness of development opportunities
for researchers (Action 5.3.2) and deliver Research Leader Training for principal investigators and
researchers in supervisory positions and evaluate it for uptake and user satisfaction (Action 5.3.3).
Staff on teaching and scholarship contracts have equal access to training and development
opportunities. Any permanent teaching staff without a recognised teaching qualification complete a
PGCHE as a requirement of probation. Graduate teaching assistants undertake Getting to Grips
training and a new CPD Framework has been created to support teaching staff, including HPLs, to
achieve Higher Education Academy fellowships.
2016
Professional & Support
And Support
Academic & Research
Research
Training Total F % F M F M
ED
I
Tra
inin
g Valuing Everyone 10 10 100 48 168 65.5
Mental Health <5 <5 34 7 45 ..
Deaf Awareness <5 <5 12 <5 15 ..
Talking Culture <5 <5 10 <5 20 ..
Total 15 15 156 60 245 70.0
% Table 5.3.3: Uptake of EDI Training and Development Opportunities for All Staff by Gender
EDI
All staff are required to complete an online EDI module on Diversity in the Workplace as a condition
of probation (392 staff in 2016). This includes explanation of why EDI is so important to us and
clarifies staff’s rights and responsibilities. Other EDI-related training is also available (Table 5.3.3),
though uptake in 2016 was higher for professional and support staff than for academics. We will
explore options for providing online unconscious bias training and incorporating this into the EDI
module for all new staff (Action 5.3.4).
A consultant with specialist EDI knowledge will be appointed to embed EDI into the full range of our
learning and development provision with the aim of increasing the collective skills of University
managers in fair and effective people management (Action 5.3.5). In addition, the Learning and
Organisational Development team will explore the potential for ring-fencing funding for EDI-related
development activities within the central training budget (Action 5.3.6).
Evaluation
Whilst the scope of training and development provision at Kent is broad (and data suggest that
women are not disadvantaged in terms of access), we have not been good at evaluating its
effectiveness. We will therefore analyse the perceived value and impact of academic leadership
schemes, particularly those designed for women (Action 5.3.7).
43
(ii) Appraisal/development review
Reflect-Plan-Develop (RPD) is a University-wide appraisal scheme and all staff should have the
opportunity to participate. The future development of the scheme has been discussed with staff
representatives at the Joint Staff Negotiating and Consultative Committee as we seek to further
strengthen its role as a key mechanism for staff to raise concerns, identify development needs,
discuss career aspirations and receive feedback (Action 5.3.8).
Results from the first two phases of the University staff survey found that 72% of professional and
support and 68% of academic respondents had had an RPD in the previous year. Whilst no specific
gender inequalities emerge from this data, it is evident that RPD coverage is not yet universal. The
2017 RDWG survey has identified a particular issue with researchers: only 45% say they had been
appraised. As women predominate in these roles it is important to ensure that we increase the
proportion of researchers included in RPD processes (Action 5.3.9).
Training is provided for both appraisers and appraises and 61.9% of participants are female (Table
5.3.1). We will analyse and increase training uptake to ensure that all appraisers are well equipped
to undertake RPDs (Action 5.3.10). We will also provide specific training for Principal Investigators
to undertake effective appraisal of researchers, including discussions on career development
(Action 5.3.11).
Progress since 2013
Introduced the Reflect-Plan-Develop (RPD) appraisal scheme in 2013.
Published a Staff Development Policy that requires managers to have at least one appraisal
discussion with staff per annum.
Regular training workshops are held both for appraisers and appraises.
Actions
5.3.1 Increase the number of Aurora participants from STEMM Schools.
5.3.2 Raise awareness of, and satisfaction with, development opportunities for researchers.
5.3.3 Evaluate Research Leader Training for Principal Investigators and postdoctoral
researchers in supervisory positions for uptake and user satisfaction.
5.3.4 Explore options for providing an online Unconscious Bias module and
adding/incorporating this to the EDI module for all new staff.
5.3.5 Embed EDI considerations across the full range of development opportunities wherever
viable to do so.
5.3.6 Explore the potential for ring-fencing some of the central training budget for EDI-related
programmes.
5.3.7 Analyse the perceived value and impact of academic leadership schemes – particularly
those designed for women - by tracking the career progress of participants.
44
(iii) Support given to academic staff for career progression
All academic staff are supported to plan their careers and develop the skills they need. Mentoring
provides one mechanism for staff to manage their own personal development under the guidance of
a more experienced colleague. A range of mentoring opportunities exist across the University:
Probation mentors for all staff.
Mentors for training programmes such as the PGCHE and Aurora.
Many Schools have mentoring as part of their research management activities.
The KEW-NET mentoring network, which helps match mentees with mentors.
There were 25 Aurora mentors for the 2016 cohort, more than double the number for previous years.
There are also eight Aurora role models from Kent, predominantly directors, professors or Heads of
School who provide a positive display of high-achieving women.
“Just wanted to pass on some feedback about my University mentor for
the Aurora Leadership Programme. Prof X kindly agreed to take on this
role for me and his support has been invaluable in helping me get the
most out of the programme and applying it to Kent.”
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Social Sciences
Progress since 2013
Awarded HR Excellence in Research for our commitment to the career development of
researchers and re-accredited in 2017.
Launched an automated mentoring scheme in 2016 supported by mentor and mentee training.
Networks are in place to support both teaching and research staff.
Actions
5.3.8 Complete the planned review of RPD in 2018 and develop an action plan for
strengthening its role, with enhanced support where necessary.
5.3.9 Increase the proportion of researchers having access to appraisal.
5.3.10 Analyse appraiser training uptake and encourage Heads of Schools with low
participation rates to take remedial action.
5.3.11 Provide training for Principal Investigators to undertake RPDs effectively, including
discussions on career development.
45
The proportion of researchers who have access to a mentor, formally or informally, has risen from
52% in 2013 to 76% in 2017 (RDWG Survey). Access to a mentor amongst both professional and
support and academic staff is also relatively high with 68% of the former and 74% of the latter
surveyed having informal, constructively critical and supportive/coaching or mentoring (Phases 1
and 2 staff survey). There are no significant gender differences in access to mentors. However, the
fact that in 2016 only women have taken the opportunity for mentoring training (Table 5.3.4)
suggests they recognise its value for themselves and others.
2016
Training Academic &
Research
Professional and Support Total F %
F M F M
Mentoring Introduction to Mentoring <5 <5 6 <5 5 .. Mentoring Skills <5 <5 5 <5 5 ..
Total 0 0 11 0 10 100.0
% Table 5.3.4: Uptake of Mentoring Training for All Staff by Gender
School surveys shows that mentoring arrangements and levels of access vary (from 45% to 72%).
We would like to further embed a mentoring culture (Action 5.3.12) and the School Governance
Group is updating guidance for Heads of School with a view to establishing a mentoring guide
(Action 5.3.13). We will also work to increase the visibility and take up of mentoring training - by
men as well as women (Action 5.3.14).
In addition to mentoring, Kent has a range of established networks for early career researchers,
teaching staff undertaking the PGCHE and Directors of Education, Directors of Research and Senior
Tutors, which provide valuable sources of support and advice for colleagues at different stages in
their careers. It would be useful to undertake qualitative research with participants in these networks
to ensure that they continue to function effectively (Action 5.3.15).
Actions
5.3.12 Review and strengthen academic mentoring arrangements, seeking to identify and
disseminate examples of good practice across Schools, with the aim of giving everyone
access to a post-probation mentor if they wish.
5.3.13 Require Schools to have a transparent framework of mentoring provision and maintain
records of mentoring activity.
5.3.14 Increase visibility and uptake of training on mentoring.
5.3.15 Continue to support and develop learning and teaching networks and undertake
research to establish that existing networks remain fit for purpose.
46
5.5 Flexible working and managing career breaks
(i) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: before leave
2013 2016
Role Mat Pat Ado Total Mat Pat Ado Total
ST
EM
M
Researcher <5 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 0
Lecturer <5 <5 <5 0 5 <5 <5 10
Senior Lecturer <5 <5 <5 0 <5 <5 <5 0
Reader <5 <5 <5 0 <5 <5 <5 0
Professor <5 <5 <5 0 <5 <5 <5 0
STEMM Total 0 5 0 5 5 5 0 10
AH
SS
BL
Researcher <5 <5 <5 0 6 <5 <5 10
Lecturer 7 <5 <5 10 5 <5 <5 10
Senior Lecturer <5 <5 <5 5 <5 <5 <5 5
Reader <5 <5 <5 0 <5 <5 <5 5
Professor <5 <5 <5 0 <5 <5 <5 0
AHSSBL Total 10 10 0 20 15 10 0 25
Professional and Support 28 11 <5 40 40 16 <5 55
GRAND TOTAL 40 25 0 65 60 30 0 90
Table 5.5.1: Uptake of Maternity, Paternity and Adoption Leave by Level and STEMM and AHSSBL
2013 and 2016
Table 5.5.1 provides numbers of staff taking maternity, paternity and adoption leave by grade. Most
are professional and support staff and academics tend to be on early career grades. A maternity
leave and pay flow chart and family friendly leave checklist are available to guide managers and staff
through the policies and provide practical advice. However, staff at the AS consultative workshops
said that it was not always easy to find all the relevant information and managers vary in their
familiarity with procedures (Actions 5.5.1 and 5.5.2).
(ii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: during leave
Keeping-in-Touch (KIT) days are available to staff on maternity or adoption leave. A 2017 survey of
recent academic and professional and support staff returners found that 91% of respondents had
taken KIT days but a substantial minority had not taken all the days they were allowed. KIT days are
most frequently used to attend team meetings or away days. Other reasons include dealing with
handover issues with the person covering their post. Three quarters of those surveyed felt that KIT
days had helped their transition back to work and the survey suggests that the KIT day policy is
welcomed and appreciated by staff. Nevertheless, workshop feedback suggests there is
considerable variation in implementation. We wish to increase our understanding of current practice
and identify areas for improvement (Action 5.5.3).
Actions
5.5.1 Improve the signposting to online information resources for staff about to take maternity or
paternity leave.
5.5.2 Ensure that Heads of School and other line managers are aware of the family friendly
checklist.
47
“KIT days were invaluable for my return to work. Made me feel like I was
still part of the team … and I didn’t feel so isolated and vulnerable when I
finally returned”. Survey respondent
(iii) Cover and support for maternity and adoption leave: returning to work
Schools/departments should provide a private room for breastfeeding and a facility to store
expressed milk. However, discussion at ASWG revealed that access to such facilities varies across
campus and breastfeeding needs are not necessarily taken into consideration in building
design/renovation (Action 5.5.4).
A consultative workshop run by the AS team revealed that coming back to work is a potentially
difficult time and there was some support for the idea of a parent-to-parent buddy system or network
to share experiences and information (Action 5.5.5).
Research-active staff may face difficulties sustaining their research following leave and we will
undertake further analysis to ensure that research careers are not adversely impacted (Action
5.5.6). Our family friendly policy recommends that staff should have a reduced teaching load on
return to work (equivalent to that of someone on probation) though implementation varies between
Schools. We will seek to identify and share good practice (Action 5.5.7) and develop case studies
of staff who have had a successful return to work following a career break (Action 5.5.8).
Actions
5.5.4 Undertake an audit of facilities across the two campuses to identify suitable spaces for
breastfeeding and investigate whether providing such facilities can be included in
minimum requirements for new buildings.
5.5.5 Explore the degree of interest in creating a parent/carer buddy system or network and
how it could best work
5.5.6 Analyse the uptake of sabbatical leave by staff returning from a career break and
subsequent career progression and make recommendations for change as required.
5.5.7 Identify examples of good practice in return-to-work procedures, e.g. reduced teaching
load, and seek opportunities to share these across Schools.
5.5.8 Develop case studies of staff who have had a successful return to work following a
career break.
5.5.8
.
Actions
5.5.3 Undertake focus groups with staff returning from maternity leave and repeat survey to
improve our understanding of how Keeping in Touch (KIT) Days are currently used and
identify areas for improvement.
48
(iv) Maternity return rate
Our maternity return rate is very high, with very few leavers (Table 5.5.2). Moreover, most staff return
to work on the same hours, whether on a full or part-time basis, though changes in working pattern are
possible.
2013 2014 2015 2016
Status on Return Total % Total % Total % Total %
ST
EM
M
Takers of Maternity Leave
0 100.0 5 100.0 5 100.0 5 100.0
Currently on Leave
Remained PT16 <5 .. <5 ..
Remained FT <5 .. <5 .. <5 .. 5 83.3
Changed to PT <5 ..
Changed to FT
Leavers17 <5 ..
No Data18 <5 .. <5 .. <5 ..
AH
SS
BL
Takers of Maternity Leave
10 100.0 15 100.0 10 100.0 20 100.0
Currently on Leave 6 28.6
Remained PT <5 .. <5 .. <5 .. <5 ..
Remained FT <5 .. 7 46.7 8 72.7 7 33.3
Changed to PT <5 ..
Changed to FT <5 ..
Leavers <5 .. <5 ..
No Data <5 .. <5 .. <5 ..
Pro
fes
sio
nal
an
d
Su
pp
ort
Takers of Maternity Leave
30 100.0 25 100.0 35 100.0 40 100.0
Currently on Leave 13 33
Remained PT 11 39.3 6 24.0 7 20.0 11 27.5
Remained FT <5 .. 7 28.0 7 20.0 <5 ..
Changed to PT <5 .. <5 .. 13 37.1 <5 ..
Changed to FT <5 ..
Leavers <5 .. <5 .. <5 .. <5 ..
No Data 8 28.6 6 24.0 5 14.3 8 20.0
GRAND TOTAL 40 45 50 65
Table 5.5.2: Maternity Returners by STEMM and AHSBBL (2013 to 2016)
(v) Paternity, shared parental, adoption, and parental leave uptake
Our Paternity Leave policy sets out provisions and rights for staff whose partner is pregnant and has
an expected week of birth, or has been notified of a match for adoption. This includes spouses, civil
partners and partners of either sex who meet certain qualifying conditions. Parents can choose to
take either one week or two consecutive weeks’ paternity leave on full pay. There is now a small but
growing number of men across the institution now taking paternity leave (Table 5.5.1).
16 On return to work 17 Within 6 months of their return date or within 6 months of full provisional maternity leave if no return date given 18 No data regarding return date or position as at return (none has been collected for adoption or paternity leave and not all maternity leave has this information
49
(vi) Flexible working
We have seen an increase in requests for flexible working since the law changed in 2014. Nearly all
requests are granted (Table 5.5.3) or alternative arrangements are made. In 2016 more women (50
applicants; 49 were agreed) than men (11 applicants; all agreed) requested flexible working with no
obvious gender inequality in success rates. Feedback from staff networks suggests that more staff
would like to work flexibly yet the number of employees submitting flexible working requests remains
relatively low. We aim to improve our understanding of the uptake of job shares and flexible working
arrangements from a gender perspective and address any issues arising (Action 5.5.9) as well as
more actively promote flexible working opportunities (Action 5.5.10).
Requested Granted % Granted
2013 10 10 100.0
2014 14 13 92.9
2015 53 52 98.1
2016 61 60 98.4
Total 138 135 97.8
Table 5.5.3: Flexible Working Requests 2013 to 2016
(vii) Transition from part-time back to full-time work after career breaks
Under the flexible working policy staff may request a temporary reduction in hours, known as ‘V’
working, for a set period of time, before increasing them again at an agreed date. However,
feedback from our consultative workshops suggests that awareness of this policy is low and practice
varies significantly across Schools (Action 5.5.11). Following a permanent contractual change staff
may put in a further request to move back to a standard pattern. Academic staff have full access to
training and mentoring to help them manage these changes in working arrangements. Unfortunately,
we do not have data on the numbers of staff transitioning between part-time and full-time working.
Actions
5.5.9 Analyse the uptake of job shares and flexible working arrangements to ensure that our
policies are being applied consistently and fairly and address any issues arising.
5.5.10 Raise awareness outside existing EDI networks of our flexible working policy, possible
working patterns and the right of all staff to request flexible working.
Action
5.5.11 Raise awareness of the potential for ‘V’ working and disseminate examples of good
practice for academic staff making the transition from part time back to full-time work
following a career break.
50
(viii) Childcare
The Oaks nursery on the Canterbury campus has 50 places for children of staff and students.
Feedback from parents is very positive and the enlarged provision on a dedicated site from 2014 has
greatly improved the facilities. Staff can take advantage of a salary sacrifice scheme for nursery fees
and there are also paid options for students and staff that are not directly deducted from salary.
Colleagues on the Medway campus have access to the nearby Busy Bees nursery for which we
offer a tax-efficient childcare voucher scheme. These schemes are used by both men and women
across all roles, with women comprising 55-60% of all users in 2016 and 2017.
Feedback from the Athena SWAN consultative workshops suggests that parents struggle to park on
campus after dropping their children off at school. We will explore options to reserve some parking
bays for parents and carers arriving after 9am (Action 5.5.12).
(ix) Caring responsibilities
Colleagues with caring responsibilities for disabled children or adults have access to our full range of
flexible working, special leave and career break policies. We will raise awareness of the support
available via the creation of a dedicated web page for carers (Action 5.6.13).
Actions
5.5.12 Explore the feasibility of introducing reserved parking for staff who arrive after 9am due
to childcare or caring commitments.
Action
5.5.13 Create a specific web page for carers, signposting relevant policies and other useful
information.
51
5.6 ORGANISATION AND CULTURE
(i) Culture
We have made significant progress since our last application in developing policies, providing
training and development opportunities and raising awareness of EDI issues. We launched a Code
of Conduct in 2016 that provides a framework of standards and behaviour, including in relation to
EDI, and summarises key policies that staff are expected to adhere to.
Two thousand staff in 30 departments were involved in the Valuing Everyone programme of
workshops exploring issues of inclusivity and team dynamics, shortlisted for a 2015 Times Higher
Education Award. Participants developed a framework for positive working and reflected on what
they might do differently as a result of their involvement. The next phase – Cross-Cultural
Communication - comes on stream for all staff in 2018 (Action 5.6.1).
Our 50th anniversary celebrations in 2015 included a major project on Radical Women: 50 Years of
Feminism at Kent celebrating the pioneering role Kent played in the establishment of Women’s
Studies as a legitimate and respected discipline in UK higher education in the 1970s. To this day, we
continue to enjoy an unparalleled reputation for feminist research in a number of different disciplines.
A programme of events throughout the year, including a Feminist Action at Kent symposium and
Fifty Years of Feminism film season, brought generations of staff and students together to applaud
the role of women in research and activism.
AS events have been held regularly since 2014 on both campuses. The 2017 event attracted 34
participants, predominantly women. In 2018 we are planning an AS for Men event hosted by the
Vice-Chancellor, reflecting our desire to involve more men and signal that AS is about improving
policy and practice for everyone, not just women.
Our EDI Network (Figure 3.1) was selected by the ECU as an example of innovative sector-leading
practice in advancing equality and diversity. We will continue to encourage these individual networks
and groups (Action 5.6.2) and raise the visibility of our Executive Group equality champions (Action
5.6.3) as part of continuing efforts to raise awareness of our commitment to EDI and better support
staff to take personal responsibility for EDI in their everyday work. This is the sixth objective
informing our action plan.
52
Athena SWAN Event Poster
(ii) HR policies
Feedback from the AS consultative workshops suggests that although the University has all the
appropriate policies and guidelines in place, it is not always easy to find them (Action 5.6.4).
However, we are perceived to be doing well in terms of putting policy into practice; 88% of
professional and support staff and 89% of academic and research staff responding to the first two
phases of the staff survey agree that our policies on equality are respected and promoted in their
School/department. Furthermore, two thirds of all staff surveyed say that unacceptable behaviour is
dealt with effectively.
Our Harassment Contacts volunteer to support staff or students facing bullying or harassment in the
work/study space. They assist in the monitoring of harassment by providing narrative case reports
on an anonymised basis each year. To our knowledge there have been four such cases this year.
HR dealt with two formal complaints of sexual harassment in 2016 and one the previous year.
Managers have access to a dedicated HR Business Partner who provides advice on any issues that
may arise and there is an Information for Managers web page which links to all the relevant
procedures, guidelines and forms. The Dignity at Work policy also includes guidance on how to deal
with informal action and this is being updated in 2018 to ensure it continues to reflect best practice
and emerging trends in EDI.
Actions
5.6.4 Review and restructure HR’s web presence to improve accessibility and transparency of
key policies and information.
Actions
5.6.1 Implement phase two of the Valuing Everyone programme on Cross-Cultural
Communications to help embed Kent values and the importance of EDI.
5.6.2 Work with staff networks to ensure they are as self-sufficient as possible while provided
with necessary organisational support.
5.6.3 Raise the visibility of our Executive Group EDI Champions.
53
(iii) Proportion of heads of school/faculty/department by gender
2017
F M Total % F
STEMM Deans <5 <5 0 ..
Heads of School <5 8 10 ..
AHSSBL Deans <5 <5 0 ..
Heads of School <5 9 15 ..
Total 5 20 25 16.7
Table 5.6.1: Gender Representation of Deans and Heads of School in 2017
Numbers of female Heads of School remain low and there are none in STEMM Schools (Table
5.6.1). Furthermore, all three Faculty Deans are male as are all five portfolio Deans. The dearth of
women in these roles is unacceptable and addressing this issue is our seventh objective.
We will take steps to analyse and increase women’s representation in designated Positions of
Responsibility within Schools, such as Deputy Heads of School and Directors of Research, which
provide an excellent learning opportunity and a stepping stone to more senior positions (Actions
5.6.5 and 5.6.6).
We will also run a pilot Women’s Development Module in January 2018. This fills an identified gap in
provision for women at more senior grades than Aurora and aims to equip and empower potential
future leaders to challenge the current leadership gender imbalance and further their careers with
confidence. We will review its effectiveness and career impact (Action 5.6.7).
(iv) Representation of men and women on senior management committees
2017
F Total % F
Executive Group <5 5 ..
Directors of Major Professional Services <5 5 ..
Total 5 15 50.0
Table 5.6.2: Gender Representation at Senior Management Levels in 2017
Actions
5.6.5 Analyse the gender balance across School Positions of Responsibility with a view to
ensuring that women or men are not concentrated in particular roles.
5.6.6 Consider role sharing or shadowing for School Positions of Responsibility with
historically lower female representation.
5.6.7 Review the effectiveness of the Women’s Development Module by means of focus
groups and analyse the career progression of participants.
54
Women are well represented at executive level, with a female Vice-Chancellor and three other
Executive Group members (Table 5.6.2). In addition, just over half of professional and support staff
at the most senior pay scale are women (5.6.3). In fact, unlike their academic colleagues, female
professional and support staff are well represented at all levels.
2016
2014/15 Kent Grade
Kent (Headcount)
ECU (FPE) F M Total % F
1 112 83 195 57.4
% 2 35 42 77 45.5
% 3 139 102 241 57.7
% 4 226 75 301 75.1
% 5 174 84 258 67.4
% 6 230 105 335 68.7
% 7 228 159 387 58.9
% 8 92 71 163 56.4
% 9 25 25 50 50.0
% 10 12 14 26 46.2
% M&P 16 15 31 51.6
% Total 1289 775 2064 62.5
% Table 5.6.3 Gender Representation by Grade in 2016 for Professional and Support Staff
(v) Representation of men and women on influential institution committees
2016
F Total % F
Council 8 23 34.8
Senate 12 48 25.0
Finance and Resources Committee 5 17 29.4
University Promotions Committee for Academic and Research Staff1 5 8 62.5
Salaries Committee for Professional, Senior Management and Grade 10 Staff1 <5 6 .. Total 30 100 33.3
Table 5.6.4: Gender Representation on Influential Committees
With the exception of promotions and salaries committees, women are significantly
underrepresented on influential committees (Table 5.6.4). The predominance of men on Senate
reflects the dearth of female Heads of School and Deans (Table 5.6.1). We will review the methods
by which committee members are appointed and recommend change as required (Action 5.6.8).
Action
5.6.8 Review the various methods by which staff are invited, nominated or put themselves
forward for senior committee roles and undertake qualitative research to understand the
extent to which these may be gendered and recommend change as required.
55
(vi) Committee workload
Anecdotal evidence suggests that some senior women do more than their fair share of committee
work, including appointment panels. This is particularly the case in STEMM Schools where there are
so few women at senior levels. We will therefore analyse women’s committee workload and ensure it
is appropriately recognised for promotion purposes (Action 5.6.9).
(vii) Institutional policies, practices and procedures
Feedback from the first two phases of the staff survey suggests that 61% of professional and
support staff and 57% of academic and research staff respondents believe the University’s
processes support its culture and the need to get things done in the right way. We will take further
action to embed EDI in our policy making processes and improve the consistency of our
management practices in Schools (Actions 5.6.10 and 5.6.11).
(viii) Workload model
Two thirds of academic staff in phases one and two of our staff survey agree that their School has a
clear and transparent way of allocating workload, with no significant gender differences. There is
room for improvement here and as part of our commitment to good School governance, a set of
principles are being drafted to underpin the operation of Work Allocation Models (WAM) including
EDI. The AS Chair is involved in this process (Action 5.6.12). We will assess WAM transparency
(Action 5.6.13) and confirm with Heads of School that their SAT members are getting appropriate
time allocation (Action 5.6.14).
Actions
5.6.10 Confirm that the Terms of Reference of influential committees include AS as a standing
item.
5.6.11 Fully implement School governance principles to ensure transparent, equitable and
effective management practice across Schools that is broadly consistent.
Actions
5.6.9 Analyse the level and impact of women’s committee workload and ensure it is
recognised in the WAM and for promotion purposes.
56
(ix) Timing of institution meetings and social gatherings
There is no University core hours policy for meetings although teaching constraints are available to
those with caring responsibilities. Nevertheless, the first two phases of our staff survey show that
86% of professional and support staff and 79% of academic and research staff agree that meetings
and work-related social activities take place at times when those with caring responsibilities can
attend.
(x) Visibility of role models
Every effort is made to ensure an appropriate gender balance of speakers and chairpersons at
University events although we are unable to monitor the gender profile of all the individuals
concerned. However, feedback from the first two phases of our staff survey suggests that we are
generally getting things right with 95% of professional and support staff and 94% of academic and
research staff respondents saying that their School/department uses women as well as men as
visible role models (e.g. in staff inductions, presentations, conference speakers, recruitment events
and activities), with a more positive response from women in both cases.
(xi) Outreach activities
Kent staff and postdoctoral students – many of them women - are engaged in a wide range of
academic and cultural outreach activities. For example, Emeritus Professor Mary Evans gave the
2017 Annual Equality Lecture at the British Library. Unfortunately, we do not have central data on
the gender profile of participants.
The Kent Innovation and Enterprise Centre recently launched the Inspire, Challenge, Excel
Programme (ICE-P©) to bridge the gap with the business community and inspire women at all stages
of their lives and careers to take positive actions to develop themselves and others.
Every School undertakes outreach, for example Soapbox Science Canterbury promoting female
scientists and their research. We sponsor a school in Brompton which has gone from being on the
verge of closure to the most over-subscribed school in Kent. A pilot project is underway whereby
four part-time Kent PhD students (three women and one man) bring much needed science
knowledge to the school while undertaking their teacher training.
Within Kent, we have a Student Success project, nominated for a Times Higher Education award,
which aims to improve success rates for all students whatever their background by identifying why
performance gaps appear and devising actions to address them so that they can fulfil their academic
potential.
Actions
5.6.12 Review School commitment to governance principles with respect to WAMs
5.6.13 Continue to assess WAM transparency and fairness through University and School staff
surveys.
5.6.14 Ensure that appropriate WAM points are given for AS committee work and activity.
57
Poster Campaign for Women in Maths
58
(xii) Leadership
The University Plan includes stretching AS targets for all Schools: STEMM Schools to have
achieved silver and all other Schools a bronze award by 2020. Until this summer, we have been
limited in our capacity to provide support for School activities. However, with major new institutional
investment for three additional AS posts (Section 3), we will now be able to provide a combination of
generic toolkits and information (Action 5.6.15), tailor-made ECU workshops (Action 5.6.16) and
support for a School SAT leads network (Action 5.6.17). In addition, we will offer bespoke support to
Schools in planning and monitoring their action plans, including data analysis (Action 5.6.18). In
order to grow our collective expertise, we will actively encourage School SAT leads and others to
train as AS assessors and sit on panels (Action 5.6.19).
Actions
5.6.15 Refresh and expand the current AS Sharepoint site with toolkits and other supporting
documentation for School submissions.
5.6.16 Organise tailor-made ECU workshops to meet School SAT needs.
5.6.17 Develop a School SAT leads network for peer-to-peer networking and support and the
sharing of good practice.
5.6.18 Provide bespoke support for School SATs, including data collection and analysis.
5.6.19 Increase the number of staff, including all School SAT leads, who undertake ECU
assessor training for AS and who sit both on external panels and internal mock panels.
59
6. SUPPORTING TRANS PEOPLE
Recommended word count: Bronze: 500 words | Actual: 319 words
(i) Current policy and practice
We believe that it is good practice to have policies and procedures in place that are inclusive of all
staff regardless of their gender identity and have committed to recognising and celebrating the
diversity of gender identity/expression of our staff and students. In support of this:
The Vice-Chancellor champions LGBT+ Gender issues.
A new Supporting Gender Reassignment in the Workplace staff guide has been developed in
conjunction with transgender staff, containing information on language and etiquette, FAQs and
a managers’ toolkit. This complements existing EDI and Dignity at Work policies.
A Transgender Awareness e-learning course is available for all staff on the EDI website,
providing guidance on supporting trans colleagues.
We support and promote the work of the LGBT+ Staff Network which has operated since 2012,
meets termly and has approximately 60 members.
The network has organised or participated in events including Canterbury Pride, International
Day against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHOT) and the 2017 Researching the Rainbow
Conference showcasing the array of research undertaken at Kent on LGBT+ and transgender
issues.
Kent achieved a Stonewall 2016 Workplace Ranking of 21/54 for higher education institutions. This
benchmarking exercise evaluates LGBT+ friendly workplace practices and measures institutional
efforts to tackle discrimination and promote sexual orientation and trans equality.
(ii) Monitoring
There is currently no facility to record gender identity through the employee self-service function on
the new Staff Connect system. We will liaise with HR colleagues on this issue with the aim of
ensuring that our systems are as inclusive as possible and that we are better able to monitor the
diversity of our workplace and provide appropriate employment support (Action 6.1).
(iii) Further work
We will continue our support of the LGBT+ Network and its awareness-raising events and
campaigns and analyse the uptake and perceived value of the online Transgender Awareness
programme (Action 6.2).
We will also seek to ensure that channels for reporting, and support for, harassment are trans-
inclusive and clearly communicated (Action 6.3).
60
International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHOT) 2017
Actions
6.1 Include gender identity in EDI reporting on the Staff Connect HR system and
incorporate in future monitoring.
6.2 Analyse the uptake and perceived value of the online Transgender Awareness
programme.
6.3 Ensure that channels for reporting, and support for, harassment are trans inclusive and
clearly communicated.
61
UNIVERSITY OF KENT ATHENA SWAN ACTION PLAN (2018-2020)
This action plan underpins the University’s commitment to AS principles and promoting gender equality. It sets out the activities that we will undertake to address
the issues identified in this bronze award self-assessment. The plan is a ‘living document’ that will be reviewed every six months by the institutional SAT and
revised as necessary in response to changing circumstances. Those actions given highest priority will be started in Year One (2018).
This plan was developed by the institutional SAT in collaboration with the HR Directorate and approved by the Director of HR and the Vice-Chancellor, who is
herself a SAT member. The Vice-Chancellor and her colleagues on the Executive Group are ultimately responsible for the delivery of the proposed outputs.
The plan was informed by analysis of all available quantitative and qualitative data and feedback from a series of consultative workshops, surveys and focus
groups. It is structured around the objectives set out on the following page.
Rather than a wish list of activities, this plan has been developed as a tightly focused and deliverable basis for action designed to have organisational impact. It
aligns with the overarching University Plan (2015-2020 – currently under revision), the People Strategy (2015-2020) and other relevant strategies and policies,
notably for teaching and research. As far as possible it builds upon actions already committed to in these core strategies. This should ensure that the actions
outlined in this plan are both ‘mainstreamed’ and adequately resourced - and hence realistic and sustainable.
Key
AD Assistant Director ASWG Athena SWAN Working Group ECR(N) Early Career Researcher (Network) EG Executive Group L&OD Learning and Organisational Development RDWG Researcher Development Working Group REEP Recognising Excellence in Education Project UELT Unit for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching
62
OBJECTIVES
The analysis presented in Sections 4 and 5 has identified a number of key issues relating to the recruitment, retention and progression of female academics
and researchers at Kent. In consultation with other staff, the SAT has developed a high-level objective to address each of these problem areas (Table 7.1).
These objectives provide both the focus for, and structure of, the action plan that follows. In this plan, actions are organised thematically according to the
objective to which they relate. The aim is to ensure that our actions are focused around identified priorities that are evidence based. In this way, every action
should take us closer to achieving our goals.
Identified Problem Area Objective
Cross-cutting
Previous under-resourcing of AS activity has limited our ability to support
Schools and to plan and advance our institution-wide AS agenda.
To improve our capacity to progress our institutional AS agenda and offer
proactive and bespoke support for Schools.
Thematic
1 The significant drop in the proportion of women from researcher to
lecturer level in both STEMM and AHSSBL Schools.
To improve career development support for researchers and increase the
proportion of female lecturers to 45% by 2020 (43.8%)19 .
2 A second significant drop off in women’s representation at reader level,
leading to an insufficiently large pool of potential future professors.
To increase the proportion of qualified women securing promotion from senior
lecturer to reader to 40% by 2020 (26.3%).
3 The proportion of applications from women is low, particularly in STEMM
Schools, and declining overall.
To increase the proportion of applications from women to 40% overall and 30%
in STEMM by 2020 (32.4% and 22.9%).
4 Lack of data means that we have a poor understanding of the influence
that part-time working and/or career breaks have on the career
progression of female staff.
To better understand the impact of part-time working and/or career breaks on
progression and improve support in these areas.
5 Despite recent improvements, there is a vertical pay gap that reflects
(Kent and sector-wide) career pipeline issues for women.
To understand whether current pay and reward procedures are having
gendered outcomes and identify recommendations for action.
6 EDI not yet fully embedded in University working practices.
To raise awareness of our commitment to EDI and better support staff to take
personal responsibility for EDI in their everyday work.
7 A low proportion of women in senior academic roles, such as Heads of
School and Faculty Deans.
To increase the pipeline of leadership-ready women and the proportion of
female Heads of School and Deans to 30% by 2020 (16.7%) including at least
one post holder in STEMM.
19 Figures in brackets are baseline figures for 2016.
63
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
Cross-cutting Objective: To improve our capacity to progress our institutional AS agenda and offer proactive and bespoke support for Schools
3.1 Refresh membership of the ASWG annually and encourage
more male participation to improve the gender balance of
both AWSG and its sub-group: the institutional SAT.
Annually from
Autumn 2018
Spring 2019
AS Chair
AS Chair
Membership list remains current, to include all
School SAT leads.
Increased male representation on ASWG (via
discussions with Heads of School) and SAT (via
Chair’s invitation) more in line with institutional
gender balance of 55%F; 45%M.
Increased representation from professional and
support services staff.
New Deputy Chair designate appointed to
ensure smooth succession management.
3.2 Keep ASWG’s name and Terms of Reference under regular
review to ensure they remain fit for purpose.
Spring 2018
and 2020
AS Chair Terms of Reference remain relevant and
appropriate.
3.3 SAT team to meet termly for the life of the action plan to
receive progress reports and amend the plan as required.
Termly from
Spring 2018
AS Chair; SAT Action plan reviewed and updated.
Any necessary remedial action identified and
agreed.
3.4 SAT Chair to give a formal progress report to Council on an
annual basis and keep ASWG updated on developments.
Annually from
2018
Termly from
Spring 2018
AS Chair
AS Chair
Annual progress reports to Council.
Termly updates to ASWG meetings.
3.5 Raise awareness of AS activities across the University via
AS events and a range of communications channels.
Ongoing from
January 2018
AS Team Two half-day AS events per year open to all
staff (2018 events already scheduled).
Bi-annual AS newsletter.
Refreshed AS website.
Termly AS/EDI-related feature in University e-
newsletter/Campus Online.
Regular AS/EDI content on Kent’s social media
channels, including Twitter and Instagram.
64
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
3.6 Review the success of the investment in the AS team and
its integration into wider EDI activities.
Annually from
2018
EG; AS Chair Institutional Bronze Award.
Success of School submissions.
Progress towards institutional-level Silver
submission.
Further integration of AS with other EDI
activities.
3.7 Continue to work with HR colleagues to ensure systems are
developed with AS reporting requirements in mind and build
capacity within the AS team to service institutional and
School data needs.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
AS Team
AS data needs considered in the design and
ongoing development of the new e-recruitment
and Staff Connect HR systems.
AS Data Analyst given required systems access,
including Heidi (for HEFCE data).
5.6.14 Ensure that appropriate WAM points are given for AS
committee work and activity.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
Autumn 2018
AS Chair; Heads
of School
All School WAMs give proper credit for SAT lead
roles by September 2018.
Shared good practice across Schools.
5.6.15 Refresh and expand the current AS Sharepoint site with
toolkits and other supporting documentation for School
submissions.
April 2018 AS Team Invited feedback from SAT leads at networking
events on usefulness of information.
Identified and filled any gaps.
5.6.16 Organise tailor-made ECU workshops to meet School SAT
needs.
Annually from
2018
AS Team Consulted with SAT leads to determine best
topics and delivered workshops accordingly.
5.6.17 Develop a School SAT leads network for peer-to-peer
networking and support and the sharing of good practice.
Ongoing from
Spring 2018
AS Team;
ASWG
Termly networking events
Positive feedback from SAT leads on the value
of the support they receive.
5.6.18 Provide bespoke support for School SATs, including data
collection and analysis.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
AS Team Positive feedback from School SATs on
timeliness and quality of data provided.
Programme of mock assessment panels.
Success of School submissions.
5.6.19 Increase the number of staff, including all School SAT
leads, who undertake ECU assessor training for AS and
who sit both on external panels and internal mock panels.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
AS Team;
School SAT
leads
All SAT leads to be ECU trained by 2019.
Doubled the number of staff eligible to sit on
panels from 14 to 28.
65
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
Thematic Objective One: To improve career development support for researchers and increase the proportion of female lecturers to 45% by 2020
4.1 Keep the gender profile of our fixed-term staff under review
and report any potential gender inequalities that may arise.
Annually from
Autumn 2018
AS Team
Annual report on gender profile for SAT.
4.2 Analyse from a gender perspective the impact of the pilot
project to consult with HPLs on the offer of full academic
contracts.
Spring 2019 AS Team Report on gendered impact for SAT and HR.
5.1.11 Improve the promotion of induction processes and events to
researchers via the Early Career Researcher Network.
Autumn 2019 Research
Services;
RDWG Reps
Dissemination via Early Career Researcher
Network.
Positive impact on researchers’ access to
induction as measured by 2019 RDWG survey
(currently 66%).
5.3.2 Raise awareness of, and satisfaction with, development
opportunities for researchers.
Autumn 2019 RDWG; AS
Team
30,000 annual page visits to portal by 2019.
Level of awareness and satisfaction up to 70%
as measured by 2019 RDWG survey.
5.3.3 Evaluate Research Leader Training for Principal
Investigators and postdoctoral researchers in supervisory
positions for uptake and user satisfaction.
Summer 2018
ongoing
AS Team;
RDWG Reps
Analysis of feedback from training participants.
Proposals for modifying programme if required.
Positive impact on appraisee satisfaction as
measured by 2019 RDWG Survey (currently
80%).
5.3.9 Increase the proportion of researchers having access to
appraisal.
Autumn 2019 Heads of
School; RDWG
Increase to 50% the proportion of researchers
having appraisals as measured by 2019 RDWG
survey (currently 45%).
5.3.11 Provide training for Principal Investigators to undertake
RPDs effectively, including discussions on career
development.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
RDWG: AD,
L&OD
L&OD Advisor assigned to Research Services to
provide guidance and support.
One workshop delivered per year.
Uptake of online support increases to 50% as
measured by 2019 RDWG survey.
66
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
Thematic Objective Two: To increase the proportion of qualified women securing promotion from senior lecturer to reader to 40% by 2020
4.4 Analyse the gender profile of staff on teaching and
scholarship contracts over time.
Annually from
Autumn 2018
AS Team Annual report for SAT.
5.1.12 Complete the REEP consultation process (and
accompanying data analysis) and make recommendations
to improve the promotions success rates of applications
based primarily on the strength of the candidate’s teaching
practice.
Spring 2019 REEP Team Evaluation of current practice.
Development of benchmark standards.
Project recommendations published.
4.5 Analyse the impact of REEP on career progression from a
gender perspective.
Summer 2020 AS Team; REEP
Team
Gender analysis of findings.
Report to SAT and REEP.
Further action identified as required.
5.1.13 Review the operation of School Promotions Panels with a
view to identifying and sharing examples of good practice,
improving panel guidance and protocols to enhance
consistency of practice across Schools.
Summer 2019 AS Team; UPC;
Deans
Report for UPC.
Feedback to Schools from UPC.
Revised guidance for SPPs.
5.1.14 Undertake additional qualitative research designed to
understand the reasons that some staff may take longer to
apply for promotion and ascertain whether the self-
application process may be leading to gendered outcomes.
Summer 2018 AS Team Focus groups with selected staff.
Report for SAT and UPC.
5.1.15 Analyse unsuccessful promotions applications for reader
(which include written feedback for applicants) to
understand the reasons for rejection with the aim of
improving the quality of future applications and success
rates.
Summer 2018 AS Team Report for SAT.
Liaison with HR over guidance to Schools and
applicants.
5.1.16 Update the Preparing for Promotions briefings as required
based on any feedback from the Women’s Network.
Autumn 2018 EDI Manager;
Reward
Manager; Chair,
Women’s
Network
Feedback invited.
Briefings meet current needs.
Increase in proportion of women putting
themselves forward for promotion to 40%.
67
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
5.1.17 Analyse the characteristics of those being considered for
submission to REF 2021 during the planning stages and
take remedial action where any inequalities emerge
Ongoing from
2017
Research
Services; REF
Steering Group
Analysis undertaken (2018) and
recommendations for change proposed.
5.1.18 Expand the pool of female decision makers for the REF
2021 submission, including REF Coordinators in Schools.
Autumn 2017 Research
Services
Gender balance of decision makers more
closely reflects that of eligible pool (i.e. 37% F).
5.3.8 Complete the planned review of RPD in 2018 and develop
an action plan for strengthening its role, with enhanced
support where necessary.
Summer 2018
Summer 2020
AD, L&OD; AS
Team
RPD review and action plan completed.
Changes made to training /support specification.
75% agreement with staff survey question “I am
encouraged to access relevant opportunities to
develop my career”.
5.3.10 Analyse appraiser training uptake and encourage Heads of
Schools with low participation rates to take remedial action.
Summer 2018 Faculty Deans;
Heads of
School; AS
Team
Schools with low training uptake identified.
Understand baseline numbers of academic staff
undertaking appraiser training from 2018 and
improve as required.
5.3.12 Review and strengthen academic mentoring arrangements,
seeking to identify and disseminate examples of good
practice across Schools, with the aim of giving everyone
access to a post-probation mentor if they wish.
Summer 2018 AS Team;
Heads of School
Good practice disseminated across Schools.
Increase in availability of post-probation
mentors.
5.3.13 Require Schools to have a transparent framework of
mentoring provision and maintain records of mentoring
activity.
Summer 2018 School
Governance
Group; AS
Team
School Governance Guidance developed to
include mentoring requirements.
Increase in mentoring activity as measured by
University and School staff surveys.
5.3.14 Increase visibility and take up of training on mentoring Ongoing from AD, L&OD Visibility of School’s mentoring activities on
website.
Increase in trained mentors from 2016 baseline.
50% increase in number of staff signed up to
KEW-NET (currently 35).
5.3.15 Continue to support and develop learning and teaching
networks and undertake research to establish that existing
networks remain fit for purpose.
Ongoing UELT; Research
Services; AS
Team
Network members consulted and
recommendations for change proposed.
68
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
5.6.9 Analyse the level and impact of women’s committee
workload and ensure it is recognised in the WAM and for
promotion purposes.
Ongoing from
Spring 2018
AS Team Baseline data on level of women’s involvement.
Focus group feedback on the impact of
committee work on women’s workload
Recommendations to Heads of School and
UPC.
Thematic Objective Three: To increase the proportion of applications from women to 40% overall and 30% in STEMM by 2020
5.1.1 Commission and implement a new e-recruitment system. Ongoing AD, Resourcing System developed and launched.
5.1.2 Commission the University’s new creative advertising
agency to explore options to reach more potential female
applicants, particularly in STEMM.
2018 AS Team; AD,
Resourcing
Identification of potential new media.
Campaign ideas developed and rolled out.
Increase in applications by women to 30%.
5.1.3 Analyse a selection of our job advertisements and conduct
focus groups to improve our understanding of what may be
attractive/off-putting to women.
Summer 2018 AS Team Feedback results to Resourcing Team and
creative agency.
Develop new guidance for recruiting managers.
5.1.4 Review our website, adverts and other recruitment-related
material to ensure that they promote our commitment to AS
and EDI.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
AS Team Website refreshed and materials revised.
Evaluation via focus groups.
5.1.5 Roll out Positive Action Statements and evaluate their
impact.
Ongoing from
Spring 2018
AS Team; AD,
Resourcing
Guidance disseminated.
School Administration Managers given access
to gender profile report on Staff Connect.
Usage of Statements monitored and their
effectiveness evaluated.
Recommendations for change, as required.
5.1.6 Review and refresh the current Recruitment and Selection
online training provision and enhance the EDI element of
our Recruitment and Selection face-to-face training,
including unconscious bias.
Spring 2018 AS Team; AD,
L&OD
Training enhanced.
Improvements to recruitment and selection
practice.
5.1.7 Design and provide bespoke Executive Recruitment and
Selection training for Executive Group members and
Deans.
Summer 2018
to Sprint 2019
AD, L&OD Executive Group and Deans to have undertaken
training by Spring 2019
69
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
5.1.8 Panel Chairs to record panel membership and training they
have undertaken on the interview outcome form to permit
future monitoring.
Summer 2018 AD, Resourcing;
Panel Chairs;
AS Team
Analyse gender profile of panel members and
report to SAT.
Baseline data on training uptake.
5.1.9 Explore the introduction of automated blind shortlisting with
the launch of the new e-recruitment system to ensure
consistency and transparency of the shortlisting process
against essential criteria.
Autumn 2019 AD, Resourcing Consistent and transparent shortlisting.
Reduced opportunity for unconscious bias in
decision making.
Gender equality enhanced.
Thematic Objective Four: To better understand the impact of part-time working and/or career breaks on progression and improve support in these areas
4.3 Undertake qualitative research to understand the
consequences of part-time working on the career
progression of female academic and research staff and
make recommendations for action as required.
From Autumn
2018
AS Team Interviews and/or focus groups with female part-
time staff.
Analysis of findings and report for SAT.
Recommendations agreed by SAT for future
action plan development.
5.5.1 Improve the signposting to online information resources for
staff about to take maternity or paternity leave.
Ongoing 2018 HR; AS Team Quality and accessibility of information assessed
by focus groups and/or targeted survey.
5.5.2 Ensure that Heads of School and other line managers are
aware of the family friendly checklist
Ongoing 2018 HR Business
Partners
Focus groups or targeted survey.
5.5.3 Undertake focus groups with staff returning from maternity
leave and repeat survey to improve our understanding of
how Keeping in Touch (KIT) Days are currently used and
identify areas for improvement.
Summer 2018 AS Team Measure uptake and satisfaction.
Increase in numbers of staff taking all their KIT
days from 2017 baseline of 37% as measured
by 2020 KIT survey.
5.5.4 Undertake an audit of facilities across the two campuses to
identify suitable spaces for breastfeeding and investigate
whether providing such facilities can be included in
minimum requirements for new buildings.
Autumn 2018 AS Team;
Estates
Map of current facilities developed and
published.
Contractors advised of requirements.
5.5.5 Explore the degree of interest in creating a parent/carer
buddy system or network and how it could best work
Spring 2018 AS Team Focus group/workshop to establish way forward.
70
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
5.5.6 Analyse the uptake of sabbatical leave by staff returning
from a career break and subsequent career progression
and make recommendations for change as required.
Spring 2018 AS Team Analysis completed and report for SAT.
Findings and recommendations disseminated to
Heads of School.
5.5.7 Identify examples of good practice in return-to-work
procedures, e.g. reduced teaching load, and seek
opportunities to share these across Schools.
Spring 2018 AS Team Develop good practice guide and promote on
AS/HR website.
Disseminate to Heads of School.
5.5.8 Develop case studies of staff who have had a successful
return to work following a career break.
Spring 2018 AS Team Case studies produced and published on AS
website.
5.5.9 Analyse the uptake of job shares and flexible working
arrangements to ensure that our policies are being applied
consistently and fairly and address any issues arising.
Summer 2018 AS Team Analysis completed and report to SAT and HR.
Recommendations for change as required.
5.5.10 Raise awareness outside existing EDI networks of our
flexible working policy, possible working patterns and the
right of all staff to request flexible working.
Summer 2018 AS Team Improved information on website.
Dissemination event on flexible working
opportunities.
5.5.11 Raise awareness of the potential for ‘V’ working and
disseminate examples of good practice for academic staff
making the transition from part time back to full-time work
following a career break.
Summer 2018 AS Team More visible and accessible information on
website.
Good practice examples identified.
Dissemination event on flexible working
opportunities.
5.5.12 Explore the feasibility of introducing reserved parking for
staff who arrive after 9am due to childcare or caring
commitments.
2019 AS Team;
Estates
Discussions with Estates and other stakeholders
to assess potential demand and feasibility
Recommendation made.
5.5.13 Create a specific web page for carer’s information,
signposting them to relevant policies and other useful
information.
2019 AS Team Web page developed and published.
71
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
Thematic Objective Five: To understand whether current pay and reward procedures are having gendered outcomes and identify recommendations for
action
4.6
Require Chairs of appointment panels to review gender-
based institutional salary data (and, where appropriate,
market data) and undertaken a comparability check with
existing staff to inform and justify starting salary decisions.
Summer 2018 Panel Chairs;
AD, Resourcing
Gendered pay report made accessible to School
Administration Managers.
Interview outcome form amended.
Panel Chairs given appropriate guidance on
required change to practice.
Compliance monitored.
4.7 Analyse the starting salaries of staff at different grades to
understand if there are any gender inequalities and make
recommendations for change as required.
Autumn 2018 AS Team Data collated and analysed.
Report to SAT and HR.
4.8 Analyse the rate of within-grade progression of a sample of
staff from starting salary to the top discretionary point of
their grade to identify whether there are any gender
differences (and, if so, undertake follow-up research to
understand the extent to which the requirement to self-
apply for discretionary pay points may act as a perceived
barrier).
Autumn 2018 AS Team Analysis completed and report for SAT and HR.
Follow-up research, if required, to understand
gendered nature of the application process.
4.9 Assess the desirability from an equal pay perspective of
segmenting the Managerial and Professorial pay scale
according to specific criteria to facilitate more consistent
and justifiable pay decisions.
Spring 2020 AD, Operations
& Reward
Report to Staff Policy Committee.
4.10
Develop reward policies to clarify procedures and
expectations and increase transparency on pay and reward.
Spring 2020 AD, Operations
& Reward
Report to Staff Policy Committee.
72
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
Thematic Objective Six: To raise awareness of our commitment to EDI and better support staff to take personal responsibility for EDI in their everyday
work
5.1.10 Incorporate an unconscious bias element into the EDI
section of the University’s induction events.
Autumn 2017 AD, L&DO New staff made aware of potential for
unconscious bias.
5.1.19 All REF decision makers at Kent to receive tailor-made EDI
training, including on unconscious bias.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
Research
Services
Review the number of staff undertaking the
training to achieve 100% by next REF
5.3.4 Explore options for providing an online Unconscious Bias
module and adding/incorporating this to the EDI module for
all new staff.
Summer 2018 AD, L&DO Enhanced module developed.
Increased uptake through inclusion in induction
process.
5.3.5 Embed EDI considerations across the full range of
development opportunities wherever viable to do so.
Ongoing from
Autumn 2017
EG EDI
Champions; EDI
Manager; AD,
L&OD
EDI considerations in all in-house training where
appropriate.
Specific EDI questions on all evaluations.
Active follow up on feedback.
5.3.6 Explore the Explore the potential for ring-fencing some of
the central training budget for EDI-related programmes.
Ongoing from
January 2018
EDI Manager;
AD, L&OD
Options explored and recommendation made.
5.6.1 Implement phase two of the Valuing Everyone programme
on Cross-Cultural Communications to help embed Kent
values and the importance of EDI.
Spring 2018 AD, L&OD Phase two of Valuing Everyone rolled out.
Evaluation completed.
5.6.2 Work with staff networks to ensure that they are as self-
sufficient as possible while provided with necessary
organisational support
Autumn 2018 EDI Manager Undertake discussions with group chairs.
Make recommendations and changes as
appropriate.
5.6.3 Raise the visibility of our Executive Group EDI Champions. Autumn 2018 Vice-Chancellor
& President
Increased visibility of Champion roles on our
website.
5.6.4 Review and restructure HR’s web presence to improve
accessibility and transparency of key policies and
information.
Spring 2018
ongoing
AD, Resourcing Improved knowledge of policies as measured by
University and School surveys.
73
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
5.6.10 Confirm that the Terms of Reference of influential
committees include AS as a standing item.
Autumn 2019 AS Chair; AS
Team
AS considerations embedded in committee
Terms of Reference and agendas.
5.6.11 Fully implement School governance principles to ensure
transparent, equitable and effective management practice
across Schools that is broadly consistent.
Autumn 2018 School
Governance
Group; AS
Chair;
Improved consistency of policy implementation
across Schools.
5.6.12 Review School commitment to governance principles with
respect to WAMs
From Summer
2018
Heads of
School; Deans
All School websites to have clear information
about their WAM principles by autumn 2018.
5.6.13 Continue to assess WAM transparency and fairness
through University and School staff surveys.
Autumn 2018
ongoing
AS Team Increase the numbers of staff who agree that
their School has a clear and transparent way of
allocating workload from 66% to 80%.
Thematic Objective Seven: To increase the pipeline of leadership-ready women and the proportion of female Heads of School and Deans to 30% by 2020
including at least one post holder in STEMM
5.1.20 Encourage female staff to seek nomination to external REF
panels.
Autumn 2017 Research
Services; Heads
of School
Increased numbers of Kent female staff on REF
panels.
5.3.1 Increase the number of Aurora participants from STEMM
Schools.
2018 AS Team; AD,
L&OD
Heavily promote Aurora within STEMM Schools.
Review application split to improve access for
STEMM academics.
Aim to increase number of applicants by three.
5.3.7 Analyse the perceived value and impact of academic
leadership schemes – particularly those designed for
women - by tracking the career progress of participants.
Ongoing from
January 2018
AS Team Undertake focus group of training participants.
Track career progression.
Report to SAT.
5.6.5 Analyse the gender balance across School Positions of
Responsibility with a view to ensuring that women or men
are not concentrated in particular roles.
Ongoing from
January 2018
AS Team Any gender imbalances identified and
addressed.
74
Reference Proposed Actions Timeframe Responsibility Outputs and Success Measures
5.6.6 Consider role sharing or shadowing for School Positions of
Responsibility with historically lower female representation.
Ongoing from
Summer 2018
AS Team;
Deans
Collect examples of good practice
Disseminate results and ideas to Schools.
Track career progression of women in these
roles.
5.6.7 Review the effectiveness of the Women’s Development
Module by means of focus group(s) and analyse the career
progression of participants.
2019 AS Team; AD
L&DO
Organise focus group(s) and analysis of data
Recommendations for improvement
Report after one and two years any change in
participant roles
5.6.8 Review the various methods by which staff are invited,
nominated or put themselves forward for senior committee
roles and undertake qualitative research to understand the
extent to which these may be gendered and recommend
change as required.
Summer 2018 AS Team;
Deans; EG
Interview key stakeholders
Focus group with staff on senior committees
Report to SAT
Supporting Trans People
6.1 Include gender identity in EDI reporting on the Staff
Connect HR system and incorporate in future monitoring.
Spring 2019 AS Team;
Manager, HR
Systems &
Planning
Change to system functionality (if feasible).
Trans staff included in AS monitoring if possible.
6.2 Analyse the uptake and perceived value of the online
Transgender Awareness programme.
Autumn 2019 AS Team; EDI
Manager
Quantitative data analysed and focus group,
including LGBT+ Network members, run.
Recommendations for change as required.
6.3 Ensure that channels for reporting, and support for,
harassment are trans inclusive and clearly communicated.
Summer 2018 EDI Manager Harassment Contacts consulted and briefed.
Improved promotion of support available.