Athena SWAN Silver department award application
Name of university: University College London
Department: Institute of Neurology
Date of application: 23/04/2013
Date of university Bronze and/or Silver Athena SWAN award: Bronze renewal 2009
Contact for application: Mary M Reilly
Email: m.reilly@ucl.ac.uk
Telephone: 08451 555000
Departmental website address: www.ucl.ac.uk/ion
Athena SWAN Silver Department awards recognise that in addition to university-wide policies the
department is working to promote gender equality and to address challenges particular to the
discipline.
Not all institutions use the term ‘department’ and there are many equivalent academic groupings
with different names, sizes and compositions. The definition of a ‘department’ for SWAN purposes
can be found on the Athena SWAN website. If in doubt, contact the Athena SWAN Officer well in
advance to check eligibility.
It is essential that the contact person for the application is based in the department.
Sections to be included
At the end of each section state the number of words used. Click here for additional guidance on
completing the template.
1.
Letter of endorsement from the head of department: maximum 500 words
An accompanying letter of endorsement from the head of department should explain how the
SWAN action plan and activities in the department contribute to the overall department strategy
and academic mission.
The letter is an opportunity for the head of department to confirm their support for the
application and to endorse and commend any women and STEMM activities that have made a
significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission.
1
UCL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGY
QUEEN SQUARE
THE NATIONAL HOSPITAL FOR NEUROLOGY AND
NEUROSURGERY
QUEEN SQUARE
LONDON WC1N 3BG
From the Office of Prof. Michael G Hanna, Director, Institute of Neurology
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
44 (0)20 7692 2362
44 (0)20 7278 5069
N.Naeem@ucl.ac.uk
12.4.13
Dear Ms Dickinson,
Athena SWAN Application Letter of Endorsement
As Director of the UCL Institute of Neurology, I am writing to strongly endorse the Institute’s
application for an Athena SWAN Silver award.
The application has been put together by a dedicated team of individuals led by Professor Mary Reilly
and representing the spectrum of roles, both professional and personal, across the Institute. I am
very grateful for their commitment to the Athena SWAN process, and also to the 356 eligible staff in
the Institute of Neurology (over 70% of whom returned the survey) for their contribution. I have also
personally been a member of this team in order to show commitment to the Athena SWAN principles
at the highest level.
The current culture in the Institute is inclusive. Teamwork is highly valued, individual strengths are
recognized and celebrated, and there is a commitment to advancing the careers of everyone,
regardless of gender or role. Although there are no formal flexible working arrangements in place
informal flexible working is common. We aim to provide a family friendly environment where both
women and men feel able to take the time they need for family.
The Athena SWAN application process has shown areas where we are meeting our objectives and
areas where we can continue to advance. I was particularly pleased that in the staff survey, 88% of
both female and male respondents agree work was allocated on a fair basis irrespective of gender.
We still have improvements to make. We don't have enough senior women and those we do have
can become overburdened as a consequence of female representation issues at all levels. There are
clear areas for improvement and these form the core of our action plan - which we believe is realistic,
achievable, measureable and meaningful.
I am very pleased to see that in this year’s process for promotion to senior lecturer, reader or chair
three out of seven applications are women, including one of only two applications for chair level. This
is the result of the process we have put in place over last 4 years to increase the number of women
promoted to senior positions and is very encouraging for our future balance of women and men at
the most senior levels of the Institute.
UCL Institute of Neurology  National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery  Queen Square  London WC1N 3BG
 +44 (0)20 7692 2362  Fax: +44 (0)20 7278 5069  http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ion/
Director: Professor Michael G Hanna BSc(Hons) MBChB(Hons) MD FRCP(UK)
Institute Secretary: R P Walker BSc (Econ)
The Institute of Neurology promotes teaching and research of the highest quality in neurology and the neurosciences.
2
We have all agreed that the Athena SWAN panel meeting will be embedded in the termly cycle of
academic meetings and that the Athena SWAN panel will monitor and address key gender issues.
Furthermore, Athena SWAN will continue to be a standing item on the Institute executive committeethe most senior committee of the Institute, which meets monthly.
These arrangements will provide a robust conduit for information flow to the eight Institute
Departments and will allow contributions from all stakeholders to inform strategy.
This application has my strongest support.
With best wishes and kind regards.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Michael G Hanna
Director, UCL Institute of Neurology
(463)
3
2.
The self-assessment process: maximum 1000 words
Describe the self-assessment process. This should include:
a) A description of the self assessment team: members’ roles (both within the department
and as part of the team) and their experiences of work-life balance
The self assessment team (SAT) in the Institute of Neurology (ION), was convened in June 2012.
The 9 members of the team were carefully chosen to represent the breadth and diversity of staff
working in ION and to capture a wide variety of both professional and personal experiences and
comprise:
Prof Mary Reilly is the chair of the SAT and the main departmental coordinator of the SWAN
process. She was appointed the first female Professor of Clinical Neurology with a joint ION/NHNN
(National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery) contract in 2010 and as the first female head
of the Division of Clinical Neurology within ION in 2012. She has extensive experience of
mentoring and student supervision.
Katy Pestell works in the ION Personnel Department and is the administrative lead for the SWAN
process, responsible for the collection and validation of all student and staff data. She is married
and expecting her first child.
Prof Michael Hanna is the Director of ION and an active SAT member. As ION Director and
Director of an MRC centre and as a previous Clinical Director of NHNN, he has an impressive
record of actively recruiting and promoting women. He is married to a GP and actively involved in
the upbringing of his 4 children.
Prof Tom Warner is a Professor of Clinical Neurology in ION. He helped design the staff survey
(ION survey) and provided particular input to the SAT team from his experience of work life
balance as a married man with 3 children who is closely involved in their upbringing with his wife,
a consultant paediatrician.
Prof Linda Greensmith is a Professor of Neuroscience at UCL and was appointed as the first female
head of department in ION in 2010. She contributes extensively to the SWAN process both from
her experience of being a successful non-clinical academic and as lead for the non-clinical
mentoring programme. She is married to a clinician scientist, has 3 children and is a role model as
a woman who has reached a position of seniority.
Dr Alex Leff is a Clinical Senior Lecturer in ION and NHNN. He particularly contributed to the
design of the ION survey and to the interpretation and presentation of the student and staff data.
He also researched the idea of a maternity mentoring system. He has 4 children and is actively
involved in their upbringing.
Dr Ed Wild is a Clinical Lecturer in ION. He contributed to the design of the ION survey, the
development of the SWAN action plan and the presentation of the student and staff data. His
experience of working in a group led by a female professor was very valuable.
Dr Helene Plun-Favreau is a Senior Research Fellow in ION. Helene is a case study for this
application and her experience as a non-clinical scientist has been very instructive to the SAT
team. Helene, with encouragement from the SAT team, has applied for senior promotion in 2013.
4
Amelie Pandraud is a final-year non-clinical PhD student in the MRC Centre for Neuromuscular
Diseases, ION. Her experience as a PhD student in ION has been very helpful to the SAT team.
(521)
b) an account of the self assessment process: details of the self assessment team meetings,
including any consultation with staff or individuals outside of the university, and how these
have fed into the submission
The SAT team has met monthly since June 2012 and the SAT chair (Mary Reilly) and the
administrative lead (Katy Pestell) have met weekly. In the first meeting clear terms of reference,
SAT member roles and time lines were set with the aim of a Silver SWAN application in April 2013.
To date all time lines have been met including:
•
design, implementation and interpretation of the ION survey by October 2012
•
collection, validation and analysis of the student and staff data by October 2012
•
development of an action plan by December 2012
•
implementation of updated, finalised and agreed action plan by February 2013
•
preparation and submission of Silver SWAN application by April 2013
Much of the student and staff data was provided centrally from UCL HR (human resources).
Analysis of this data revealed a number of areas of inaccuracy which were validated locally and
new systems implemented to provide more accurate data in the future which will be monitored
(see 4. Key transition points a) (i)). As ION is a large department with 356 clinical and non-clinical
academic staff, the SAT designed a bespoke survey to capture staff experiences using a
combination of questions developed by the UKRC together with ION specific ones. The response
rate for the survey was over 70% and the information from the survey was fundamental for the
development of our action plan (survey details, section 5).
The SAT had extensive discussions and help from many other UCL sources including the faculty of
Brain Sciences, the School of Life Sciences and especially the Equalities and Diversity team in UCL.
We also used many national resources identified through the Athena SWAN website including
other successful UCL and national Silver applications.
The development of the application and the action plan was greatly helped by the active
involvement of the ION executive. This executive, chaired by the ION director and with all 8 ION
heads of department (HoDs) as members meets monthly. Since June 2012, Athena SWAN has
been a standing item on the agenda. In this way the active involvement of all HoDs was achieved
and this contributed to the timely completion of the ION survey and the implementation of the
action plan, particularly the new mentoring scheme (see 4. Career development a) (i)). (376)
c) Plans for the future of the self assessment team, such as how often the team will continue
to meet, any reporting mechanisms and in particular how the self assessment team intends
to monitor implementation of the action plan.
5
The SAT is now an established ION committee and will continue to meet every three months. As
outlined in the action plan, individual members of the SAT have responsibility for reporting all
actions to the SAT. Progress will also be monitored through annual analysis of staff/student data
and through running the ION survey every 3 years (actions 1.1, 1.2). Athena SWAN will remain a
standing item for the monthly ION executive meeting. (72) (969)
3.
A picture of the department: maximum 2000 words
a) Provide a pen-picture of the department to set the context for the application, outlining in
particular any significant and relevant features.
The Institute of Neurology (ION) is a large specialist postgraduate institute of UCL which is closely
associated with the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery (NHNN), and in combination
they form a national neurosciences centre at Queen Square. Consequently we have a large
number of clinical and non-clinical academic staff and students.
ION, which is part of the Faculty of Brain Sciences at UCL, has eight academic departments
employing over 500 staff (356 research and academic). Seven departments are based at one site in
Bloomsbury and the eighth at the Royal Free Campus. An effective internet based communication
system and a departmental representation system on key committees ensures a culture of
inclusiveness and cohesiveness. The Queen Square site includes ION and NHNN which share many
buildings and are referred to collectively as Queen Square. This arrangement fosters a very
friendly working environment with regular combined social events and engenders great loyalty in
the staff who feel included (QS survey showed 85% of staff felt ION was a great place to work for
women and men).
Although we do teach clinical neurology to UCL medical students, we are primarily a postgraduate
department and currently have 371 postgraduate students (105 on taught courses and 266 on
research courses). Our taught courses are diverse and include MSc’s in clinical neurology, clinical
neuroscience, advanced neuroimaging, neurology for clinical trainees, a dual masters in Brain and
Mind science and a diploma in clinical neurology. Our research courses cover all aspects of clinical
and basic neuroscience. These numbers mean all members of staff are actively involved in
teaching, supervision and mentoring of students and post doctoral trainees.
In the presentation of our data we use the standardised UCL SWAN categories as defined below:
UCL SWAN Category
1. Professor or equivalent
2. Reader or equivalent
3. Senior Lecturer/Principal Researcher or equivalent
4. Lecturer/Senior Researcher or equivalent
5. Post Doc/Researcher or equivalent
6. Research Assistant or equivalent
Although our data is generally presented for the previous three years, we occasionally include data
going back further as we feel inclusion of such data can be useful to demonstrate how things have
changed over a longer period of time. (359)
6
b) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical
illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have
affected action planning.
Student data
(i)
Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses – comment
on the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract women to the
courses.
We do not run foundation courses. (6)
(ii)
Undergraduate male and female numbers – full and part-time – comment on
the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline.
Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the impact to
date. Comment upon any plans for the future.
ION teaches clinical neurology to UCL medical students but ION staff are not
involved in the recruitment or selection of medical students. The gender balance of
new medical students enrolled at UCL over the last three years has been fairly even
(males: females; 855:866 (2010); 865:853 (2011); 878:848 (2012)). We have an
active consultant led teaching programme for undergraduates and through this
encourage female medical students to consider a career in clinical neurosciences.
(73)
7
(iii)
Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught courses – full
and part-time – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the
national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address
any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the
future.
Postgraduate students enrolled per year on taught courses
100%
80%
22
60%
40
39
43
65
51
Male
Female
40%
20%
0%
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Postgraduate students completing taught courses
100%
Completing as % of enrolment
80%
85%
98%
97%
95%
86%
85%
60%
Male
Female
40%
20%
0%
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Most of our current 105 students on taught courses are full time (6 part time students enrolled in
2012; 4 female, 2 male) and our current proportion of females is 62% (average 60% for the last 5
years) which is comparable to the national figure of 62% for females registered in clinical medicine
8
(HESA, 2010/11). Most of our taught MSc courses have more non-clinical than clinical students
making the comparison with clinical medicine less helpful. To address this, we have also compared
our figures with the national figures for biology (HESA 2010/11) where the female percentage is
56%. Many of our MSc courses have started in the last 5 years which may explain why we do not
have a historical gender imbalance problem in this area.
Our completion rate for taught courses is over 90% for both sexes with 97% of females completing
on average over the last five years compared to 91% of males. We will continue to actively
monitor the gender balance of both students and completion rates yearly to ensure we maintain
this ratio (action 2.1). We actively encourage and help students on our taught courses to apply for
research courses and Amelie Pandraud, one of our SAT members currently doing a PhD had
completed an MSc in ION first. (213)
(iv)
Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees – full and parttime – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture
for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and
the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.
Postgraduate students enrolled per year on research courses
100%
80%
60%
40%
82
90
86
104
2010-11
2011-12
132
134
Male
Female
20%
0%
2012-13
Our current proportion of females (total 266) registered for research courses is 50% (on average
53% for the last 5 years) which is less than the national figure of 62% for females registered in
clinical medicine (HESA, 2010/11) and less than the national figure of 56% for females in biology
(HESA, 2010/11). National HESA figures for neurosciences research courses are not available. Our
postgraduate research courses have a mixture of clinical and non-clinical students. Our clinical PhD
students are all registered part time while working as clinical research fellows, whereas our nonclinical PhD students are all full time. 40% of our clinical students are female compared to 59% of
our non-clinical PhD students suggesting we need to focus on increasing our female clinical PhD
students. The main traditional issue is a lack of women specialising in neurology (especially
academic). To attract women into neurology we plan to set up a seminar series for female junior
9
doctors in general medicine training which will be led by senior female clinical academic successful
role models to encourage women to consider a career in neurology. We will also offer mentorship
to interested women (action 2.2). (191)
(v)
Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for
undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees –
comment on the differences between male and female application and
success rates and describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and
their effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.
As ION is not involved in the selection process for undergraduates; we are
presenting our postgraduate data only. (18)
Male
Female
Applications to postgraduate taught courses
100%
80%
60%
85
111
60
34
119
67
40
141
Offer
Accept
Apply
97
85
57
90
55
Offer
Accept
40%
124
51
80
69
89
20%
0%
Apply
2010-11
Apply
2011-12
Offer
Accept
2012-13
Male
Female
Applications to postgraduate research courses
100%
80%
60%
45
40%
40
38
34
38
31
Offer
Accept
28
22
42
32
Apply
Offer
16
27
24
21
18
30
26
21
Apply
Offer
Accept
20%
0%
Apply
2010-11
2011-12
Accept
2012-13
The overall trend over the last three years is for slightly more females than males to apply for both
taught and research courses but there are no discernible differences between the spread of
10
individuals who apply, receive an offer or accept offers. Where there are minor differences, e.g.
for accepted offers in research courses 2011/2012, these have favoured females. We feel this
reflects the UCL and ION commitment to encouraging women’s careers in neurosciences. One way
in which we have shown this commitment is the active encouragement for females to seek senior
promotion (see 4. Key career transition points a) (ii)) with the result of more visible and active
senior female role models. We also feel we have an excellent female role model (Dr Caroline Selai)
as head of the ION education unit and sub dean for postgraduate medical education in the UCL
faculty of Brain sciences.
We will continue to monitor the gender ratios in post graduate courses very carefully and are
actively encouraging females to consider a career in neurosciences by various initiatives e.g. as
part of the MRC Centenary celebrations in 2013, the MRC Centre for neuromuscular diseases in
ION is hosting a special clinical grand round involving school children (particularly targeting female
students) from the recently opened UCL academy (UCL run school), which will become a yearly
event. We also plan to develop a seminar series delivered by ION female staff in UCL academy
(action 6.5) which together with our new plan outlined above to attract females into neurology
(action 2.2) is expected to increase the percentage of female postgraduate students. (265)
(vi)
Degree classification by gender – comment on any differences in degree
attainment between males and females and describe what actions are being
taken to address any imbalance.
Degree classification for taught postgraduate courses
100%
80%
60%
16
35
5
14
4
9
11
10
14
14
40%
4
9
4
10
200910
201011
13
17
Male
Female
20%
0%
200910
201011
Pass
201112
201011
201112
Merit
201112
Distinction
Our MSc degree classifications are pass, merit (added in 2010) and distinction. In 2009/2010
females and males did equally well (7% each gained a distinction). In the last 2 years females
consistently performed better than males; 2010/2011 (21% females merit: 8% males and 19%
females distinction: 17% males), 2011/2012 (18% females merit: 13% males and 22% females
distinction: 17% males). We believe this difference is in part due to the increased number of
female senior academics promoted in the last three years (see section 4. Key transition points a)
(ii)), who are all actively involved in teaching the taught courses and also the influence of specific
role models such as Dr Caroline Selai referred to in section 3 b) (v) above. We plan to explore this
in more detail with a specific student satisfaction and experience survey to be done yearly from
2014 (action 2.3). (145)
11
As post graduate research courses degrees in UCL are not classified, we are presenting completion
times. (16)
Postgraduate research degree completion time
Average years to thesis submission
5
4
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.3
3
3.6
3.2
Male
Female
2
1
0
2006/07
2007-08
2008-09
Most research degrees are either 3 or 4 years with planned completion times between 3 and 5
years. Our data shows parity between males and females for the last 3 years with females
completing slightly quicker than males (3.2 versus 3.6 years) for the most recent year data is
available (2008/2009) and also for the previous 5 year average (3.8 versus 3.9 years). This is due to
an ION initiative over the last 5 years to ensure PhD students complete on time in order to
progress their careers. This is monitored by the education unit in ION on an ongoing basis with an
electronic system in place to alert supervisors to any delays. All PhD students are mentored by the
ION education unit led by Dr Caroline Selai and this together with our new mentoring system (see
4. Career development a) (i)) aims to continue the high female completion rates. (150)
12
Staff data
(vii)
Female:male ratio of academic staff and research staff – researcher, lecturer,
senior lecturer, reader, professor (or equivalent). comment on any differences
in numbers between males and females and say what action is being taken to
address any underrepresentation at particular grades/levels
Male
Female
Staff Profile by Grade
100%
80%
5
5
20
19
5
22
60%
72
80
40%
81
85
73
76
40
23
43
22
49
20
22
21
14
13
8
7
22
6
9
8
4
9
20%
37
41
39
7
7
7
0%
2010 2011 2012
2010 2011 2012
2010 2011 2012
2010 2011 2012
2010 2011 2012
2010 2011 2012
SWAN 6
Research
assistant
SWAN 5
Post Doc/
Researcher
SWAN 4
Lecturer/
Senior
Researcher
SWAN 3
Senior
Lecturer/
Principal
Researcher
SWAN 2
Reader
SWAN 1
Professor
Unlike our student data, there are major gender imbalances in all the senior staff grades in ION.
The national HESA data does not have a neuroscience comparator so we used clinical medicine
and biosciences. Overall 40% of our staff are female which compares to 33% for clinical medicine
(HESA 2010/2011) and 46% for biosciences (HESA 2010/2011) or 39.5% for both combined, where
we think neurosciences should lie. Our current gender imbalance is worst for SWAN 1 (Professor);
SWAN 5 = 47% female; SWAN 4 = 29%, SWAN 3 = 29%, SWAN 2 = 47% and SWAN 1 = 15%.
Compared to national figures our 15% females in SWAN 1 is similar to biosciences (14%) but worse
than clinical medicine (27%) and worse than these combined (20.5%). There are currently 46
Professors in ION, of which 7 are female (15%). Although our SWAN 2 figures (8/17 (47% female))
are encouraging and reflect the recent emphasis on female promotion (see 4. Key transition points
a) (ii)), we are still below the national average for SWAN 1. The male:female ratio is equal (female
47%) in SWAN 5 category (post docs/researcher or equivalent) and there are more females than
males (81% females) in SWAN 6 category (research assistant).
We have identified three major issues which impact on our staff gender ratios and have
implemented plans and future actions to deal with all three. The first is our promotion procedures
(see 4. Key transition points a) (ii)), the second our lack of a mentorship scheme (see 4. Career
development a) (i)) and the third our recruitment process (see 4. Key transition points a) (i)). One
of our key aims in our action plan is to increase the number of women in SWAN categories 1 – 4
(action 3.1). (292)
13
(viii)
Turnover by grade and gender – comment on any differences between men
and women in turnover and say what is being done to address this. Where the
number of staff leaving is small, comment on the reasons why particular
individuals left.
Turnover for permanent staff is very low in ION making trends difficult to establish. For example,
in the last three years only three permanent senior staff members have left. These were all male
Professors and all left to take up more senior positions elsewhere and not because they were
dissatisfied with their ION positions. Most staff at junior level SWAN 5 (post doc / researcher or
equivalent) and 6 (research assistant or equivalent) are on fixed term contracts and turnover is
accounted for by individuals leaving at the end of their contract to secure for example further post
doctoral contracts, fellowships or faculty positions. Although traditionally career advice is given by
PIs and HoDs, our new mentoring system (see 4. Career development a) (i)) should help and we
are also introducing an exit interview for all staff whether permanent or fixed term (action 5.2).
(144). (1872)
14
4.
Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 words
Key career transition points
a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical
illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have
affected action planning.
(i)
Job application and success rates by gender and grade – comment on any
differences in recruitment between men and women at any level and say
what action is being taken to address this.
Male
Female
SWAN 6 (Research Assistant or equivalent)
100%
1
2
80%
12
9
15
35
60%
12
20
95
37
48
32
27
9
2
8
12
36
40%
20%
0%
Applics
per post
Interviews
Offers
Applics
per post
2009-10
(9 posts)
Interviews
Offers
Applics
per post
2010-11
(11 posts)
Interviews
Offers
2011-12
(9 posts)
Male
Female
SWAN 5 (Post Doc/Researcher or equivalent)
100%
80%
16
60%
40%
6
79
6
80
26
53
56
6
31
59
6
9
26
29
71
8
17
20%
0%
Applics
per post
Interviews
Offers
Applics
per post
2009-10
(63 posts)
Interviews
Offers
Applics
per post
2010-11
(50 posts)
Interviews
Offers
2011-12
(41 posts)
Male
Female
SWAN 4 (Lecturer/Senior Researcher or equivalent)
100%
80%
60%
40%
3
9
6
6
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
9
1
5
20%
11
2
4
1
0%
Applics
per post
Interviews
2009-10
(10 posts)
Offers
Applics
per post
Interviews
2010-11
(4 posts)
15
Offers
Applics
per post
Interviews
2011-12
(5 posts)
Offers
Male
Female
SWAN 3 (Senior Lecturer/Principal Researcher or equivalent)
100%
80%
60%
10
40%
6
20%
6
5
8
2
2
4
1
Interviews
Offers
2
1
0%
Applics
per post
Applics
per post
2009-10
(2 posts)
Interviews
Offers
Applics
per post
2010-11
(2 posts)
Interviews
Offers
2011-12
(1 post)
Male
Female
SWAN 2 (Reader or equivalent)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
1
1
1
Applics
per post
Interviews
Offers
0%
Applics
per post
Interviews
Offers
2009-10
(0 posts)
Applics
per post
2010-11
(1 post)
Interviews
Offers
2011-12
(0 posts)
Male
Female
SWAN 1 (Professor or equivalent)
100%
80%
60%
40%
3
20%
1
1
1
Interviews
Offers
0%
Applics
per post
Interviews
2009-10
(0 posts)
Offers
Applics
per post
Interviews
2010-11
(0 posts)
Offers
Applics
per post
2011-12
(1 post)
The data for recruitment is collected by UCL HR through an online recruitment system (ROME).
Validation of this data by ION Personnel revealed inaccuracies especially for interview panel data.
Investigation showed that the main cause of this is that the ROME system collects data at too early
a time point. To address this we introduced a new system in November 2012 where accurate
interview data is provided directly to UCL HR from ION personnel. We plan to monitor the new
system (action 1.2).
Most advertised jobs are for SWAN 3 to 6 posts. Most new appointments to SWAN 1 and 2 are
through promotions. In SWAN 1, there was only one post advertised in the last three years. Three
16
males and one female applied and a male was appointed. In SWAN 2, there was also only one post
advertised in last three years. There was one male application, who was appointed.
In our analysis of the data for SWAN 3 to 6, discrepancies were identified in both shortlisting
(more males than females shortlisted for SWAN 3 and 4 posts) and in job offers (more males than
females offered posts in SWAN 3 and 4). For shortlisting, we plan to introduce a system in May
2013 where ION personnel will monitor the gender ratio of applications to shortlisting and alert
the chair of the selection panel to any discrepancies in advance of the interviews, with time to
investigate and action. For job offers, as per UCL policy the outcomes of all interviews are
collected by ION. These outcomes will be monitored for gender equality and the chair of the
interview panel will be asked to comment on any inequalities. These actions will not in any way
interfere with fair interview processes which aim to appoint the best candidates irrespective of
gender, but will monitor for any unintentional gender bias. The outcomes of these new processes
will be monitored by our SAT yearly and modified if any inequalities remain (Action 4.2).
Analysis of our interview panels also showed that only 60% of our interview panels have a female
member. To address this, ION personnel will ensure that all interview panels have a female
representative in the future and this will be monitored. To avoid over burdening senior females,
junior females (SWAN 5; post doctoral level) will also be invited onto interview panels which will
ensure they have interview training and also allow them to gain experience (Action 4.1). (406)
(ii)
Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade –
comment on whether these differ for men and women and if they do explain
what action may be taken. Where the number of women is small applicants
may comment on specific examples of where women have been through the
promotion process. Explain how potential candidates are identified.
Male
Female
Promotions
100%
90%
80%
70%
1
60%
2
0
0
2
2
50%
40%
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
30%
20%
10%
3
1
2
1
0%
2009- 2010- 201110
11
12
2009- 2010- 201110
11
12
2009- 2010- 201110
11
12
2009- 2010- 201110
11
12
2009- 2010- 201110
11
12
SWAN 5
Post Doc/
Researcher
SWAN 4
Lecturer/ Senior
Researcher
SWAN 3
Senior Lecturer/
Principal
SWAN 2
Reader
SWAN 1
Professor
Although the numbers of promotions for each SWAN category are small, there have been almost
equal numbers of females and males promoted in most of the SWAN categories in the last three
years. Specifically, at the most senior level, 3/6 promotions to Professor have been females
including two of the SAT members (Prof Mary Reilly and Prof Linda Greensmith) and although
there were no females promoted to SWAN 2 in 2010 or 2011, there were 2 females promoted in
2012, an encouraging trend. The SAT team sought to identify and encourage appropriate females
to apply for senior promotion including Dr Limousin and Dr Plun-Favreau (see case study section 5)
17
who have both applied for senior promotions in 2013. The SAT team will continue this process
yearly as part of the annual promotions procedure.
Over the last 5 years, the current Institute Director (Prof Mike Hanna) and the previous director
(Prof Alan Thompson) have recognised the lack of senior female staff and have actively
encouraged females to apply for promotion to Professor. They have done this by personally
meeting all eligible females and helping to plan individualised promotion strategies with input
from the relevant HoDs. On average 2 people are promoted to Professor each year and 3 out of 7
of the current female professors have been appointed in the last 3 years.
ION keeps accurate data of senior promotions and over the last three years there has been 100%
success rate for both female and male staff. This reflects a robust system, which is in place for
clinical academics seeking promotion to reader and Professor and for non-clinical staff at grade 8
(SWAN 3 and 4). Names are put forward to the ION executive by the relevant HoDs two months in
advance of the UCL deadline to allow discussion at the executive level. These discussions are very
constructive and advice is given through the HoD to the applicant to either improve the
application or to delay the application for another year with a plan in place of how to improve the
chances of promotion the following year. All final applications are again reviewed at the executive
before submission to UCL.
Despite this, our recent ION survey shows there is a perception that the promotion process is not
transparent and may not be fair. 54% of staff overall and only 40% of women thought the
promotion system was fair and transparent. The survey showed that the process at the Institute
level was perceived as being both fair and transparent but the process within each department for
promotions to less senior positions (other than SWAN 1 and 2) was perceived to be less fair and
transparent. The SAT team explored this further by surveying the internal departmental processes.
This revealed that there was not a consistent, transparent process in place. To address this we
have developed and implemented new guidance for departments. The guidance emphasises the
need for promotion to be addressed at annual appraisals and also the need for HoDs to comply
with the UCL wide rules on monitoring how long staff are at a particular grade. These new
guidelines have been presented to the ION executive and introduced institute wide in February
2013. Compliance of each department to these guidelines will be monitored yearly through a
survey of HoDs and by surveying all staff using the ION survey in 2015 (Action 4.3). (562)
b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps
have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far
and what additional steps may be needed.
(i)
Recruitment of staff – comment on how the department’s recruitment
processes ensure that female candidates are attracted to apply, and how the
department ensures its short listing, selection processes and criteria comply
with the university’s equal opportunities policies
All our advertisements and recruitment processes follow the UCL regulations through all stages of
the process. Most advertisements are for SWAN posts 5 and 6 as entry to SWAN 1, 2, 3 and 4 is
more commonly through promotion. We have equal numbers of females and males in SWAN 5
and more females than males in SWAN 6 so we feel we are attracting female applicants but we
identified some inequalities in the recruitment process and put actions in place to address these
(see 4. Key transition points a) (i)). (90)
18
(ii)
Support for staff at key career transition points – having identified key areas
of attrition of female staff in the department, comment on any interventions,
programmes and activities that support women at the crucial stages, such as
personal development training, opportunities for networking, mentoring
programmes and leadership training. Identify which have been found to work
best at the different career stages.
Our major areas of female staff attrition are from SWAN 6 and 5. The majority of our staff at
SWAN 6 (research assistants) are females. These are commonly early post graduates who are
either hoping to apply to do a PhD or to pursue another career in science. Similarly although we
have equal numbers of females and males at SWAN 5 level (post docs or equivalent), we have
many more males at SWAN 4 level (lecturers/senior researchers or equivalent) suggesting we are
not successful at helping our female post docs to get lecturer posts. Although the ION survey not
unexpectedly identified a major UK wide issue of a lack of career pathways and senior academic
positions for non-clinical scientists, the fact that we have more males than females at SWAN 4
level suggests that there are female specific issues in ION that we should address.
The lack of a mentorship system emerged as the major deficiency in the ION survey in addressing
this issue. We have now introduced a bespoke mentorship scheme (see 4. Career development a)
(i)).
Our survey also revealed that males are more likely to discuss potential promotion with their
seniors than females. This highlights the need for proactive discussion of promotion in all annual
appraisals. As detailed in 4. Key transition points a) (ii), we have already instituted a number of
schemes to improve our promotion procedures. (231)
Career development
a) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps
have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far
and what additional steps may be needed.
(i)
Promotion and career development – comment on the appraisal and career
development process, and promotion criteria and whether these take into
consideration responsibilities for teaching, research, administration, pastoral
work and outreach work; is quality of work emphasised over quantity of
work?
Although the numbers of females promoted at senior level has improved in the last 5 years and
has been equal at Professor level over the last three years, there are still major gender inequalities
with only 7/46 female Professors in ION. There is also attrition at post doctoral level in ION and UK
wide and more male than female staff at every level above this in ION, suggesting that even
though these are fixed term posts, we are not doing enough to encourage females to remain in a
neurosciences career long term.
The lack of a formal mentorship system at all levels emerged as the major deficiency in the ION
survey in addressing this. We have now introduced a mentorship scheme with 4 different
schemes to suit all levels and type of staff. We felt we needed to design separate bespoke
schemes for both senior and junior clinical academics and non-clinical scientists as the challenges
faced by the two groups and at different stages of their careers are often different.
19
Clinical academic scheme
1. All senior clinical staff (SWAN 1-4, Professors, Readers, Senior Lecturers and
intermediate Clinical Fellows) will have individual mentors offered through a scheme which
has been set up through the Division of Clinical Neurology. Prof Mary Reilly, who is the
chair of the SAT team and is also the chair of the Division of Clinical Neurology, has set up
this scheme. All senior staff in the division have been asked to volunteer as mentors and
from this a bank of mentors has been generated. Although this system is currently being
introduced for all staff regardless of gender, priority has been initially given to female staff.
All eligible female staff were offered entry to the scheme in January 2013 and those
interested have now been matched with mentors.
2. All other clinical staff (Research Fellows, SWAN 5) have their mentors identified at
individual departmental level as per the system below for non-clinical junior staff, set up by
SAT member Prof Linda Greensmith.
Non-clinical scheme
1. A senior ION Non-clinical Mentoring Team, composed of 4 senior Professorial academics
has been set up to mentor this group of staff as we recognised that with non-clinical staff
there is less career structure with a consequent need for a broader panel to mentor
individuals. SWAN staff 1-3 (Professors, Senior fellows, Senior lecturers), will be mentored
by this panel with a particular emphasis placed on career progression and any other issues
that may be affecting their research. Each individual will also be given the opportunity to
meet with a named mentor from the panel on an individual basis. As with the clinical
scheme above, female staff have been prioritised initially with all eligible females having
been contacted in January 2013 and been given a date to meet the panel.
2. A scheme has been introduced for all other non-clinical staff (SWAN 4, 5 and 6) and also
the SWAN 5 clinical staff referred to in 2 above. Mentees are mentored by someone more
senior and if possible not in their own research group. This part of the scheme is organised
at department level but the monitoring will be at institute level and a departmental clinical
and non-clinical organiser has been identified in each department. Priority has been given
to female staff and all those eligible have been contacted in January 2013 and all mentees
matched with mentors by the end of March 2013.
As the major block in the system is for non-clinical staff moving from a SWAN 5 position to a
SWAN 4 position and this affects females more than males we are prioritising the mentorship of
our SWAN 5 females (post doc level) by alerting the departmental organisers to these members of
staff for prioritisation.
The aim is to eventually role out the mentorship scheme to all staff regardless of gender. We
recognise this is a major undertaking in a large institute and the ION director, Professor Mike
Hanna has committed to supplying the administrative support needed to run this scheme from the
ION Personnel Department.
One of our key aims in this application is to monitor the success of the mentorship scheme both to
see if it continues to be implemented successfully over the next three years and more importantly
to measure the impact of the scheme (Action 5.1).
20
The second issue affecting career development is the perception of staff identified in our survey
that ION promotion procedures are not necessarily fair or transparent. As discussed above we now
have implemented a new promotion procedure at ION (see 4. Key transition points a) (ii)).
The results from our ION survey about appraisal were encouraging with 71% of all staff saying they
have a regular helpful appraisal but this was less for females with 65% agreeing with this. Analysis
of further survey questions suggests that less females thought they had a helpful appraisal
because promotion was not addressed properly during the appraisal. This together with the survey
results on promotion led to the development of new promotion procedures which has regular
appraisals embedded in it. The compliance to and impact of the new promotion procedures over
the next three years will be monitored (Action 4.3). (864)
(ii)
Induction and training – describe the support provided to new staff at all
levels, as well as details of any gender equality training. To what extent are
good employment practices in the institution, such as opportunities for
networking, the flexible working policy, and professional and personal
development opportunities promoted to staff from the outset?
ION personnel ensure that all new staff follow UCL policies including a compulsory induction which
includes information on all UCL policies on good employment practise. Staff have to complete two
reviews with their named line manager before their appointment can be confirmed with HR (at 3
months and either 5 or 8 months depending on seniority of staff). The UCL checklist is used for
these reviews which includes confirmation that they have completed online diversity training. The
monitoring of the reviews to make sure they happen is done by ION personnel but the monitoring
of the diversity training is done by UCL HR. ION personnel ensure the reviews happen in 100% of
cases as confirmation of the appointment depends on this. Analysis of the online diversity training
shows that only 29% of staff have completed this. One of the actions over the next 3 years will be
to monitor this through ION personnel to ensure it is seen as a compulsory part of the review in
future (Action 5.3).
Individual departments have induction processes in place to welcome and support new staff but
these are individualised to departments and not monitored. The new mentoring system plans to
address this with each new member of staff having an allocated mentor at the start of their job
(see 4. Career development a). (i)). (221)
(iii)
Support for female students – describe the support (formal and informal)
provided for female students to enable them to make the transition to a
sustainable academic career, particularly from postgraduate to researcher,
such as mentoring, seminars and pastoral support and the right to request a
female personal tutor. Comment on whether these activities are run by
female staff and how this work is formally recognised by the department.
ION is predominantly a postgraduate institute. Undergraduate students have an allocated clinical
teacher and each postgraduate student has at least 2 supervisors and also support from within
their department and from the ION education unit. We also use strong role models of successful
females to encourage our female students. We have equal numbers of females and males
appointed as post doctoral students so we feel we are successful at encouraging females to
transition to researcher but we are not so good at ensuring this transition is sustainable as shown
21
by the attrition of females at post doctoral level. A major aim of the new mentoring system (see 4.
Career development a) (i)) is to address this.
We are happy to provide female tutors or mentors but in our experience have not been asked for
this specifically. Although the head of the ION education unit is a female and two of the leads for
the ION mentoring scheme are females, many of the individual department mentoring organisers
are males as we have more male than female staff and do not want to overburden our female
staff. (185)
Organisation and culture
a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical
illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have
affected action planning.
(i)
Male and female representation on committees – provide a breakdown by
committee and explain any differences between male and female
representation. Explain how potential members are identified.
Committee membership
100%
80%
60%
9
7
40%
20%
17
8
Male
Female
4
17
4
3
0%
Executive
Education
Computing
Policy
Clinical Trial
Centre
There are 4 institute-wide committees in ION and multiple department level committees. Analysis
of the gender balance in the 4 committees showed: ION executive (19% female); ION education
(36% female); ION computing (6% female); QS clinical trial centre (47% female). The ION executive
is made up of HoDs and heads of divisions. The 19% female membership of the ION executive is
now the highest it has ever been and this reflects the proactive approach of the current and
previous institute directors at encouraging senior female promotion. Female membership will be
increased by actively increasing senior promotion of female staff (see 4. Key transition points a)
(ii)). The education unit has reasonable female representation at 36% compared to the female
staff ratios. Efforts will be made to increase this as new members are needed. The Queen Square
clinical trials centre is the newest ION committee and was set up in 2011. The head of the clinical
trials centre is also the chair for the SAT team (Prof Mary Reilly) and she specifically set up this
22
committee with gender balance in mind. The computing committee has had difficulty attracting
females members traditionally which is reflected in the 6% females representation. Members for
this committee are proposed by HoDs and they have been asked to proactively consider females
when membership positions become vacant. We also plan to increase or introduce student and
post doctoral members to both the education and computing committees to increase the
opportunities for females to become members (Action 6.2). Membership of all committees will be
monitored yearly by ION Personnel and reported to the SAT (Action 6.2). (268)
(ii)
Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts
and open-ended (permanent) contracts– comment on any differences
between male and female staff representation on fixed-term contracts and
say what is being done to address them.
Most SWAN 4 and all SWAN 5 and 6 (senior researchers, researchers and research assistants) are
on fixed term contracts and males are over represented in SWAN 4 but female/male ratios are
equal in SWAN 5 and females are over represented in SWAN 6. All SWAN 1 and 2 (Professors and
readers) and most SWAN 3 (Senior lecturers/principal researchers) are on permanent contracts
and females are underrepresented in all of these categories. The new schemes for mentorship and
promotion have been developed to address this imbalance (4. Career development a) (i) and 4.
Key career transition points a) (ii)). (99)
b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps
have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far
and what additional steps may be needed.
(i)
Representation on decision-making committees – comment on evidence of
gender equality in the mechanism for selecting representatives. What
evidence is there that women are encouraged to sit on a range of influential
committees inside and outside the department? How is the issue of
‘committee overload’ addressed where there are small numbers of female
staff?
The main 4 decision making committees in the Institute are those in the graph in section 4
Organisation and culture a) (i) and the most influential of these is the ION executive. In the last
three years the current and past directors of the institute have begun to address the need for
more females in decision making committees. The first female head of a department (Prof Linda
Greensmith) was appointed in 2010 and the first female head of the Division of Clinical Neurology
(Prof Mary Reilly) was appointed in 2012, who are now both members of the ION executive. The
most recently established ION committee in 2011 (Queen Square clinical trial centre) has a female
chair (Prof Mary Reilly). As outlined in section 4. Organisation and culture a) (i), ION has plans to
address the gender imbalance of these committees. (140)
23
(ii)
Workload model – describe the systems in place to ensure that workload
allocations, including pastoral and administrative responsibilities (including
the responsibility for work on women and science) are taken into account at
appraisal and in promotion criteria. Comment on the rotation of
responsibilities e.g. responsibilities with a heavy workload and those that are
seen as good for an individual’s career.
All staff regardless of grade are expected to contribute to all functions including academic,
teaching, administrative and pastoral. The UCL promotional criteria captures this data and has
separate sections for knowledge transfer and exchange and enabling work. Within the institute
there are a large number of administrative and pastoral roles and these are rotated so as not to
overburden any one individual e.g. the 8 head of departments roles are for a 4 year term. Each
member of staff is given the opportunity at their appraisal to discuss their workload and adjust if
necessary. For the clinical academic staff there is a further opportunity at their yearly job planning
which is jointly done with a university and hospital representative to embed administrative,
teaching and pastoral roles into their job plans. ION is a large department and the role of SAT chair
is a busy role and plans are already in place for this role to be rotated at least 3 yearly.
The ION survey specifically asked whether a department values the full range of skills including
research, teaching, administrative and pastoral. Overall 64% agreed with this but for females this
was less at 54% suggesting females feel some of these roles are less valued. We hope the
improvements to the appraisal and mentorship scheme (see 4. Career development a) (i)) will help
this but we also plan to hold focus groups with men and women about their concerns over
workload and what is valued to explore this further (Action 6.3). We will monitor progress in the
next ION survey in 2015 (Action 6.3). (263)
(iii)
Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings – provide evidence of
consideration for those with family responsibilities, for example what the
department considers to be core hours and whether there is a more flexible
system in place.
It is ION policy that meetings are held in the core hours of 10am until 4pm.
The timing of 2 of the institute wide meetings (education and computing) already happen in the
core hours. The clinical trials meeting was at 5.15pm but this has now been changed to core hours.
The ION executive meeting is scheduled for 5.30pm monthly with dates known a year in advance
and a detailed discussion at the executive resulted in a unanimous decision that this time should
continue to allow everyone to attend but the issue will be revisited yearly and as new members
join. This meeting is a critical meeting to discuss strategic institute matters and the decision to
continue the meeting at 5.30pm came to the Athena SWAN SAT for approval. Members’
agreement of the timing of this meeting will be monitored. (Action plan 6.1)
In the ION survey of all staff, 66% of both females and males agreed that meetings occurred in the
core hours to allow for staff with caring responsibilities. This suggests that some meetings at
department level were not happening in the core hours. This was confirmed through a further
survey of all individual research department meetings. All research departments have taken action
and all meetings now happen between 10 and 4. This will be monitored yearly (action plan 6.1).
24
The institute has regular social gatherings. These are popular but by their nature may happen out
of core hours. Sufficient notice is always given to try to allow people to make arrangements to
attend. The ION survey showed that 87% of all staff and 85% of women agree that the work
related social activities were equally welcoming to both women and men. (283)
(iv)
Culture –demonstrate how the department is female-friendly and inclusive.
‘Culture’ refers to the language, behaviours and other informal interactions
that characterise the atmosphere of the department, and includes all staff
and students.
The institute has an inclusive policy and prides itself on valuing opinions from all its members and
on being female and family friendly. ION has 2 departmental equal opportunity liaison officers
who are both female. The ION survey addressed culture in some detail. 82% of all staff and 78% of
females agreed that their department uses women as well as men as visible role models. 88% of
all staff and 84% of females agreed that work was allocated on a clear and fair basis irrespective of
gender. 84% of all staff and 78% of females agreed that inappropriate images of women are not
acceptable in their department. 89% of all staff and 90% of females agreed that they understood
why positive action may be required to promote gender equality.
While these figures are encouraging, we realise we cannot be complacent as females always
agreed marginally less than males. We are very encouraged by the active participation of ION
senior staff which is mainly male in the Athena SWAN application and hope the issues discussed
and highlighted through this process will further the inclusive and female-friendly culture of the
institute which we will survey again as part of the ION survey in 3 years time (Action 6.4). (206)
(v)
Outreach activities – comment on the level of participation by female and
male staff in outreach activities with schools and colleges and other centres.
Describe who the programmes are aimed at, and how this activity is formally
recognised as part of the workload model and in appraisal and promotion
processes.
Although in the ION survey 72% of all staff and 66% of females said they were encouraged to
represent their department externally on boards or committees, we recognise we need to do
better at encouraging women to consider a career in neurosciences by outreach activities in
schools and colleges, especially using our strong female role models. As described in section 3 b (v)
of the application we are designing a grand round that will involve school children > 16 years old
(and prioritising female students), which will become a yearly event. We also offer placements for
school children and short term elective projects for students but have not monitored the gender
balance of these but will do so in the future (Action 6.5). (123)
25
Flexibility and managing career breaks
a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical
illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have
affected action planning.
(i) Maternity return rate – comment on whether maternity return rate in the
department has improved or deteriorated and any plans for further improvement. If
the department is unable to provide a maternity return rate, please explain why.
Maternity data is provided by UCL HR. 22 people took maternity leave in the most recent 3 year
period and 17 (77%) returned to work in ION. Of the 5 that did not return, 3 resigned voluntarily
and 2 had been on fixed term contracts. One of our case studies (see section 5) has taken
maternity leave and returned to work. We did not do formal exit interviews for those that
resigned and therefore do not have details but we do know they were on fixed term contracts as
100% of permanent staff who took maternity leave returned to work. We have now put in place a
scheme through ION personnel to gather information from all staff who take maternity leave and
specifically to capture the reasons why staff do not return. We realise we need to have better
support in place and by reviewing support for maternity leave in other institutions, we decided to
appoint 2 maternity mentors. The mentors (a clinical and a non-clinical academic) are both female
staff who have taken maternity leave and returned to work while employed by ION. They are both
up to date with UCL maternity policies. All staff who request maternity leave are offered the
support of one of these two mentors who offer advice and support throughout their leave and
about coming back to work. This new scheme was put in place in February 2013 and will be
monitored (Action 7.1). (240)
(ii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake – comment on the uptake of
paternity leave by grade and parental and adoption leave by gender and grade. Has
this improved or deteriorated and what plans are there to improve further.
Our data show that only one person applied for paternity leave (SWAN 4) and one for adoption
leave (SWAN 1) in the last 5 years. The data comes for UCL HR and we think that this is inaccurate
but have no way of validating this data locally. The SAT team all know members of their
departments who have taken paternity leave but this is not being captured by HR. We plan to put
a system in place to capture this data locally by ION personnel (Action 7.2). (87)
(iii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and
grade – comment on any disparities. Where the number of women in the
department is small applicants may wish to comment on specific examples.
No staff are formally working flexibly but individual departments are encouraged to have a very
open attitude to informal requests for flexible working especially where caring roles or return to
work after maternity leave are the reasons for the request. There are many informal agreements
for members of staff for these reasons in all departments in the institute including a flexible
attitude to home working. (65)
26
b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps
have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far
and what additional steps may be needed.
(i) Flexible working– comment on the numbers of staff working flexibly and their
grades and gender, whether there is a formal or informal system, the support and
training provided for managers in promoting and managing flexible working
arrangements, and how the department raises awareness of the options available.
Flexible working arrangements are all informal at departmental level. All HoDs are encouraged to
allow flexible working arrangements where appropriate. These informal arrangements are
common as the institute is in central London and many staff with young children need flexibility as
most children are in nurseries near their homes. In our ION survey we specifically addressed this
issue and 76% of men and 71% of women said their line manager was supportive of requests for
flexible working. We hope to improve this with our maternity mentoring scheme. We also
specifically designed a range of questions for our survey to see if staff would use a crèche facility if
we had one in our institute as currently staff have to use the one at UCL if they want to use a
university crèche. 75% of men and 73% of women said they would not use a crèche at ION which
reflects the practise of most people preferring to have their child care nearer home with flexibility
built into their job plans to allow them to do this. (176)
(ii) Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return – explain what the
department does, beyond the university maternity policy package, to support
female staff before they go on maternity leave, arrangements for covering work
during absence, and to help them achieve a suitable work-life balance on their
return.
All staff are aware of the UCL maternity policy package but an individualised approach to
supporting female staff in each department has been the norm in the institute to date. All
teaching commitments are covered by other members of staff and detailed discussions occur at
department level with regards to flexible working arrangements both before maternity leave and
after staff return to work. In our ION survey, 66% of males and 63% of females were satisfied with
their work/life balance. This suggests that issues other than being female are contributing but also
in our survey, when asked whether ION is a good place to return to work to after a break, 69% of
males but only 60% of females said it was. When we asked females in our survey whether ION was
a great place for women to work, 74% of females agreed with this but 87% of females thought ION
was a great place for men to work in. These survey answers are the main reason we have set up
the maternity mentoring scheme outlined in 4. Flexibility and managing career breaks a) (i) and we
will monitor this in the ION survey in 3 years time (Action 7.1). (200) (4709)
27
5.
Any other comments: maximum 500 words
Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other
STEMM-specific initiatives of special interest that have not been covered in the previous
sections. Include any other relevant data (e.g. results from staff surveys), provide a commentary
on it and indicate how it is planned to address any gender disparities identified.
The preparation of the Athena SWAN application allowed the formation of the Athena SWAN SAT
and this panel has very enthusiastically worked together and looks forward to continuing to do so.
The activities of the SAT were invaluable in providing an in-depth understanding of the institute
which not only will be helpful in addressing the gender imbalances in the institute but have proved
invaluable in understanding the need for improvement in areas across the institute particularly
with regards to developing a formal mentorship scheme and a more transparent promotion
system.
The ION survey proved to be crucial for information gathering, and the design of a survey with
both questions from UKRC and our bespoke questions was critical to the success of the survey. The
response rate for our survey was 70%. Although individual responses were anonymous, 47%
identified as female in response to one of our questions; 44% as male; with 9% of respondents
preferring not to say. From this, we could calculate that the gender balance of respondents was
roughly 50/50. The fact that so many people were willing to identify their gender meant that it
was possible to analyse the data, both from the point of view of the total number of
responses, and also of women only. Hence we could see the issues which particularly affected
women, either positively or negatively. In the survey, staff were mainly given a set of statements
and asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with them. An example would be 'I
understand the promotions process in my Department'. To calculate a 'negative' response to this
question, we combined the number who replied either 'slightly disagree', 'disagree' or 'strongly
disagree'. For a 'positive' response, we combined the number who said either 'slightly agree',
'agree' or 'strongly agree' and have identified this as a way to improve and simplify the survey in
2015 e.g. combining all 3 potential answers to simply ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’. Questions which could
indicate successes or problems at ION were those with the highest number of 'positive' or
'negative' responses, depending on the context of the question, with at least a 20% presentation
in either direction.
The survey was valuable not only to recognise areas where we need to improve but also to
identify what we do well. We found that most people at ION regard their workplace as a generally
welcoming environment for both women and men. The highest scoring 'positive' response rate
was to the issue of whether work-related activities were welcoming to both women and men (89%
of the total agreed; 85% who identified as women agreed). We also scored highly for all staff
including women on effectiveness of line managers to deal with bullying, on the fair allocation of
work regardless of gender and on the perception that the institute uses women as well as men as
visible role models.
We feel it is important to celebrate what we do well as well as develop strategies to improve
where problems were identified. (499)
28
Action plan
Constantly evolving
SWAN action plan
1.3
1.2
Advancement of
women’s careers in
ION due to actions
developed from 3
yearly ION survey
Improved accuracy of
central UCL HR data
available to SAT team
Outcome
Action
Review student / staff and interview
data provided by UCL HR in January
2014 and then annually to see if new
system implemented in November
2012 to improve accuracy of data has
worked and modify new system as
necessary
Review yearly UCL HR data and 3
yearly ION survey to review action
plan and modify if necessary
Run ION survey 3 yearly and improve
survey each time based on experience
from previous surveys
Self Assessment process
1.1
1
29
1st Review Jan 2014 and
yearly afterwards
Next survey Sep 2015 with
new questions based on
experience from 2012
survey (e.g. assess new
mentorship scheme)
Review new system Jan
2014 and every Jan
annually
Timelines
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram)
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram)
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT chair (Mary
Reilly)
Sat admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
Reporting
to SAT
SAT Chair (Mary
Reilly)
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
Persons
responsible
UCL Institute of Neurology Athena SWAN Silver Award Action Plan
Action plan modified
every January by SAT.
Modified plan signed
off by ION executive
every February
Accurate data
available for SAT to
review annually.
SAT use data to
update SWAN action
plan annually
Survey updated and
done 3 yearly and
used to inform action
plan
Success measures
The Action Plan should be a table or a spreadsheet comprising actions to address the priorities identified by the analysis of relevant data presented in this application,
success/outcome measures, the post holder responsible for each action and a timeline for completion. The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for
the next three years.
Provide an action plan as an appendix. An action plan template is available on the Athena SWAN website.
6.
Improved female
student satisfaction
and experience in ION
2.3
2.2
Continuation of good
overall gender balance
for taught and
research postgraduate
courses and for degree
completion and
classification
Increased number of
female clinical
postgraduate research
students from 40% to
50% or above by 2016
Outcome
Student-related
2.1
2
Introduce seminar series for female
junior doctors (FY1 / FY2 /ST1 / ST2 /
ST3) to encourage them to consider
a career in neurology (especially
academic neurology). Offer
mentorship to those interested
Develop a ION student survey to
specifically explore the opinions and
experiences of all students in ION
and to see if there are any gender
inequalities
Monitor all student data every
January from 2014 and develop
action plan to address any gender
imbalances identified
Action
30
Student survey to be
conducted March 2014 and
to be amalgamated with ION
survey from September 2015
and then administered 3
yearly
Yearly from Sep 2014
1st student data review Jan
2014 and yearly afterwards
Timelines
SAT team
member (Ed
Wild)
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT chair (Mary
Reilly)
ION head of
teaching and
learning support
(Dan Warr)
Persons
responsible
Equal or better overall
gender balance for
SWAN renewal
application in 2016
Increased number of
female clinical PhD
students by 2016
2014 survey
completed and actions
implemented to
address any issues
identified
SAT chair (Mary
Reilly)
SAT team
member (Ed
Wild)
Success measures
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
Reporting
to SAT
3.1
3
Increased number of
women in all SWAN
grades 1 to 4
(especially in SWAN 1
and SWAN 4) by time
of SWAN renewal
application in 2016
Outcome
Staff-related
Monitor senior promotion data
yearly from Sep 2014 and amend
new promotion procedures if
necessary in annual updated action.
Also amend ION survey to be
conducted in 2015 to include
questions on new promotion
procedures
Monitor new mentorship scheme
yearly starting Mar 2014 as
described below (action 5.1) and
iteratively improve scheme. Also
amend ION survey to be conducted
in 2015 to include questions on new
mentorship scheme
Review staff data yearly as described
above from Jan 2014 with specific
reference to women in SWAN 1-4
categories and amend action plan
yearly if necessary
Action
31
Monitor senior staff
promotion data yearly from
Sep 2014
Review staff gender data
yearly from Jan 2014
Review new mentorship
scheme April 2014 and
yearly every April
Timelines
Institute Director
(Mike Hanna) /
SAT chair (Mary
Reilly)
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram) /
SAT mentor leads
(Linda
Greensmith and
Tom Warner)
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram) /
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
Persons
responsible
Dir and SAT
member (Mike
Hanna)
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT mentor leads
(Linda
Greensmith and
Tom Warner)
Reporting
to SAT
Review of staff data
showing increase of
women in SWAN 1-4
yearly from 2014
Success measures
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
Action
Ensure all interview panels have a
female member by using junior
female academic and research staff
to avoid overburdening senior
females
Monitor all interview panel gender
data yearly starting Jan 2014 as
described above (action 1.2) and
address if non compliant by alerting
panel chairs prior to interview
Equal numbers of
ION personnel will be responsible for
females and males
monitoring gender balance of all
shortlisted and offered shortlisted lists and let chair of
posts for SWAN 4 and selection panel know of any
5 by time of SWAN
discrepancies so that they can be
renewal application in investigated early
2016
ION personnel will be responsible for
monitoring outcome of all individual
interviews and will ask chair of
interview panel to comment on any
inequalities
Review staff interview data yearly as
described above from Jan 2014 and
amend action plan yearly if
necessary
QS promotion
Monitor compliance to new
processes perceived to departmental promotion guidance
be fair and
by surveying all HoDs yearly from
transparent in ION
April 2014.
survey in 2015
Assess impact of the new guidance
in ION survey in 2015
All ION interview
panels have at least
one female member
Outcome
Key Career Transition Points
32
HoD monitoring
questionnaire to be done
Feb 2014 and then yearly
Monitoring begins May 2013
Monitor interview panel
gender data yearly from Jan
2014
Timelines
SAT member
(Alex Leff)
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram) and SAT
admin lead (Katy
Pestell)
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram) and SAT
admin lead (Katy
Pestell)
Persons
responsible
SAT member
(Alex Leff)
Sat admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
Sat admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
Reporting
to SAT
Yearly increased
compliance with new
guidance and UCL
policy from Feb 2014.
Improved perception
of promotion policy in
ION survey 2015
Improvement in
gender balance for
shortlisting and offers
year on year from Jan
2014
Junior female staff
gain valuable
interview experience
All interview panels
have at least one
female member
Success measures
Mentorship scheme
successfully
embedded in ION
Better understanding
of the reasons staff
leave (fixed and
permanent)
All staff have
completed diversity
training by QS survey
2015
5.1
5.2
5.3
Outcome
Action
ION personnel to monitor
completion of diversity training as
part of the compulsory job review
monitoring which occurs before an
appointment is confirmed. The
results will be monitored by SAT
Monitor all departments yearly
from Jan 2014 to ensure new
mentorship schemes are being
adhered to
• Encourage all mentees / mentors
to attend UCLs mentoring
workshop
• Mentoring team to evaluate
scheme by annual mentee /
mentors reports from Jan 2014.
Scheme to be adapted and
improved as necessary by
mentoring leads.
• Adapt the ION survey questions
on mentoring to assess the
impact of new scheme in 2015
Introduce exit interview for all staff
leaving with structured
documentation
•
5. Career Development
•
ION personnel
lead (Libby
Bertram)
33
Process to start June
2013
Monitoring by SAT yearly
from Jan 2014
•
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram / SAT
mentor leads
(Linda
Greensmith and
Tom Warner)
HoDs
ION personnel
lead (Libby
Bertram)
Mentoring scheme
introduced Jan 2013
Monitoring of scheme to
begin Jan 2014 and
yearly afterwards
Persons
responsible
To start June 2013
•
•
Timelines
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT mentor leads
(Linda
Greensmith and
Tom Warner)
Reporting
to SAT
All females being
mentored by Jan
2014
All staff being
mentored by
SWAN renewal
application 2016
ION survey
showing positive
impact of
mentoring scheme
in 2015
Year by year increase
in number of staff
completing diversity
training
All staff leaving have
exit interview by 2014
•
•
•
Success measures
Institute and
departmental
meetings happening
during core working
hours
Improved gender
balance in Institute
wide committees
6.1
6.2
Outcome
•
•
•
•
•
•
Action
Following initial survey and
action taken, monitor all
established and new ION and
departmental meeting times to
ensure they occur during core
working hours yearly from April
2014 and amend times if
necessary.
Monitor agreement to hold the
ION executive at 5.30pm yearly
from April 2014 and each time a
new member joins.
Include question in ION survey in
2015 to ensure timing of
meetings is not discouraging
membership or attendance by
members with caring
responsibilities
Introduce / increase post
doctoral and student
representation on the education
and computing committees to
increase access of females to
these committees.
Aim to increase female
membership of the ION
executive by actively increasing
promotion of females in ION as
per action plan 3.1.
Monitor gender balance of all 4
committees and new committees
yearly from Jan 2014
6. Organisation and culture
•
•
•
•
34
Introduce new
membership Sep 2013
Monitoring yearly from
Jan 2014
Monitor yearly from Apr
2014
2015 ION survey
Timelines
SAT member
(Helene PlunFavreau) and ION
admin lead (Katy
Pestell)
ION admin lead
(Katy Pestell) and
Institute Dir
(Mike Hanna)
Persons
responsible
SAT member
(Helene PlunFavreau)
ION admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
Reporting
to SAT
•
•
Yearly increase in
female
representation on
all 4 committees
Experience for
female post docs
and students on
ION committees
Good compliance
yearly to core time
meeting guidance.
No gender
discrimination to
meeting membership
or attendance due to
meeting times
Success measures
Female staff feel ION
values their full range
of skills
Female staff feel ION
is female-friendly and
inclusive
Equal or more female
school children and
student electives in
ION
6.3
6.4
6.5
Outcome
Develop collaboration with the UCL
academy (secondary school run by
UCL) for female staff to visit school
on a yearly basis to deliver seminars
in careers for females in
neurosciences
Offer mentorship to any school
children identified who are
interested in neuroscience
Introduce questions to ION
survey for 2015 to assess
whether the new mentoring
scheme has increased the
percentage of women who feel
the full range of skills are valued.
• Arrange focus groups of staff
about concerns regarding
workload and what is valued
• Monitor the Action plan
implementation and success
yearly from Jan 2014 and report
to the ION executive every Feb to
ensure the Athena Swan
practises are embedded in ION
culture
• Assess the impact of the action
plan by comparing the answers
to questions about ION culture in
the ION survey in 2015 to the
2012 survey
Monitor gender balance of school
children and students doing
placements and electives in ION
•
Action
June 2013
Yearly monitoring of
action plan from Jan
2014
ION survey 2015
•
•
35
Mentor to be offered after
seminar in 2014
Aim for first seminar in 2014
Monitoring yearly from Sep
2014
•
ION survey question
2015
•
Timelines
ION head of
teaching and
learning support
(Dan Warr)
SAT member
(Helene PlunFavreau)
SAT member (Ed
Wild)
SAT member
(Alex Leff)
SAT mentoring
lead (Linda
Greensmith)
Persons
responsible
Percentage of female
staff who think ION is
female-friendly and
inclusive equal or
more than males in
ION survey 2015
Increase yearly in
female electives in
ION.
Increase in
applications for
undergraduate and
postgraduate females
in neuroscience
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT member
(Helene PlunFavreau)
Percentage of female
staff who feel all their
skills are valued equal
or more than males in
ION survey 2015
Success measures
SAT member (Ed
Wild)
SAT mentoring
lead (Linda
Greensmith)
Reporting
to SAT
Accurate data for
paternity/adoption
leave available by
2015
7.2
Action
ION personnel head to introduce
compulsory reporting of all paternity
and adoption leave from May 2013.
Introduce questions in ION survey
2015 to capture this data (especially
if paternity leave is being taken)
Monitor impact of new maternity
mentors by questionnaire of all staff
who take maternity before leave and
after return to work and adapt
mentor role if necessary.
Ensure tenure of maternity mentor
role is 2 years maximum
SAT = Self Assessment Team
QS = Queen Square
ION = Institute of Neurology
HR = Human Resources
Dir = Director of Institute of Neurology
HoDs = Heads of research departments
KEY
Female staff and
students happy with
ION systems for
maternity leave and
return to work
Outcome
Flexibility and managing career breaks
7.1
7
Maternity mentor
appointed Feb 2013
Monitoring to start May
2013
36
Introduce reporting May
2013
•
•
Timelines
ION personnel
head (Libby
Bertram)
SAT member
(Alex Leff)
Persons
responsible
SAT admin lead
(Katy Pestell)
SAT member
(Alex Leff)
Reporting
to SAT
Females reporting that
they find the new
maternity mentoring
system helpful.
Increased return to
work after maternity
leave for fixed term
staff
Accurate data
available.
Paternity and
adoption leave taken
by all eligible staff
Success measures
7.
Case study: impacting on individuals: maximum 1000 words
Describe how the department’s SWAN activities have benefitted two individuals working in the
department. One of these case studies should be a member of the self assessment team, the other
someone else in the department. More information on case studies is available in the guidance.
Case study 1: Dr Patricia Limousin
Dr Patricia Limousin came to the Institute of Neurology from France as a Research Fellow from Oct
1995 to Oct 1996 in the Human Movement and Balance MRC unit, supported by a Marie Curie
Fellowship. Prof Rothwell, a PI in this unit, was instrumental in helping Patricia in securing funding
though a MRC Research Grant and helping her transition from Grenoble to London. She was
awarded a PhD in 1998 for work done jointly in Grenoble and London. Her PhD work
demonstrated that subthalamic nucleus stimulation was a very effective surgical treatment for
Parkinson’s disease, and this treatment is now used worldwide.
Patricia has had two periods of maternity leave in 1999 and 2000. Patricia reports that she has
always found the department understanding and flexible with regards to her home commitments.
Following her return from the second maternity leave, in 2001, she was promoted to Senior
Lecturer in Clinical Neurology in recognition of her excellence. She feels she was encouraged and
helped in this process by Prof Rothwell and Prof Frackowiak, the then Dean of the Institute. In
further recognition of her potential and her groundbreaking work in functional neurosurgery, they
both supported her to set up a Unit of Functional Neurosurgery to establish Deep Brain
Stimulation.
To develop her career more broadly by fostering an interest in teaching, she was given the
opportunity and time to teach and organise various courses, including amongst others, the MSc
course in Clinical Neuroscience as well as other MSc courses, the teaching of UCL undergraduate
Medical Students and, workshops and courses at Queen Square and abroad. Since 2002, she has
been a valued member of the MSc Clinical Neuroscience course committee and an MSc Course
tutor.
In recognition of her contributions to research and teaching, Patricia was promoted to Reader in
2007, following active support of the then Head of Department, Prof Brown, and the Director of
the Institute, Prof Lemon. At her annual appraisal in 2011 and 2012, the Head of the Sobell
Department, Prof Linda Greensmith, encouraged her and worked with her to aim for Senior
Promotion. In the Autumn of 2012, Prof Greensmith and Director of Institute Prof Hanna and the
SAT team supported her application for Senior Promotion to Professor in the 2013 round which is
currently in process.
Patricia feels ION has been an excellent environment for her to pursue a clinical academic career
at the same time as raising a family and she particularly observed that colleagues including many
males have provided a positive and collegiate environment which has allowed her career to
flourish. (428)
37
Case study 2: Dr Helene Plun-Favreau
Helene Plun-Favreau’s first appointment in ION was as a senior post doc in May 2007. Recognising
her potential ION covered her salary for 3 months after which she was awarded a Career
Development Fellowship from the MRC which enabled her to establish her independent
laboratory and to become a senior research fellow. The then head of department Prof Wood and
the current head of department Prof Hardy recognised her potential as an outstanding cell
biologist early on and have continuously and actively encouraged her academic career and her
increasing leadership role in the Molecular Neuroscience Department and become advocates for
her career progression in the Institute.
Her group has carried out some very interesting and significant work on the molecular pathways
associated with Parkinson’s disease which has led to a number of high impact publications. Helene
has developed a number of collaborations with many labs within and outside UK. In addition to
the money awarded to her by the MRC, she has been encouraged and helped to obtain external
funding which she has done successfully and which will be important in her future applications for
promotion. She also has been encouraged to gain experience in supervision of PhD students and
has successfully supervised a PhD student who has recently been awarded a PhD and is currently
supervising two post-doctoral fellows and two students as a primary supervisor for their PhDs. She
has made incredible progress in her 6 years at the ION and has been an invited speaker at many
UK and overseas conferences. In recognition of her increasing profile in ION, she was appointed a
member of the organising committee of the UCL Neuroscience Symposium in 2011. Helene has
also been encouraged to broaden her portfolio by gaining teaching experience which she does in
ION, UCL and in other universities within and outside UK and she is now one of the co-convenors
and a tutor of the Clinical Neuroscience MSc at UCL.
Helene is a member of the SAT team and has had a major impact on increasing our understanding
of the particular career challenges for non-clinical scientists and has become one of the mentors in
the new mentoring scheme.
Helene is currently funded by an award from the Wellcome Trust Institutional Strategic Support
Fund and has recently, with active encouragement applied for senior fellowships at MRC, WT, CRUK and ERC. Prof Wood and her current head of department, Prof Hardy in her 2012 yearly
appraisal encouraged her to consider applying for senior promotion in the 2013 round. The SAT
team also recognised her exceptional abilities and further encouraged her application. The
Director of the institute, Prof Hanna, who is also a member of the SAT, was very supportive of her
exceptional work and in conjunction with the faculty, he decided a tenured post of senior non
clinical lecturer should be created for her and this commences in May 2013. This tenured position
provides the required permanent academic position that will allow her to be considered by the
Wellcome Trust for a senior Investigator award in 2013.
Helene says her sponsor, Prof Wood, who was also until recently her head of department, has
been particularly supportive throughout her career. She feels all the staff in ION are helpful and
encourage her career progression and specifically notes that ION is a very friendly environment in
which to work. (558) (986)
38