Athena SWAN Silver department award application Name of university: University College London Department: Institute for Women’s Health Date of application: 30th April 2013 Date of University Bronze Athena SWAN award: May 2009, renewed May 2013 Contact for application: Professor Nicola Robertson and Dr Jane Hassell Email: n.robertson@ucl.ac.uk Telephone: +44 (0)20 7679 6052 Departmental website address: www.instituteforwomenshealth.ucl.ac.uk 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 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. UCL INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN’S HEALTH
PETER BROCKLEHURST
PROFESSOR OF WOMEN’S HEALTH
DIRECTOR
29th April 2013 Sarah Dickinson Senior Policy Advisor with responsibility of the Athena Swan Charter Dear Sarah Dickinson As Director of the Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, I am delighted to endorse this application for a Silver Award. Since I arrived at UCL 2 years ago, I have been and continue to be committed to SWAN and supporting a culture that fosters academic careers for women in the Institute for Women’s Health (IfWH). The mission of the Institute for Women’s Health is to make a real and sustainable difference to women's health locally, national and worldwide. We decided at the outset to apply for a Silver departmental award because IfWH has a strong track record of support for family-­‐friendly working; this flexibility is a core value of our Institute. In 2012, early on in the preparation for this application, the SAT collated gender-­‐specific data and designed and delivered an Institute-­‐wide anonymous survey to understand the experiences of individual staff. Our findings reinforced our view that IfWH already demonstrates much good practice in support of gender-­‐neutral and flexible working. The SAT has put in place actions that have already started to enhance the organization and culture of the Institute. For example, although a family friendly culture is evident in the IfWH, until recently we held Academic Board meetings after work. Since April 2013, on the advice of the SAT, we have moved these meetings to within core working hours to facilitate those with carer responsibilities. We are setting up a formal mentoring scheme for all members of staff and PhD students. We are ensuring that we have gender-­‐balanced recruitment and the majority of our senior staff have attended unconscious bias training. The Institute social events this year are more inclusive of all the family eg summer picnic in Regents Park. With respect to gender, the Institute achieves good balance at all levels apart from Professorial level. As younger cohorts of researchers become more senior this difference between men and 2 women is likely to reverse. We need to ensure that more junior researchers get the support they need to allow them to develop into these roles in the future. This aspiration is clearly articulated in our action plan, and represents an excellent investment in the future for women’s health. The Institute is an excellent place to work (regardless of gender). We have an informal hierarchical structure -­‐ staff at all levels of the organisation are visible and approachable. It is clear in my day to day workings with staff in the Institute that people feel free to approach senior staff for advice and support, and often just to chat. Senior staff attend many of the social gatherings organised by the Institute staff. There is a general lack of formality which allows people to feel valued and included in decisions about the direction of the Institute. I believe these attributes generate a feeling of mutual trust and respect between members of the Institute and ensure excellent productivity of our staff. It is my belief that actions highlighted in this application demonstrate the Institute is deserving of a Silver Award. Professor Peter Brocklehurst Director UCL Institute for Women’s Health
74 Huntley Street, Medical School Building, London, WC1E 6AU
Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 6060
Fax: +44 (0)20 3108 2036
k.fernandes@ucl.ac.uk
www.instituteforwomenshealth.ucl.ac.uk
499 words (limit 500 words) 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 Our Athena SWAN self-­‐assessment team (SAT) was formed in July 2012. All IfWH staff were invited to volunteer for the SAT and this attracted a lot of interest, therefore we selected a relatively large committee size to represent the interests and opinions of a wide range of staff. Our 13-­‐member team reflects the distribution of staff across the four academic departments of IfWH; therefore we have 5 men (38%) and 8 women (62%); and 5 clinician-­‐academics (38%), 6 academics (46%) and 2 administrative staff (15%). Institute for Women’s Health SAT members: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Chair: Professor Nicola Robertson (Clinical Academic, Neonatology) Christina Ahlfors (Acting Senior Human Resources/ Staffing Administrator until June 2013) Kate Bennett (Academic, Neonatology) (Research Associate) Dr Kevin Broad (Academic, Neonatology) (Research Associate) Professor Peter Brocklehurst (Clinical Academic, Maternal and Fetal Medicine) (Director of the Institute for Women’s Health) Dr Sangeeta Dave (Clinical Academic, Reproductive Health) (Research Associate) Dr Rania Fourkala (Academic, Women’s Cancer) (Research Associate) Dr Jane Hassell (Clinical Academic, Neonatology) (Academic Clinical Fellow) Marcia Jacks (Institute Manager) (Judy Okello (Senior Human Resources/ Staffing Administrator – on maternity leave, returns June 2013)) Professor Gennadij Raivich (Academic, Maternal and Fetal Medicine) (Postgraduate Tutor) Eridan Rocha Ferreira (Academic, Maternal and Fetal Medicine) (PhD student) Dr John Timms (Academic, Women’s Cancer) (Lecturer, Group Lead) Professor Martin Widschwenter (Clinical Academic, Women’s Cancer) The team includes early-­‐career, mid-­‐career and senior scientists and clinicians. Some have long-­‐
standing experience of managing the mix of teaching and administrative workloads with research; some balance fixed clinical commitments alongside their academic work; some have current experience of the challenges of early career and research development. Our SAT enjoys diverse collective experience of working patterns and work-­‐life balance including part-­‐time and flexible working; career breaks; preparing for and returning from parental leave; childcare and other caring responsibilities. All members have contributed enthusiastically to our self-­‐assessment process. The skills mix within our larger team has enabled us to designate lead officers the 6 key themes of our action plan; we are confident this leadership and enthusiasm will maximise the positive impact of our actions. (341 words) 4 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 Stage 1. SAT reflection and learning about Athena SWAN The IfWH self-­‐assessment team was recruited in June 2012. As this is the first time IfWH has applied for an Athena SWAN award, our members attended information and training sessions on Athena SWAN (led by UCL School of Life and Medical Sciences) before undertaking review of our working culture, progress and achievements at IfWH. We decided at the outset to apply for a Silver departmental award because IfWH has a strong track record of support for family-­‐friendly working; this flexibility is a core value of our Institute, which was formed to promote the wellbeing of all women and newborn infants through research. However, prior to establishing our SAT, the Institute did not routinely review gender-­‐balance or evaluate the impact of flexible working policies on the experiences of our staff. The Athena self-­‐
assessment process became the first step towards ongoing self-­‐appraisal within IfWH. The agreed aims of our SAT are: • Promote science to all – women and men • Provide tailored support for the development needs of every staff member – with a focus on support for women at key career transition points • Provide a supportive, flexible and family-­‐friendly working environment • Always be open and transparent in our recruitment and working practices Stage 2. Collation of data Early on we collated gender-­‐specific data on student and staff recruitment, retention and promotion and on female representation across the Institute; undertook a comprehensive review of current IfWH policies and practices; and designed and delivered an Institute-­‐wide anonymous survey to understand experiences of individual staff. Our findings reinforced our view that IfWH already demonstrates much good practice in support of gender-­‐neutral and flexible working. Stage 3. Data review, reflection, external consultation, development of action plan Over a series of meetings we reviewed our collated data to understand our strengths and weaknesses and to set priorities for action. We also met with a number of Athena leads from UCL Silver award-­‐holding departments; all provided invaluable insights and advice. After consultation within and outside of the SAT, we agreed an action plan based on 6 key themes: 1. Unbiased recruitment 2. Support for women at key transition points 3. Mentoring and support for career development across IfWH 4. Core working hours (10am-­‐4pm) and making flexible working accessible to all 5. Culture of transparency and openness in all IfWH activities, centred on Athena principles 6. Ongoing review of gender-­‐balance and staff experiences 5 Each draft of our action plan was reviewed and agreed by the IfWH executive committee (all IfWH Group Leaders), academic board and HR, all of whom have been extremely supportive of our work. The final draft was disseminated to all IfWH staff. During the application process we have developed an Athena SWAN webpage on our Institute website; all our Athena application documents are available here and accessible to staff and the public. (466 words) 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. Following our Silver Application, our SAT will meet quarterly. In April 2013 we invited two new members to our team to support our student-­‐related actions: Dr Joyce Harper (Non-­‐clinical Reader and Postgraduate tutor for taught courses) and Dr Angela Poulter Graduate Administrator Our team is now 67% female (5 men, 10 women). We will recruit new SAT members by asking for volunteers or by election, maintaining 60-­‐70% female membership. We will implement our action plan through engagement with the lead officers designated to each of the 6 key themes. Ongoing review of progress towards our goals (Theme 6) will include annual staff and student surveys to show changes in culture and working practices and annual SAT review of IfWH statistics by gender. These findings will be published on our website and used to determine further actions. To embed Athena SWAN principles within IfWH, we plan to arrange in advance that every decision-­‐making committee meeting is attended by a SAT member and will present a quarterly Athena report at the Academic Board meeting (open to all IfWH staff). We will continue to contribute enthusiastically to UCL’s Athena SWAN initiatives, sharing our best practice. (193 words) Section 2: 1000 words (limit 1000 words) 6 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. UCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women’s Health (IfWH) is an exciting and dynamic place to work. Formed in 2004 as a joint venture between University College London (UCL) and University College London Hospital (UCLH), IfWH remains the only Research Institute of its kind in the UK, bringing together academic staff with expertise from across the spectrum of women’s health – from laboratory to clinical to social and behavioural sciences – with the shared objective of improving the health of women in the UK and internationally. IfWH is made up of four research departments: Women’s Cancer; Maternal and Fetal Medicine; Neonatology; and Reproductive Health. For the first time in the UK we are able to address women’s health in its broadest sense: from childhood to puberty; motherhood to menopause; maturity to old age; taking into account the social, psychological, economic, ethical and legal dimensions of health. Together we strive to deliver research excellence, innovative education and outstanding clinical care. IfWH is a member of the UCL Faculty of Population Health Sciences (PHS) and we work closely with our sister Institutes within the Faculty: the Institutes of Child Health, Cardiovascular Science, Epidemiology and Health Care, and Global Health. The Faculty of Population Sciences is one of four faculties within the UCL School of Life and Medical Sciences (SLMS). Through collaboration across the Faculty, SLMS, UCL and more widely, we have established IfWH as a global leader in Women’s Health. The Institute is spread over 9 different locations, 5 of which are situated on the main UCL Bloomsbury Campus. At the time of writing we have 105 staff members, of whom 69 are academic staff (61% female; includes research assistants and post-­‐docs); and 100 graduate students, of whom 52 are on postgraduate taught courses and 48 are undertaking research degrees. A unique feature of IfWH is the mix of clinical and non-­‐clinical academics – 30 (43%) of our academic staff are clinicians and we have a further 90 honorary staff members, the majority of whom are UCLH clinicians. Our clinical academics in particular enjoy the supportive, flexible and family-­‐friendly working policies at IfWH (available to all staff); these are seldom possible within clinical practice. As the only research Institute for Women’s Health in the UK, the pursuit of equal opportunities and wellbeing for women underpins our working culture and is fundamental to our research. We are strongly committed to keeping the principles of Athena SWAN at the core of our work. (406 words) 7 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. Across the department, around 2/3 of both students and staff are women (detailed below). We believe that 2/3 women is an acceptable proportion within the academic field of Women’s Health, which by its nature attracts more women than men from both clinical and scientific backgrounds. Notably in clinical practice many women prefer to see a female doctor and currently 70% of UK trainees in Obstetrics and Gynaecology are female (RCOG Future Workforce Summary at http://www.rcog.org.uk). Biomedical sciences also attract more female than male academics. However we also believe that gender balance is key for effective working and for innovative, successful research. Our aim is that 1/2 – 2/3 of our staff and students should be women across IfWH. National HESA data for clinical medicine have the following data: research & teaching staff -­‐ 34% female, research -­‐ 60% female, teaching -­‐ 57% female and professors -­‐ 21% female. (147 words) 3b. Student data (i) Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses – comment on the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract women to the courses. Not applicable – the IfWH has postgraduate research students only. 46
47
54
53
2007
2008
50
50
50
51
50
50
50
51
2009
2010
2011
2012
0
20
40
60
80
100
Proportion of undergraduate medical students(%)
(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. Figure 1: UCL MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDENTS BY GENDER The Institute contributes to the Women’s Health module in year 5 of the MBBS curriculum, which is compulsory for all students (380 per year, Figure 1). The administration of this is within the medical school. However the module does provide an excellent opportunity for our outstanding 8 female clinical academic role models to encourage students to pursue Women’s Health and research. (60 words) 13
8
3
9
10
27
60
80
2
12
2
16
♂
♀
20
40
18
0
Proportion of students (%)
100
(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. Figure 2: POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS COMPLETING TAUGHT COURSES Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. Years represent the start of the Academic year. 2012 data therefore not yet available. 2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
IfWH currently runs three postgraduate diploma/ MSc programmes for clinicians and scientists: Prenatal Genetics and Fetal Medicine (PGFM, commenced 1996), Reproductive Science and Women’s Health (RSWH, for clinicians and scientists, from 2009) and Haemoglobinopathies (distance learning, from 2009). PGFM and RSWH are taken on a flexible/ modular basis over a period of up to 5 years; Haemoglobinopathies is taken part-­‐time over 2 years. The 360% increase in the number of postgraduate students completing taught courses 2006-­‐2012 (Figure 2) is due to the two new programmes introduced from 2009/10. The falling proportion of men (11% in 2011/12) may reflect an increasing number of alternative MSc options, whilst Women’s Health-­‐related courses continue to attract female students, particularly at IfWH where we present strong female role models; for example through medical student teaching, the IfWH annual meeting at which undergraduate students are encouraged to present, and clinical contact with junior doctors at IfWH. Moreover the flexibility of our courses enables our students, many of whom are female clinicians, to balance caring responsibilities and paid work alongside study. For example, for our MSc reproduction course there is one modular student who is female, has a family and is working full time as an assistant in the Imaging Dept at UCLH. In collaboration with our postgraduate student representatives we are currently designing a survey to understand the experiences of our students and barriers to applying, particularly for 9 women. We aim to increase applications from both women and men (target = 2/3 women) by advertising our courses informally (e.g. during teaching), through our website and at careers fairs and by increasing the engagement of current female students in these activities (currently done on ad-­‐hoc basis) (Actions 1.1, 6.3, 6.4). Our SAT will review and publicise recruitment statistics annually (Actions 1.5, 6.5). (295 words) (iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees – full and part-­‐time – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture for the discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any plans for the future. 9
10
6
8
♂
19
21
19
20
16
18
♀
0
20
40
60
80
13 12
HESA 55%
Proportion of students (%)
100
Figure 3: POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS ON RESEARCH DEGREES Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 2007 2008 2009
2010
2011 2012
The number of women on postgraduate research degrees has remained constant over the past 5 years, whilst the number of men enrolled has declined, leading to an overall trend for an increasing proportion of women commencing these programmes (this trend continues in 2013 with 6 females and 1 male) (Figure 3); this is likely to be because the subject of women’s health tends to attract more women than men; and because positive female academic role models at all levels within IfWH present the Institute as a flexible and family-­‐friendly place to study. In particular our clinical academics act as clinical supervisors for bright female junior doctors, encouraging them to pursue research alongside clinical work; a number of our clinical PhD students are mothers and maternity leave is never a problem. In addition to the actions described above (section 3.b.iii) we plan to standardise and make transparent and accessible our recruitment process for research degrees across the Institute (Actions 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 5.7; see section 3.b.v), aiming for 2/3 women (169 words) (v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees – comment on the differences 10 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. 29 23
21 18
28 22
29 26
60
80
Proportion of students (%)
100
Figure 4: APPLICATIONS AND OFERS TO TAUGHT COURSES Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 41
39
71
30
88
45
23 16
21 14
123 73
117 69
♂
48
♀
Ap
pl
ic
a
tio
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
rs
0
20
40
21
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Proportion of application receiving offers (%)
100
Figure 5: OFFERS TO TAUGHT COURSES AS A PROPORTION OF APPLICATIONS Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 92%
90%
86%
80
79%
73%
70%
59%
55%
54%
67%
59%
♂
40
60
63%
0
20
♀
2007
11 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
21 4
4
80
Proportion of students (%)
100
Figure 6: APPLICATIONS AND OFERS TO RESEARCH DEGREES Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 4
10 5
1
1
7
7
5
20
60
9
2
1
14 9
15
37
4
11
12
♂
15
40
5
Ap
pl
ic
a
tio
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
Ap
rs
pl
ic
at
io
n
O s
ffe
rs
0
20
♀
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
100%
100%
80%
80
Proportion of applications receiving offers (%)
100
Figure 7: OFFERS TO RESEARCH DEGREES AS A PROPORTION OF APPLICATIONS Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 73%
60
60%
60%
50%
64%
54%
40
♀
19%
14%
0
20
♂
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Over the last 5 years the number of women applying for taught courses has increased three-­‐fold and offers to women applicants has almost doubled, therefore trending towards a more gender-­‐
balanced offer of places (Figures 4, 5). There are smaller numbers of women and men applying for research degrees but the proportion of women applying and receiving offers, again trending towards a more gender-­‐balanced offer of places (Figures 6, 7). 12 We believe that the high numbers of very successful women at IfWH not only encourage applications from female students (described in 3.b.iii and 3b.i.v); they ensure a more gender-­‐
balanced recruitment process. 70% of our short-­‐listing and interview panels are gender-­‐balanced (2:1 F:M or M:F); our aim is that all panels will be gender-­‐balanced, with 90% achieving a 2:1 F:M ratio, reflecting the proportion of female academics at IfWH (Actions 1.2, 1.4). (140 words) (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. 6
5.9
5.6
5.2
5.0
4.7
4
4.6
4.0
3.5
3.7
3.5
3.8
♂
2
♀
0
Average length of time to submission (years)
Figure 8: AVERAGE TIME TO SUBMISSION OF PhD THESIS BY YEAR OF SUBMISSION Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 8 illustrates that the time to submission of thesis is decreasing for both men and women, with no discrepancy in time to submission . 13 3b. 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. Figure 9: FEMALE AND MALE STAFF AT EACH RESEARCH GRADE Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. Post Doc/Researcher
Lecturer/Senior Researcher
100
Research Assistant
80
5
6
5
7
14
60
17
14
13
11
14
12
40
10
6
20
8
6
♂
8
7
5
2
♀
1
12
11
20
20
10
20
09
20
12
20
11
20
10
Reader or equivalent
Professor or equivalent
80
100
Senior Lecturer/Principal Researcher
20
09
20
20
12
11
20
10
20
20
09
0
1
Proportion(%)
8
7
60
8
4
4
4
40
9
2
3
3
2 2
3
2 2
2
2
2
1
20
2
9
8
3
2
2
14 12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
12
20
11
20
10
20
20
09
0
2
Figure 10: CLINICAL AND NON-­‐CLINICAL FEMALE AND MALE STAFF AT EACH RESEARCH GRADE Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 100
80
1
5
60
7
2
2
6
12
2
1
3
1
♂
3
6
♀
1
40
2
1
Professor or equivalent
Reader or equivalent
Senior Lecturer/Principal Researcher
Lecturer/Senior Researcher
Post Doc/Researcher
Research Assistant
Professor or equivalent
Reader or equivalent
Senior Lecturer/Principal Researcher
Lecturer/Senior Researcher
Post Doc/Researcher
0
20
100
2
20
40
3
8
60
80
2
Non clinical
0
Proportion of staff (%)
Clinical
61% (42/69) academic staff are female. There is a clear decrease in the proportion of women (i) at post-­‐doctoral level and (ii) at professorial level. However our retention of female staff from post-­‐
doc to reader level is very good; for example in 2012, 83% of research assistants were female, 64% post-­‐docs were female, 60% readers and 23% professors were female (Figure 9). Differences in the career progression of clinical versus non-­‐clinical female academics are described in Figure 10. 30 (43%) of our academics are clinicians. 57% (17/30) of our clinical academics are female; 64% (25/39) of our non-­‐clinical academics are female. Some of our clinical academics have substantive UCL contracts but carry out 50% clinical work within UCLH Trust; 47% of these are women. Our research assistants are almost all non-­‐clinical PhD students; occasionally we have nurses seconded from clinical work for a limited time. We strongly encourage our female non-­‐clinical PhD students to pursue academic careers within IfWH, for example by extending 3-­‐year PhD funded posts for to a 4th year as a research assistant to enable PhD write-­‐up alongside tailored support for progression to post-­‐doc (research associate). However proportion of non-­‐clinical females falls from 83% PhD students to 67% post-­‐docs, which our survey findings suggest is due to women seeking more secure non-­‐academic posts. See 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career transition points’. Clinical PhD students are appointed as Research Associates (grade equivalent to post-­‐doc, due to level of prior clinical training); currently 50% are male, contributing to the reduced proportion of women at post-­‐doc level. The proportion of female clinical research associates will increase over the next 1-­‐2 years because our 4 Academic Clinical Fellows (all female) will progress to Research Degrees; having worked alongside our excellent female clinical academics at UCLH. 15 The proportion of clinical and non-­‐clinical female academics increases to 70% at lecturer/ senior lecturer level and is maintained at 60% at reader level. We believe this to be largely due to the supportive working environment at IfWH, coupled with mentoring provided for more junior female staff by our many excellent senior female role models. See 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career transition points’. Attrition of female staff begins at reader level with a steep drop to 23% women at professorial level. We are taking positive steps to reverse this change within IfWH, encouraging our female academics to ‘aim high’ from the outset (see case studies); 2 of our 3 current female professors have all been promoted within the Institute. We expect our female senior lecturers and readers to progress to professorial level and continue to strongly encourage our IfWH female staff to pursue promotion, which will be supported through our mentoring and coaching initiatives (Actions 2.1, 3.1). We are targeting recruitment of external female professors (currently low) as part of our action plan, which includes headhunting outstanding female academics. (Action 1.3). A striking finding in our data is the attrition of non-­‐clinical female academic staff at senior research grades (Figure 10). There are no female non-­‐clinical professors and only 9% (2/23) of senior academic staff are female non-­‐clinicians. It is likely that female clinical academics have greater income flexibility to support their transition to senior research grades. Our survey also identified difficulty in securing funding for non-­‐translational research as a particular problem. Therefore although our flexible working options are excellent, we believe that the marked decrease in female non-­‐clinical academics at reader and professor levels is partly related to job security as well as failure to fulfill academic promotion criteria. Actions targeted to support female non-­‐clinicians include regular review of non-­‐academic commitments (Actions 3.2, 3.3) and close support for research grant applications. (Action 2). For more detail including survey findings see 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career transition points’. (680 words) (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. Most contracts at research assistant level are grant-­‐funded and so turnover is necessarily high. The majority of staff in Fig 11 are at research assistant level and the increased proportion of females leaving represents the higher number of females at this grade (see Fig 9). See 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career transition points.’ For staff on long-­‐term (HEFCE-­‐funded) contracts there has been little turnover. Over the past 3 years no Professor, Reader or Senior Lecturer left; one woman and one man left Lecturer/ Senior Researcher posts to take up more senior posts overseas. (108 words) 16 Figure 11: PROPORTION OF STAFF TURNOVER AS A PERCENTAGE OF MALES AND FEMALES. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 17%
15%
10
15
20
25%
11%
8%
7%
5
Proportion of staff leaving(%)
25
7%
0
4%
2009
2010
2011
2012
1998 words (Word limit 2000 words) 4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 words (4) 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. IfWH was only formed in 2004, therefore many of our professors were externally recruited; the number of qualified women applying was low for these posts. Our research leads do informally promote the IfWH to female colleagues as an excellent place to work where the numbers of women at senior research levels are increasing. We aim to increase the proportion of female externally recruited professors by head –hunting high-­‐profile female academcs, particularly non-­‐
clinicians, identified by our executive committee for specific posts as well as by raising the profile of IfWH as a dynamic and family-­‐friendly place for senior academics through our growing research activities (e.g. include a slide on IfWH at every conference lecture given by our staff) (Action 1.3). 17 Figure 12: JOB APPLICATIONS AND OFFERS BY GRADE AND GENDER, CUMMULATIVE 2007-­‐12 Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. 1
39
3
1
158
13
Applications Shortlisted
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Research Associate
Proportion (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Proportion (%)
Research Assistant
Job offer
1
47
1
14
99
29
Applications Shortlisted
1
Applications Shortlisted
1
Job offer
0 20 40 60 80 100
1
8
Job offer
♂
♀
Professor
Proportion (%)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Proportion (%)
Senior Lecturer
3
5
2
1
1
1
Applications Shortlisted
Job offer
Figure 12 illustrates there is no problem at attracting, short-­‐listing or offering positions to female applicants except at Professor level where female applicant numbers are always lower than male counterparts (across UCL). Our strategy to increase the proportion of female Professors is (i) increased recruitment of external female Professors; (ii) increased support for female readers and lecturers at IfWH to progress to professor; and (iii) increased recruitment of excellent female PhD students and post-­‐docs with academic career aspirations. As the profile of women within the Institute continues to rise with more women progressing to senior research grades, we anticipate the proportion of female PhD students applying to increase. For example we currently have 4 female Academic Clinical Fellows (ACFs; pre-­‐PhD NIHR-­‐funded clinicians on honorary research contracts) who will progress to research degrees over next 24 months. These young women chose to be based at IfWH after working at UCLH with our senior female clinical academics, all of whom are excellent positive role models: they balance successful academic careers with clinical and caring commitments; are ambassadors for the flexibility and support provided for women’s career progression at IfWH; and they encourage bright female junior doctors to pursue research. We will continue to target recruitment of female PhD students through our action plan, for example through outreach activities supported by our current clinical and non-­‐clinical students (Action 1.1). We expect, and will strongly support, many of our female PhD students to pursue academic careers and ultimately to secure Professorial posts. For further actions see section 4.b.i. ‘Recruitment of staff’ (376 words) 18 (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. Over the past 3 years (2009-­‐2012) there were 3 male and 3 female applications for senior promotion within IfWH; of these 2 females were successful (1 Professor, 1 Reader – both clinical academics) and 2 males were successful (1 Reader, 1 Senior Lecturer – one academic, one clinical academic). Although we have not yet reached our target 2/3 promotions being female staff, the number of women being appointed to senior research positions is increasing, and will increase further as we support our more junior staff at IfWH to continue their research careers (see 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career transition points’). The increase in female staff promotions is predominantly among our clinicians, who report that IfWH offers flexible, family-­‐friendly working that is not attainable in the more rigid confines of NHS clinical work. Through parallel clinical work, these women also have better job and income security to support their transition to senior research grades. To support the progression of our female non-­‐clinicians to senior research grades, we are reviewing options for tailored coaching within and outside of IfWH (Action 2.1). For further actions see 4.a.i ‘Promotion and career development’. Staff who are potential candidates for promotion may be identified by line managers, by self nomination or by HR alerts on reaching the top of a research grade. A round of senior promotions is initiated annually by human resources, through a circular email to all staff which is followed-­‐up by review at departmental meetings and the executive committee. However our survey found that staff are not always sure whether they are eligible to apply and that promotion procedures at IfWH could be more transparent. Most of our staff are nominated for promotion by their line managers. All IfWH staff undergo annual appraisal, which includes a review of achievements, training needs, short-­‐/medium-­‐/long-­‐
term goals and career progression plans. At separate meetings such as termly interim reviews, further discussions specifically address promotion and next steps where appropriate. (Actions 3.2, 3.3 and see section 4.a.i ‘Promotion and career development’). Clear criteria for UCL promotion are readily accessible on the UCL human resources pages (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/promotions_procedure_links.php) and through promotion round emails. We aim to increase the transparency of promotion procedures at IfWH; first by making these visible and accessible to all staff through our website and in promotion-­‐round emails (Actions 2.4 -­‐ 2.7, 5.7); and second by encouraging all line managers to undertake supervisor training (target 100% uptake over the next 3 years) (Action 2.2) alongside Unconscious Bias training (already mandatory at IfWH) (Action 5.6). Finally, staff not successful in securing promotion currently receive informal feedback from their line manager, however we recognise that we are in a position to offer more robust and ongoing support for these staff. As part of our transparent promotion strategy we will design a formal structure for feedback, which will include a sit-­‐down debrief with the line-­‐manager and another senior member of staff, review of progress and next steps needed towards promotion (Action 2.6) (492 words) 19 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 research posts advertised through UCL and linked through the IfWH website. To encourage applications from women to all research grades, we continue to promote IfWH as a flexible, family-­‐friendly place to work; for example on our website we now have information on our flexible working opportunities and core working hours (Action 4.6) as well as case studies of positive female role models at IfWH (Action 1.3, 2.5), and we plan to include a section for photographs of IfWH staff with their families at our social events (Actions 4.4, 4.6). Advertisement for every post at IfWH is checked by UCL for gender impartiality and for senior posts includes UCL’s statement “We particularly welcome female applicants and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, as they are under-­‐represented within UCL at these levels”. There is no problem attracting female applicants except at professor level where there are fewer female applicants than male counterparts; whilst we are supporting our current female senior lecturers and readers to progress to professor (cohort effect), we also plan to identify high-­‐profile female academics for externally advertised positions and invite them to apply. See 4.a.i. ‘Job application and success rates’. We aim to make our recruitment processes transparent and consistent for every research grade and a key part of this visibility will be a detailed description of our selection process both on our website and linked to recruitment emails (Action 5.7). We monitor gender-­‐balance on all short-­‐
listing and interview panels to ensure that we are not losing women applicants in the process of selecting and interviewing at any grade; currently 70% of panels are gender-­‐balanced (2:1 F:M or M:F) and we aim that all panels will be gender-­‐balanced, with 90% achieving a 2:1 F:M ratio to reflect the proportion of women at the institute (Actions 1.2, 1.4); this goes above UCL policy that women are to comprise at least 25% of all recruitment panels. We are vigilant that all appointments at IfWH are on scientific merit, however to be more confident of this all line managers and recruiters will complete Unconscious Bias training (mandatory and all are now enrolled on courses), of which gender equality is a key element. We will monitor our recruitment data annually and publish our results on our website, ultimately aiming for 2/3 women from research assistant through to professorial level (Actions 6.5, 6.6). (375 words) (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. 20 Our key points of attrition of female staff are at the research assistant-­‐to-­‐post-­‐doctoral and reader-­‐to-­‐professor transitions, whilst we have an excellent track record for retention of female staff from post-­‐doc to reader grades (consistently above 60%). We have on average 6-­‐7 PhD students at research assistant level each year; our aim is that all will progress to post-­‐doc within IfWH. Where possible their names would be put on grant applications to allow us to extend the contracts of promising female PhD students. During this time they can write-­‐up their thesis whilst undertaking further research and developing their curriculum vitae, with the aim of securing a post-­‐doc post at the end of the year. Most of these students are already mentored informally by women at IfWH; our senior female academics, most have families and work flexibly, are role models of successful career progression within the Institute. We now plan to embed mentoring as an Institute-­‐wide practice and will target PhD students as our first cohort of mentees (Action 3.1). We also believe that peer support is a powerful motivator and we plan to set up a “buddying” scheme (Action 3.6). See 4.a.iii ‘Support for female students’. Our numbers of senior lecturers and readers are very small, however 60-­‐70% are female. We expect all to progress to Professor, however to be assured of this we are investigating the best options for tailored coaching for each of these women to make sure that they have the skills, experience and self-­‐confidence to secure promotion (Action 2.1). Flexible working and parental leave are strongly supported and never limit career progression at IfWH. The attrition of non-­‐clinical female staff at senior research grades was highlighted as a particular problem in our data. Our survey findings highlight a particular problem in securing funding for the non-­‐translational research conducted by our non-­‐clinicians, which slows career progression: “Even though I would like to continue [in academia], there are times I have second thoughts to move to industry because of the insecurity with low payment [in academia]” “It is very difficult to secure funding in Women’s Health for non-­‐translational research.” This information has been shared with our executive committee; our departmental leads will review grant applications by lecturers/readers, being aware of opportunities to combine non-­‐
translational with pre-­‐clinical translational research, which is more likely to secure funding (Action 2.3). We have made the commitment that every staff member will have a mentor. We currently utilise UCL schemes (such as the ‘Future Fifty Mentors’ Programme for clinical academics), however we now have established a sub-­‐group within our SAT to develop a support system across the four departments of IfWH; this will include training and recognition for mentors, with protected time for mentoring (Action 3.1). Once established, we will evaluate impact initially through our staff survey (Action 6.1). Finally we plan to pioneer a year-­‐long academic leadership training programme in collaboration with the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (of which UCL is a member http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/). Initially targeting our middle and senior-­‐grade staff, this will include specific leadership mentoring and monthly action learning sets, to equip our career academics with the robust self-­‐management, team-­‐working and leadership skills which we recognise are essential to long-­‐term success in Women’s Health Research both in the UK and Internationally (Action 3.7). (543 words) 21 (4) CAREER DEVELOPMENT a) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed. (i) Promotion and career development – comment on the appraisal and career development process, and promotion criteria and whether these take into consideration responsibilities for teaching, research, administration, pastoral work and outreach work; is quality of work emphasised over quantity of work? 20
40
No
0
Proportion of respondents (%)
60
Figure 13: “DURING YOUR TIME AT UCL HAVE THERE BEEN ANY BARRIERS TO MOVING TO THE NEXT LEVEL IN YOUR CAREER/ BEING PROMOTED?” Yes
N/A
Annual appraisal is mandatory for all staff at IfWH (this is above UCL requirements for 2-­‐yearly appraisal) and is undertaken by the line manager. Clinical academics are jointly appraised by their UCL academic line manager and UCLH clinical line manager. IfWH human resources send electronic reminders and the UCL appraisal form is completed on-­‐line. We plan to monitor completion of these forms, with HR reminders until completion (Action 3.2). We already provide termly interim reviews for all staff (with minimum 3-­‐monthly progress reviews for PhD students), however to ensure that this is consistent across departments we are designing an electronic review form to be completed 6-­‐monthly at minimum and logged to IfWH HR (Action 3.2). Under the current UCL appraisal process, discussions include research output, publications, other achievements, long-­‐term goals and training needs; however non-­‐research commitments, which tend to be undertaken by women more than men (e.g. teaching, outreach) are not recorded. We are therefore writing new appraisal guidance for IfWH which takes into account career progression; training undertaken; teaching, clinical, outreach and administrative commitments; and work-­‐life balance. Briefings at our Executive Committee and Academic Board will help to ensure that these activities are always reviewed and carried forward into promotion discussions. We aim to work with UCL to update the electronic appraisal form to capture these discussions, which are pertinent to the development of our female academics (Actions 3.2, 3.3). University College London has clear criteria for academic career progression (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/promotions_procedure_links.php). Individuals identified for promotion are subsequently discussed and their achievements in research, teaching, knowledge transfer and enabling activity are reviewed at the Executive Committee meeting (50:50 F:M, held weekly in core working hours). Unconscious Bias training will help to ensure gender-­‐neutrality in 22 these processes (all line-­‐managers have enrolled and will have completed by May 2013) (Action 5.6). Since numbers promoted are necessarily small there is no evidence for or against gender balance in any past process. However both our staff survey and discussions within the SAT indicate that staff do not always feel encouraged to apply (Figure 12). Comments included: “lack of mentorship and guidance on a career in research” “my impression is that promotion from lecturer to senior lecturer is seen as a far greater deal than it should be for ‘basic scientists’ as senior lecturer is wrongly equated with ‘Consultant’ [top of clinical career progression] because consultant researchers hold CLINICAL senior lecturer posts” For Grades 7 to 8, HR alerts the department to those at the top of the scale and promotion will be based on academic attainment and ability and a satisfactory standard of work to be determined with line manager/HOD. We have recently added links to this on our website (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/promotions_procedure_links.php). During promotion rounds we will ensure our staff are reminded of these criteria by email (Actions 2.4, 2.6). To increase awareness of promotion opportunities we will continue to publicise successful promotions in our quarterly IfWH newsletter and will invite recently promoted female staff to be ‘case studies’ for our website (Action 2.5). (499 words) (ii) Induction and training – describe the support provided to new staff at all levels, as well as details of any gender equality training. To what extent are good employment practices in the institution, such as opportunities for networking, the flexible working policy, and professional and personal development opportunities promoted to staff from the outset? All new IfWH staff and students are sent a welcome letter and induction pack, which includes information on flexible working opportunities and links to other equality policies. We have comprehensive induction and training for all new staff and students, coordinated by IfWH administration, that includes online equality and diversity training health and safety, computer facilities etc. UCL bespoke Unconscious Bias training is compulsory for all IfWH line managers therefore new staff are enrolled on a training course during their induction; staff report that this training greatly increases their awareness of gender within their decision making (Action 5.6). All staff have an induction meeting with their line manager (Head of Institute for Professors) at which a personal development plan and opportunities for training and flexible working are discussed. To ensure consistency across our departments we are developing induction meeting guidance aligned to our appraisal guidance (for example to include discussions around work-­‐life balance and long-­‐term goals) and HR will electronically log completion of this meeting (Action 3.4). New IfWH staff are warmly welcomed. Once our mentoring scheme is established we will allow time to get to know new staff members before helping them to choose a mentor within 3 months of joining the Institute (Action 3.1). See 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career transition points’. (215 words) 23 (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. We ensure that within the 3-­‐year PhD funding period students focus on finishing their data collection and undertaking activities and training to further develop their research skills and build their academic CV, for example one student recently spent 4 months at the University of Bonn (Germany) to learn a new experimental technique for her PhD. Under the UCL graduate programme students are expected to attend training courses equivalent to 10 working days per year (logged electronically); we will highlight opportunities relevant to the career development of women in particular, for example through our website (Action 3.5). We have also started to develop a peer-­‐led programme of training events, including talks on unconventional career paths, to support career planning for early-­‐career scientists (Action 3.6). At regular progress reviews our supervisors encourage their students to consider medium-­‐term goals, specifically research interests and career aspirations beyond their PhD. Many of our supervisors have completed supervisor training (at UCL) and report that it has helped them to guide students towards longer-­‐term objectives for career and personal development; we are now aiming for 100% uptake of training (Action 2.2). Reviews are usually undertaken 3-­‐monthly, but this will be monitored 6-­‐monthly by HR to ensure consistency across departments (Action 3.2). Alongside supervision, mentoring is available and at present is usually arranged through individual supervisors. For example one of our Readers has recently received two UCL mentoring awards for her work with students at IfWH (case study). Uptake of UCL mentoring schemes is encouraged such as Future Fifty Mentors (for clinical academics) and UCL uMentor is encouraged. We are aiming to provide a peer ‘buddy’ and an IfWH mentor for every student (see 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career transition points’). As a result this inclusion in life at IfWH, coupled with exposure to our outstanding senior academic female role models and our excellent flexible working option, most of our female students stay on at IfWH and progress to research associates and lecturers. (327 words) (4) 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. There are 3 main committees at IfWH. There is no selection process for any committee and female:male ratios are consistently 50:50. The Executive Committee meets weekly and is chaired by the IfWH director; membership is fixed (the four department leads, 2 senior research leads, 2 24 graduate tutors for taught and research students and the Institute manager) and currently there are 5 men and 5 women and all attend (figure 12). 100
12
80
5
60
♂
13
♀
20
40
5
0
Proportion of committee members (%)
The Strategic Planning Board meets monthly chaired by Prof Peter Brocklehurst. Again membership is fixed, comprising UCLH clinical leads Women’s Health and Neonatology, IfWH clinical academic leads and non-­‐clinical leads in education and management. There are currently 13 female and 12 male members. Attendance ranges from 8 – 16 members, usually 50:50 female:male (figure 13). Figure 14: FEMALE AND MALE REPRESENTATION ON COMMITTEES Dotted line indicates 50%. Dark shading represents women, light shading represents men. Executive Committee
Strategic Board
The Academic Board meets monthly and is open to all IfWH staff (not included on graph as no fixed membership) and is chaired by Professor Donald Peebles. Attendance is usually around 20 staff members with 50:50 female:male attendance. However the current female:male staff ratio across IfWH is 60:40 and therefore to increase the attendance of female staff we will send e mail invites well in advance (>1 month) highlighting this underrepresentation and inviting women to attend and also advertise meetings on our intranet (Action 5.2). Attendance will be closely monitored by our SAT and further actions planned accordingly (Action 4.2). In addition the Staff/Student Teaching Committee is held termly and is attended by 25-­‐35 staff and student members, 60:40 female:male – attendance is voluntary. (241 words) (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. There are 69 academic staff at IfWH. Of these 26 (38%) are HEFCE funded (no end date) with a female:male ratio 50:50, representing the more senior research staff at the institute. The remaining 43 (62%) staff are grant funded with a female:male ratio 67%:32% -­‐ this reflects the higher numbers of women at more junior research levels. Our ethos at IfWH is to find ongoing funding for grant-­‐funded posts and support the career transition of women to senior, fixed term contracts, aiming for 60:40 F:M, which we already through our cohort effect up to reader level (see 4.b.ii ‘Support for staff at key career tranisition points’). (107 words) 25 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? Membership on 2 of the 3 main decision-­‐making committees at IfWH (Executive Committee, Strategic Board) is determined by role (department leads); membership and attendance are 50:50. The third decision-­‐making committee, Academic Board, is open to all staff and we aim to increase visibility to increase attendance of female staff to 60:40 female:male (currently 50:50) (see 4.a.i ‘Female and male representation on committees’). We plan to arrange in advance that every decision-­‐making committee meeting is attended by a SAT member, to raise the profile of gender-­‐
balance considerations (Action 5.1). We have moved or are moving all these meetings to core working hours. Both male and female staff are represented on UCL decision-­‐making committees, the medical Royal Colleges, journal boards and other specialty-­‐representative organisations; in our survey our senior female academics did not report a problem with ‘committee overload’ however to be sure of this we will now review the commitments of all staff, through HR monitoring and at appraisal (Action 5.3). (160 words) (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. Commitments in addition to research for IfWH research leads include teaching for UCL, assisting with undergraduate examinations; serving on UCL committees or committees related to the medical Royal Colleges or other organisations; outreach activities and mentoring. Occasional high intensity tasks exist, such as leading the Athena Swan SAT. These commitments are always reviewed at appraisal and our new appraisal guidance will help to ensure that appropriate recognition is given in the context of overall career progression (Actions 3.2, 3.3). Workload data is not currently formally collected. During the Athena self-­‐assessment process our Executive Board have agreed to adopt workload monitoring across the Institute, aiming to ensure that allocation of work is fair and transparent. Our next step will be to identify the best strategy for this, for example seeking advice from other Athena SWAN committees at UCL (Action 4.7). (139 words) 26 (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. During the Athena self-­‐assessment process we have worked to move all meetings, both Institute-­‐
wide and departmental, to core working hours (10am-­‐4pm). For most meetings this was achieved through doodle polls to identify the best time; the Executive Board meeting has been moved from 9.30am to 10am (March 2013) and the Academic Board from 5.30pm to 7.00pm to lunchtimes (April 2013). Strategic Board is currently held 8am-­‐9am as non-­‐academic clinicians have difficulty moving clinical commitments, however a doodle poll is in process to change this (Action 4.1). Although the timing of individual departmental meetings is not routinely monitored, SAT staff (representatives from all IfWH departments) report that their meetings do fall within core hours; department leads will be now asked to report meeting times and attendance to HR and this will be reviewed by the SAT (Action 4.2) Most Institute-­‐wide social gatherings are held in the evenings, including the IfWH Christmas Party and quarterly IfWH social evenings (Thursdays 5.30pm). There is one 2-­‐monthly coffee morning at 10.30am. Most of our departments also run daytime events such as team lunches and weekend family outings (see 4.b.iv ‘Culture’). We plan to move the timing of social events to begin within core working hours, with time at date agreed at least 1-­‐2 months in advance by doodle poll to enable staff to organise other commitments (Action 4.3) and this year will hold our first IfWH annual family summer picnic (Action 4.4). (235 words) (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. As the only Institute for Women’s Health in the UK, gender equality is at the core of our shared values and our staff are proud to promote these values both within and outside IfWH in their daily work. We are a family-­‐friendly and inclusive department with many highly successful women interacting across the department (currently 60% female overall). The pursuit of equal opportunities and wellbeing for women underpins our working culture and is fundamental to our research. Feedback received in our staff survey included: “As a black female, I feel I am treated the same as my male colleagues” “If you are good at your job you will get promoted no matter what your gender” We highly value respect for all our staff, will not tolerate discrimination of any kind and always address each other on first name terms at across all levels (unlike in clinical medicine and some other academic fields); our working culture is friendly, relaxed and completely non-­‐hierarchical. Our Institute director and senior academics all operate an open-­‐door policy when they are on-­‐site; all are very approachable, supportive and readily accessible by email when off-­‐site. IfWH is a hugely diverse Institute, divided across five UCL sites and collaborating with other centres of research excellence worldwide across high-­‐, middle-­‐ and low-­‐income settings, united in the objective of improving women’s health. Our academic staff include clinical, biomedical, social, behavioural scientists; physicists; epidemiologists; and educationalists. 27 Although we do not have a single shared workplace or informal space for networking, we take steps integrate our staff as much as possible. For example we allocate research assistants and associates from across departments and specialties to share offices (usually around 4 people per office), which serve as informal spaces to discuss research ideas, share information about the department (for example on flexible working options) and provide peer support; these staff routinely join together to go for lunch at cafes on the nearby Tottenham Court Road. The support provided through these informal structures is invaluable to our junior staff and we now plan to offer more structured form peer support, equipping our female academics with the tools to support one another’s career development (Action 3.6). The main centre for our meetings is the Rockefeller Building (which also houses other UCL Institutes) as this is within walking distance of our other sites. For clinicians in particular this space offers a sanctuary away from the busy clinical working environment at UCLH. We plan to add an IfWH to the main entrance of the Rockefeller Building, to make our activities visible and share successes and good Athena SWAN practise with staff from other departments and in particular with UCL medical students (Action 5.5). Many of our staff are parents and we are a particularly family-­‐friendly department; for example we all know which of our colleagues (at all levels) have children and routinely ask after them; we encourage flexible working, both formally through supervision and informally to one another, in support of work-­‐life balance (see case studies); the arrival of a new baby is shared with staff and celebrated (as is any good news – papers, grants, promotions etc) (Action 4.9); and children are always welcome in our offices and are warmly invited to attend our social events. Many of our departments regularly hold family days; for example our Perinatal Brain Group, with families, went to the Leonardo anatomy exhibition last autumn and will attend the Cheltenham Science Festival this June to participate in public activities around science. This year we will hold our first Institute-­‐
wide summer picnic and games in July on a Saturday and all families will be warmly invited; we are also moving our Christmas party to daytime hours and aim to widen family participation in all social events (Action 4.4). To maximise the participation of staff with caring responsibilities we have now adopted IfWH core hours 10am-­‐4pm for our decision-­‐making committees and our departmental leads are now working to move all meetings to within core hours and not in school holidays (Action 4.1). A further action is to ensure that at least 50% external speakers are female (currently more are men), ultimately aiming for 2/3 women (Action 5.4). We plan to set up an on-­‐line work-­‐life balance notice board on the IfWH website as this is the IfWH hub most visited by our staff, on which we will display information from UCL, examples of female role models, updates on social and team events, notices of forthcoming grant applications etc (Action 5.5). Finally we will demonstrate our inclusive culture by displaying the work the SAT have done towards the Silver Award application (survey and action points) on the IfWH website pages http://www.instituteforwomenshealth.ucl.ac.uk/where more details about Athena swan and all our work in this area can be found (Action 5.5). (841 words) (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 28 programmes are aimed at, and how this activity is formally recognised as part of the workload model and in appraisal and promotion processes. We are very enthusiastic about outreach activities and this programme is being actively developed by our postgraduate lead for taught courses (female) but all staff are involved. We hold annual visits to IfWH for schools and our female students routinely volunteer for lead roles, organising talks and lab tours. The last school visit was in February 2012, where two co-­‐educational schools spent the day at IfWH learning about Women’s Health and careers in academic science. During the 2013 summer holidays five A-­‐level students will visit the institute for a week to experience life at UCL and are raising funds for further placements through the Nuffield Programme (Action 1.1). A number of students and post-­‐docs also visit schools and talk about careers in science and are ambassadors for women in science; we present >60% female role models in all outreach activities. The development of new outreach activities will be further informed by our student survey, which will address barriers to applying (Actions 6.3, 6.4). Although involvement in outreach is discussed at appraisal, we are concerned that it may be under-­‐recognised in the career progression of female staff. Our new appraisal guidance will ensure that outreach activities are reviewed alongside other non-­‐research commitments (e.g. teaching, chairing committees) and carried forward in promotion discussions (Actions 3.2, 3.3). Criteria for promotion will be made transparent through promotion-­‐round emails and on our website (Action 2.6). See 4.a.i. ‘Promotion and career development’. (246 words) (4) 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. In the past 3 years, 8 women have taken maternity leave, however 2 (research assistants) did not return as their maternity leave coincided with the end of contract and one resigned from her job to become a full-­‐time mum. UCL already has a number of excellent support packages in place for those returning from maternity leave, for example paid sabbaticals from teaching responsibilities, which have been taken up by our staff (see case studies). Staff planning maternity leave meet with their line manager both before and immediately on their return from leave and we plan to include formalised HR meetings in this process to ensure that the individual is in receipt of the best support available to them and is able to undertake a phased return to work activities (Actions 4.6, 4.8, 4.9). (133 words) 29 (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. Over the past 3 years one paternity leave of 2 weeks was taken (by a Research Associate) and this person returned to full time work. Adoption leave was taken by one female member of staff and was fully supported as for maternity leave. There has been no request for shared parental leave for men, although this is welcomed as much as maternity leave and our male staff encouraged by female colleagues to consider this option. We are an extremely family-­‐friendly Institute; we celebrate births, welcome children and encourage informal and formal flexible working (Actions 4.8, 4.9). Family leave is never a problem. (102 words) (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. There have been no formal requests to HR for flexible working, however many of our research staff spend time informally working from home after discussion with and indeed flexible working is regarded as one of the key strengths of IfWH. Although none of our female academics work part time, most of our clinical academics work 50%research/50% clinical. However, it is possible that not all staff consider the option of flexible working and we aim to increase awareness of this option by increasing visibility on our web-­‐site and e-­‐noticeboard (Action 4.6) and ensuring that flexible working options are always discussed at induction, supervision and appraisal meetings (Actions 3.3, 3.4, 4.9). We are exploring the best way to review and ensure fairness of our flexible working practices through workload monitoring (Action 4.7). (142 words) 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. 30 100
80
82
85
All staff
Women
Men
40
60
82
20
0
Proportion (%) of staff benefitting from flexible working
Figure 15: “DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY IN YOUR WORKING HOURS?” Eighty percent of both men and women at IfWH feel they have enough flexibility in their working hours (Figure 15); indeed we regard this as a key strength of the Institute which enables staff with families in particular to attain a work-­‐life balance (see case studies). We operate informal flexible working arrangements; this does not reduce the hours but they are used by many to cover caring responsibilities. In practice this means slightly shorter hours on site at the IfWH balanced by longer working hours at home. All research leads are aware of flexible working hours and welcome them (see case studies). All of our senior female academics (Professors, Readers, Senior Lecturers) work flexibly and encourage students and post-­‐docs to recognise how flexible research can be as a career. Our new supervision guidance will ensure that flexible working is always discussed at induction, interim and appraisal meetings and that options for informal and formal flexible working are offered to all staff (Actions 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.6). We plan to introduce training, for example delivered through SAT representatives at their departmental meetings (Action 5.1), to make all staff aware of the comprehensive list of options available to staff at UCL such as flexitime, annualised hours, term-­‐time working, staggered hours, job share, part-­‐time working, compressed hours, career breaks and remote working (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/benefits/family_friendly_benefits.php). Through our website and briefings at IfWH meetings we will make sure that all staff are ensure that all staff are aware of UCL’s work-­‐life balance policy which acknowledges that staff are most productive when they have achieved a work/life balance that enables them to meet their responsibilities outside work (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/work_life_balance.php)(Action 4.6) To aid flexible working, all but one committee have already been moved to core working hours, avoiding school holidays (Action 4.1). We will review progress through our annual staff survey, aiming that 100% staff feel that they have enough flexibility in their working hours (Action 6.1). (319 words) 31 (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. Cover is always provided for maternity leave of core scientific staff and support staff to ensure that their duties are maintained. For research lead maternity leave, arrangements are made for supervision of post-­‐docs and PhD students as necessary and this additional workload is reviewed at appraisal. No cover is provided usually for post-­‐doc or PhD students’ leave – research work is usually held in stasis unless urgent, in which case this work is continued by another lab team member; recognition is given to those who contribute to the project in this way. When planning maternity leave, staff meet with their line manager at the earliest opportunity to review work plans and the support needed in pregnancy, including types of work undertaken and flexible working. In addition we will now offer every staff member a meeting with a senior administrator to discuss all the maternity packages available through UCL (Action 4.8). We always celebrate newborn births with an announcement in the IfWH newsletter and will ensure that flowers are always sent on behalf of the Institute (Action 4.9). Supervisors keep in touch with the parent on leave and invite them to events so they feel in touch if they wish; the Athena SAT team will reinforce this practice through training at their departmental meetings (Actions 4.8, 5.1). Support on return from work includes a “welcome back” meeting with the supervisor immediately on return from parental leave and next steps discussed. Women returning from leave at IfWH already benefit from stepped-­‐return options arranged with their supervisors, arranging for example cover for teaching. We plan to formalise this across our departments and to investigate further support options, for example UCL offers a maternity sabbatical scheme to cover teaching activities for the first 2 months back and this is not always taken up (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/benefits/family_friendly_benefits.php). We will also investigate external “return to work” fellowships and bursaries provided for women in science. UCL has a work-­‐place nursery and operates a salary sacrifice scheme, which helps financially. Flexible working hours are encouraged for all staff (see 4.b.i ‘Flexible working’). These options will be publicised on our website and through training of supervisors (Actions 4.6, 4.8, 5.1). Other steps towards a family-­‐friendly workplace include core working hours (Action 4.1), daytime scheduling for social events (started during self-­‐assessment process, Actions 4.3, 4.4) and children being welcomed in departmental offices (within safety regulations) (Action 4.9). We are extremely supportive of parental leave. As an Institute for Women’s Health, the wellbeing of mothers and newborn babies is our reason for existing! (440 words) 5000 (MAX WORD COUNT 5000 WORDS) 32 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. We are the only Institute for Women’s Health in the UK. Women’s Health and equal opportunities for all regardless of gender are fundamental to our working culture, values and research mandate and our staff are immensely proud to be a part of this. Our working culture is egalitarian and extremely family-­‐friendly, creating a positive and supportive working environment for all. The Athena SWAN self-­‐assessment process has helped us to understand our strengths as a highly supportive, flexible and female-­‐friendly Institute, whilst identifying weaknesses that we had not previously recognised. Our main findings have been: 1) we do not yet have formal, institute-­‐wide structure to support the development of all our staff; 2) mentoring is very much wanted by all our staff at all levels, as highlighted by both our staff survey and through informal feedback within SAT meetings; 3) there is a ‘leaky pipeline’ with attrition of female staff progressing to senior grades at IfWH; 4) there is a discrepancy in the experiences of clinical and non-­‐clinical academic staff, with female and male non-­‐clinicians encountering more barriers to career progression; 5) whilst many positive changes are underway in support of women’s career progression, IfWH processes are not always transparent and we do not routinely monitor the impact of these actions. We have therefore developed an action plan focussed on 6 key issues and have started to work on many of these during the self-­‐assessment process: 1. Gender-­‐balanced recruitment – We have introduced mandatory unconscious bias training and now ensure that our short-­‐listing and interview panels are gender-­‐balanced. 2. Support for career transition – We will now have targeted career development support through mentoring, appraisal and training, for all staff but in particular for women and non-­‐clinicians, to encourage career progression. 3. Mentoring and career development support – We are determined to create a structure which provides mentors for all staff and PhD students at IfWH. 4. Core working hours/ flexible family-­‐friendly working – We have now moved our decision-­‐
making committees to core working hours and are encouraging the same for all departmental meetings. 5. Organisation and culture, ensuring transparency and promoting SWAN values – We are making all our decision-­‐making processes accessible and visible to all, and are developing our system of feedback. 33 6. Monitoring – our SAT will meet quarterly to review our action plan progress, our IfWH HR data by gender, and the experiences of our staff through an annual survey. Our vision is that IfWH be recognised not only as a global leader in Women’s Health research but as a centre of excellence for women and men working in academic and clinical science. Outstanding leadership will be key to our success; from our Institute Director Professor Brocklehurst, from our Departmental Leads and from individual staff at all levels of experience. Through the actions of our Athena SAT, focussing on the development of all staff as individuals and building on our strengths as an equal-­‐opportunities and family-­‐friendly workplace, we hope to develop the leaders of the future for Women’s Health. 496 words (Limit 500)
34 6. Action plan Provide an action plan as an appendix. An action plan template is available on the Athena SWAN website. The Action Plan should be a table or a spreadsheet comprising actions to address the priorities identified by the analysis of relevant data presented in this application, success/outcome measures, the post holder responsible for each action and a timeline for completion. The plan should cover current initiatives and your aspirations for the next three years. The Institute for Women’s Health, supported by the Athena SWAN team, aims to: • Promote science to all – women and men • Provide tailored support for the development needs of every staff member – with a focus on support for women at key career transition points • Provide a supportive, flexible and family-­‐friendly working environment • Always be open and transparent in our recruitment and working practices We have identified six key areas for this Silver application that we believe will make the most difference to working culture at IfWH. This Action Plan summarises ongoing actions linked to planned new actions that are SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, timely). 35 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Unbiased recruitment Support for women at key transition points Mentoring and support for career development across IfWH Core working hours (10am-­‐4pm) and making flexible working accessible to all Culture of transparency and openness in all IfWH activities, centred on Athena principles Ongoing review of gender-­‐balance and staff experiences 1: ACHIEVE GENDER-­‐BALANCED RECRUITMENT OF STUDENTS AND STAFF LEADS: Joyce Harper (JH), Gennadij Raivich (GR), Sangeeta Dave (SD) More women than men are offered research posts and places on taught courses at IfWH. The proportion of all male applicants receiving offers for taught courses is consistently greater than that for all female applicants. Description of action/ problem identified 1.1 Increase numbers of women and men applying to taught courses and research degrees At present fewer men than women apply for taught courses and research degrees 36 Actions already taken Further action planned Responsibility Timescale Taught courses and research degrees advertised on homepage on IfWH website Survey of PG students to identify barriers to applying Survey: Student survey data by Dec 2013 Website/ visibility: Make female Positive female and male role-­‐models at alumni visible all research on IfWH levels at IfWH website, focus on career pathway SD, ERF, JH, AP JKH, SD Success measure over next 3 years Coherent outreach programme targeting breadth of schools, university Visibility by students, Sept 2013 trainee doctors Annual Recruitment review of advertisments: recruitment Increase in absolute data by SAT numbers of Christina Clinical men and Ahlfors (CA), (see 6.5) academics women Judy Okello (JO) identify bright Add statement applying to female junior to recruitment taught doctors and advertisements Successful courses and encourage re: family-­‐
Outreach: research outreach them to apply friendly programme degrees JH, Angela for research working by Sept Poulter (AP), degrees practices 2014 SD, ERF Widespread recognition of Advertisements Lectures by IfWH as an include IfWH equal statement re: staff/students opportunities, gender-­‐neutral to external family recruitment audiences to friendly work process include a slide environment about opportunities for study and Some outreach work at IfWH, activities: School visits, IfWH stall at university and medical careers fairs; activities led by IfWH students and post-­‐docs Further develop annual programme of outreach activities e.g. Nuffield programme summer placements for SET 6th form students Unconscious bias training provided and compulsory for all tutors/ short-­‐listers/ interviewers/ supervisors at IfWH – all have enrolled for training For taught courses in April courses and and May 2013 research degrees, proportion of all female Non-­‐
applicants standardised receiving interview offers is process for lower than research posts proportion -­‐ of all male 70% of all applicants shortlisting and receiving offers. Aim interview to eliminate panels gender-­‐
unconscious balanced (2:1) bias. Names concealed on application forms, aim make forms gender-­‐blind – liase with UCL Gender blind applications/ gender-­‐
balanced panels: CA, JO, MJ Unconscious-­‐
bias free recruitment with gender blind application forms All short-­‐listing and interview panels gender-­‐
balanced with 2:1 F:M ratio Interview process: 100% recruiters complete unconscious bias training 1.2 Eliminate unconscious bias in recruitment to taught courses and research degrees 37 including focus on family-­‐
friendly working practice GR, PB (Director) Formal and transparent interview process for research posts, standard information sent to all applicants invited for interview and available on Sept 2014 Formal, standardised, transparent interview process for all research posts, information provided to all applicants website 90% all short-­‐
listing and interview panels 2:1 F:M 1.3 Increase numbers of women externally recruited to senior research grades Informal promotion of IfWH to female colleagues by senior IfWH staff Make female alumni visible on IfWH website, focus on career pathway Decision to head-­‐hunt Fewer outstanding females women for than males externally-­‐
externally recruited recruited to senior posts reader and professor grades Advertisements include statement re: gender-­‐neutral recruitment process Lectures by IfWH staff/students to external audiences to include a slide about opportunities for study and work at IfWH, including focus on family-­‐
friendly working practice Visibility, website: Visibility by Increase in Sept 2013 women applying to JKH, SD and appointed to Annual senior review of research Recruitment recruitment positions – advertisements: data by SAT aim 50:50 F:M CA, JO (see 6.5) professors within 3 years Widespread recognition of IfWH as an equal opportunities, family friendly work environment Add statement to recruitment advertisements re: family-­‐
friendly working practices 1.4 Eliminate unconscious bias in recruitment senior research posts 38 Unconscious bias training provided and compulsory for all line managers at IfWH Names concealed on application forms, aim make forms gender-­‐blind – liase with UCL Gender blind applications/ gender-­‐
balanced panels: CA, JO, MJ Sept 2014 Unconscious-­‐
bias free recruitment process with gender blind application forms Currently not a problem – job offers to men/ women reflect proportion of male/ female applicants Non-­‐
standardised interview process for research posts -­‐ Formal and transparent interview process for senior research posts, standard information 70% of all sent to all shortlisting and applicants interview invited for panels gender-­‐ interview balanced (2:1) Interview process: 100% line managers complete unconscious bias training NR, PB (Director), Exec committee Formal, standardised, transparent interview process for all research posts, information provided to all applicants All short-­‐listing and interview panels gender-­‐
balanced with 2:1 F:M ratio 1.5 Monitor and publicise recruitment by gender Recruitment rate by gender is not routinely monitored 39 Recruitment data by gender is collected but not reviewed Review of recruitment data at Athena SAT meetings Athena SWAN application now on website, includes recruitment data Publish recruitment data by level an gender on IfWH website, update 6-­‐
monthly 90% all short-­‐
listing and interview panels 2:1 F:M Athena SAT CA, JO Annual review of recruitment data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Recruitment rate by gender – robust review process in place within SAT, annual review Data published and kept up-­‐to-­‐
date on IfWH website 2. TARGET LOSS OF FEMALES AT KEY CAREER TRANSITION POINTS LEADS: Martin Widschwenter (MW), Joyce Harper (JH), Rania Fourkala (RF), John TImms (JT) The total proportion of female academic staff increased from 55.9% in 2009 to 59% in 2012. In our only 22.2% of staff reported barriers to career progression, however there is attrition of female staff at to senior research grades. 80% IfWH Research Assistants are female; 25% of IfWH Professors are female. Description of action/ problem identified 2.1 Reduce attrition of women at reader/ professor level High attrition of female clinical and non-­‐clinical academics at reader/ professor level Actions Further already taken action planned Current female staff encouraged to continue with academic career progression (cohort effect) Positive female role models at reader and professor levels, providing support and mentoring Flexible working supported for all staff, especially at senior level Family friendly, above and beyond UCL policies; 40 Responsibility Timescale Continue to Recruitment – apply current see 1 policies Mentoring – Make female see 3 role models visible on website Gender neutral recruitment processed (see 1) Website/ visibility: JKH, SD Coaching: Revised appraisal guidance Dec 2013 Success measure Increased proportion of female staff in senior research posts Annual staff survey – next May Annual staff 2014 survey shows increased awareness and uptake of Annual opportunities review to apply for promotion promotion by SAT (see and that staff 6.5, 6.6) feel supported JT, JH Provision of mentors (see 3) Specific coaching interventions for promotion of female senior lecturers/ readers Appraisal/ Exec Electronic recording of review meetings (free text) and staff survey indicates discussions on work life balance, clinical/ academic Appraisal: parental leave interim never a review to problem always include discussion on work/life balance and wellbeing (focus on “how can we help you?”), as well as review of other commitments (clinical, teaching, outreach, etc) Encourage all to undertake academic leadership training (see 3) committee workload balance, commitments e.g. teaching, career progression CA, JO Leadership training: NJR, JH, MJ Grant application support: Exec committee NJR, GR, MW, JT Increased support for grant-­‐writing 2.2 Reduce attrition of women at research assistant and post-­‐doc level Attrition of female staff is high in the research assistance to post-­‐doc transition 41 Many positive AS FOR 2.1, female role PLUS: models in senior posts PhD funding extended for an additional year (after 3 years) to enable write-­‐
up, cv development and application for JT to be SAT responsible officer for post-­‐docs Appoint SAT responsible officer for post-­‐docs PB, NJR Ensure that support for all research students and post-­‐docs is Exec committee Supervisor training: PhD/ post-­‐
doc training: Revised appraisal guidance Dec 2013 Survey shows that PhD students and post-­‐docs feel supported in career development, Annual staff including survey – opportunities next May to teach/ 2014 supervise/ attend training Annual review promotion HR record uptake of training – period. Aim to provide research assistants and post-­‐
docs with opportunities and support in leading a research group, teaching and public engagement. post-­‐doc position consistent across IfWH Focus across IfWH on active support for post-­‐docs to achieve first author publications Encourage supervisors to undertake formal training in supervision and academic leadership Close supervision and support from senior research leads UCL development programme for PhD students and post-­‐docs – many free training courses, uptake encouraged UCL family-­‐
friendly working policies easily readily accessible to all IfWH staff, uptake of flexible working encouraged. 2.3 Tailored support for 42 JH, GR by SAT (see specifically 6.5, 6.6) aim 100% supervisors attend training Proportion of female academics maintained from research assistant to post-­‐doc level Encourage post-­‐docs to participate career development courses e.g. management, interviewing, grant writing (UCL or other) Initiate teaching experience for post-­‐docs e.g. student supervision Provide mock interviews, practice talks for research seminars and meetings AS FOR 2.1/ 2.2, PLUS Exec committee Annual staff Survey – non-­‐
survey – clinical staff non-­‐clinical female academics Support for grant writing, with relief from other duties at grant-­‐
submission times Attrition of non-­‐clinical female academics is greater than that for clinicans next May NJR, MW, GR, 2014 JT Annual review promotion by SAT (see Increased 6.5, 6.6) number of non-­‐clinical female staff promoted to senior research grades All grants applications to be reviewed by dept leads, vigilant for non-­‐
translational/ pre-­‐clinical translation collaborations 2.4 Make promotion opportunities visible and accessible Staff unaware of promotion opportunities or think they should not apply 2.5 Publicise success and promote positive 43 Advertisement of promotion opportunities on website and notification to all staff by email Positive action in encouraging females to apply -­‐ direct support from supervisor, appraisal, mentoring, coaching Information on how to apply/ eligibility included with HR promotion round emails Successful promotions announced in IfWH Successful promotions to be posted on IfWH feel supported to progress with academic career Exec committee Dept leads Annual staff survey – next May 2014 CA, JO Annual review promotion by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) MJ, CA, JO JKH, RF August 2013; thereafter Continued increase in number of applicants for promotion Staff survey demonstrates increased uptake promotion opportunities, staff feel supported to apply Up to date and inspiring website female and male role models newsletter Procedures for selecting candidates for promotion are not always clear Case studies of success stories on IfWH website – balance of genders, all academic levels Criteria for promotion available from UCL human resources Invitation to apply for promotion sent to IfWH staff Promotion rounds announced at academic board 44 Make visible and accessible the requirements for clinical and non-­‐
clinical academic career progression – including webpage Promotion Transparent Repeat survey policies and promotion – staff feel requirements: criteria May that 2014 procedures MJ, CA, JO more transparent +SAT members Annual staff raise survey – awareness in next May Promotion their depts 2014 criteria found on IfWH website and included with Promotion HR promotion discussed a
nd Discuss round emails feedback promotion at given: review meetings Robust, fair, accessible and consistent feedback process for unsuccessful applicants 2.7 Monitor and publicise promotion rates by gender 6-­‐monthly update of website 2.6 Transparent strategy to identify candidates for promotion at IfWH website news bulletin Promotion Review of data is promotion collated by HR data at every Athena SAT meeting Exec committee Dept leads Review of data: Athena SAT Annual staff survey – next May 2014 Exec Proportion of female staff applying for and attaining promotion reflects 45 committee Promotion rate by gender is not routinely monitored Publish numbers by level and gender on IfWH website, CA, JO updated 6-­‐
monthly Annual review promotion Publication of by SAT (see data: 6.5, 6.6) proportion of female academics across IfWH Survey shows that female staff feel encouraged and supported to apply for promotion, that process is transparent and fair Issue 3: PROVIDE MENTORS AND REGULAR REVIEW OF CAREER DEVELOPMENT WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF APPRAISAL LEADS: Nikki Robertson (NJR), Jane Hassell (JKH), Kevin Broad (KB) UCL offers a range of career development courses and has recently reintroduced a university-­‐wide mentoring programme, however the need for mentoring and better access to career development opportunities within IfWH was highlighted by our staff survey. Description of action/ problem identified 3.1 Set up IfWH mentoring scheme No formal mentoring scheme in place at IfWH; need for mentoring a key finding of staff survey Actions Further action already taken planned Responsibility Timescale Success measure Many senior IfWH academics are mentors Subgroup of SAT to establish mentoring programme: UCL has recently set up a mentoring scheme available to all post-­‐docs Explore different mentoring scheme options and set up IfWH initiative Identify suitable high quality mentors for post-­‐docs, lecturers and more senior staff, for support with tailored career development Clinicians-­‐in-­‐
training can access the London Deanery Peer Mentoring Programme Time in job plans for mentors Clinical fellows and clinical lecturers can Identify access the clinician NHS/NIHR academic mentoring mentors for and outreach clinical scheme, and academics, UCL Future develop cross-­‐
46 NJR, JKH, SD, PB Roll-­‐out 2013-­‐ 2016 Everyone has a mentor Survey shows Annual that staff feel staff supported, survey – that next May mentoring 2014 relationships are successful, and staff feel more able to access development opportunities Fifty mentors specialty scheme network within UCL in collaboration with UCL Clinical Academic Careers Office Identify and provide training for all in ‘what is a mentor’ Encourage all staff to secure a mentor – self-­‐selected or matched – include in appraisal 3.2 Annual appraisal for all, including review of career development and work-­‐life balance Appraisals not always considered helpful and not always completed regularly Appraisals are monitored and notifications sent to line managers and staff annually. Reminders are sent until appraisal is completed. Summary and comments recorded electronically. Annual appraisal for all staff 47 Report completion of annual appraisal to HR; HR to monitor and send reminders until completion Minimum 6-­‐
monthly logged review for PhD students and post-­‐docs – report completion to HR Exec committee Dept leads MJ, CA, JO May 2014 100% appraisals completed annually Annual staff survey – next May 90% 2014 completion of 6-­‐monthly intermim review for Annual PhD students/ review of post-­‐docs data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) 100% appraisers undertake UCL appraised training Interim review every term for junior and middle grades – semi-­‐formal, not logged to HR Appraiser training is mandatory Appraisers to attend UCL appraiser training course Survey demonstrates satisfaction with appraisal/ review process eventually to no dissatisfaction Appraisal and review discussions specifically address career development, teaching/ clinical responsibilities etc and work-­‐
life balance Appraisal to include discussion of options for flexible working Ensure independent appraisals available at request of individual staff 3.3 New appraisal guidance to ensure that career development and work-­‐life balance are reviewed and recorded 48 Electronic appraisal form records summary of discussions (UCL) with a focus on research outputs New guidance for all IfWH appraisal discussion to include to include discussions career development plans, clinical/ academic balance, teaching/ Exec committee Dept leads NJR, KJH, MJ Guidance New appraisal in use by guidance in May 2014 use across IfWH, accessible on intranet Annual staff survey – next May Positive staff 2014 survey feedback on improved outreach/ admin commitments. work/ life balance, flexible working opportunities Briefing on guidance to be given at Exec Committee and Academic Board Approacj UCL to revise university appraisal forms to include non-­‐
research elements as above 3.4 Induction meeting discussions to include career development and work-­‐life balance All new staff have an induction meeting with their line manager, however this is not always structured Induction Exec meeting committee discussions to be recorded on Dept leads electronic form CA, JO Discussions to include career development plan, training opportunities, flexible working options and work-­‐life balance 49 appraisal process, more opportunities to discuss career development plans and work-­‐life balance Discussions with UCL re: updating appraisal process – secure support with other ICL deps May 2014 Induction meeting electronic from in place, Annual HR monitor review of completion data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Induction meeting guidance accessible on intranet Staff survey – induction reported to be supportive and informative 3.5 10 protected ‘transferrable skills’ training days per year for all research students and post-­‐docs (Roberts Report 2003) Not all research students or post-­‐docs are aware of or are able to take up opportunities for training in transferrable skills 3.6 Develop peer support structure within IfWH 50 UCL offers an extensive staff development programme; courses are free for staff, grade-­‐specific courses are offered, uptake is encouraged Ensure all research students/ post-­‐
docs aware of training opportunities e.g. UCL, NIHR – review at appraisal, encourage to seek training specific to needs of individual Under the UCL graduate programme all research students electronically log progress, which includes attendance at training courses (required 10 days per year for research students) Strong informal support structure exists, particularly in shared offices Buddying scheme – provide peer support for every PhD student and post-­‐doc, with training KB, RF, ERF Annual review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Annual staff survey – next May 2014 All research students and post-­‐docs to pursue 10 transferrable skills training days per year according to own career development plan Monitor number of training days attended (appraisal and HR) Post-­‐docs and students indicate that they are encouraged and not prohibited from attending training Highlight training opportunities particularly helpful to career development of women ERF, RF, JH Sept 2014 Buddying scheme in place – every PhD student and post-­‐doc has a peer ‘buddy’; survey Annual post-­‐
graduate student day at IfWH – presentation of work by MSc, MD and PhD students provided for peer mentors Support students and post-­‐docs to organise tailored training events including unconventional career paths, suggest speakers and topics 3.7 Develop and pilot IfWH leadership training programme Leadership training topic-­‐specific courses available free to all UCL staff Academic leadership training to develop key skills for leading research teams 51 Develop and NJR, JKH, MJ pilot academic leadership training programme, to run as monthly sessions over 1 year alongside tailored leadership mentoring, initially for middle-­‐grade academics, in collaboration with the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education (UCL is a member) findings suggest this provides effective support, in particular for junior female academics Feedback on training – consistently rated as very good or excellent by target group First Leadership cohort training May 2015 programme designed and pilot programme completed Feedback shows that staff gain skills and confidence which support their career progression and collaborations Issue 4: ACHIEVE CORE WORKING HOURS, MAKE FLEXIBLE WORKING OPPORTUNITIES EASILY ACCESSIBLE LEADS: Nikki Robertson (NJR), Marcia Jacks (MJ), Peter Brocklehurst (PB) IfWH endorses the University’s flexible working policies and 80% of IfWH staff surveyed (72% response rate) felt that they had enough flexibility in their working hours, however workload is not monitored and there is no current policy for core working hours for important meetings and seminars. Description of action/ problem identified Actions already taken 4.1 Core working 10am-­‐4pm for all meetings hours Executive committee meeting moved to within core working hours (10am-­‐12pm) Accessibility – from March many meetings 2013 held outside of core working hours 10am-­‐
4pm Academic board meeting moved to core working hours (2.30pm-­‐4pm) from April 2013 4.2 Monitor attendance at meetings Attendance at IfWH and departmental meetings is not routinely monitored 52 Reviewed sporadically Further action planned Responsibility Timescale Success measure All Institute and departmental meetings to be scheduled 10am-­‐4pm PB (director) Aug 2013 Exec committee All meetings held within core working hours unless previously agreed by all members on a meeting-­‐by-­‐
meeting basis – reported to HR including reason for any waiver Annual Dept leads review of data by SAT members SAT (see in own depts 6.5, 6.6) Data published by dept on intranet Department leads to record attendance at meetings at all and report to HR Invite women to attend meetings (see 5.2) CA, JO Aug 2014 SAT members within own Annual depts review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) At least 60:40 F:M attendance at all meetings, reflecting proportion of women across IfWH First target is Acedemic Board (key decision-­‐
making, open to all staff) Data to be reviewed at Athena meetings; attendance by gender to be published on IfWH website 4.3 Core working hours for seminars and some social events Timing of seminars and social events that act as networking opportunities – often outside core working hours 4.4 Hold annual IfWH family picnic and family events Most IfWH social gatherings are outside core 53 PhD upgrade seminars held in core working hours (Tuedays lunchtimes – previously held in evenings) Hold social events at different times to facilitate wider participation, for example begin within core working hours IfWH Christmas party and quarterly social evenings start at 5.30pm. 2-­‐
monthly coffee mornings are held within core working hours Many intra-­‐
departmental family events e.g. team days out to family events, sponsored events Annual IfWH family picnic to be held in daytime in summer Data published by dept on intranet PB (director) Sep 2013 Exec committee Dept leads MJ, CA, JO Annual staff survey – next May 2014 Survey shows that most events are accessible to all, or at varied times if not to increase accessibility Date and time to be arranged at least 1-­‐2 months in advance, through doodle poll Christmas party to be held at lunchtime NJR, MJ, KBe July 2013 Successful first summer picnic with excellent attendance of families of women and men across all departments working hours 4.5 Monitor attendance at seminars and social gatherings Reviewed sporadically Attendance at IfWH social events is not routinely monitored 4.6 Increase visibility and accessibility of flexible working opportunities for all staff Plan more pan-­‐IfWH family events Annual plan for IfWH social activities, coordinated by SAT Photo pages on website to include reports on family days Many successful events displayed on website; IfWH widely viewed as inclusive and family-­‐
friendly Record CA, JO attendance Athena SAT at seminars and social gatherings – report from individual depts via SAT members Annual review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Annual staff survey – next May 2014 Annual review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Flexible working practices accepted at all levels at IfWH Annual staff survey – next May 2014 Staff survey shows that 100% staff feel able to access flexible Data to be reviewed at Athena meetings UCL flexible working policies accessible on University website and adhered to Visible, easily accessible links to UCL flexible working policies on IfWH website Flexible working opportunities In our survey 80% staff report flexible Case studies on IfWH website to 54 NJR, MJ Exec committee Dept leads Survey shows that all staff, particularly those with caring commitments, feel included and are able to attend Records show at least 60:40 F:M representation, reflecting IfWH staff not always clear working with no problems accessing this illustrate successful flexible working working as much as they need Line managers to discuss flexible working opportunities at every review meeting and be aware of UCLs work-­‐
life balance policies and options 4.7 Monitor workload No routine workload monitoring Adopt a framework for collection and monitoring – look to other UCL SATs for best pracitce PB (director) Sept 2015 MJ, CA, JO Undertake monitoring 4.8 Tailored support for those returning from maternity/ paternity/ adoption leave 55 Planning meeting with supervisor prior to parental leave ‘Welcome back ’meeting with supervisor Meeting with Line senior managers administrator MJ, CA, JO during pregnancy to discuss maternity leave packages available Data analysed on annual cycle by SAT, reviewed at executive board Review of data by Exec Committee and SAT In survey staff report appropriate Annual workload, with staff all activities survey reviewed at appraisal Annual review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Annual staff survey – next May HR data show excellent uptake of maternity/ paternity leave packages Staff report feeling supported in immediately on return from parental leave, Supervisor nest steps stays in discussed contact during parental Some leave and departments keeps staff offer ‘stepped-­‐ members return to updated with work’ options details of key seminars and social events UCL’s Gender Equality Scheme provides for one term of sabbatical leave without teaching commitments for research active academics returning from maternity leave 2014 securing parental leave and in phased return to work if wished; no barriers to access ‘Return to work’ fellowships available to all Investigate and promote ‘Return to Work’ fellowships and bursaries available within and outside of UCL Encourage shared parental leave by fathers – include links/ visibility on website and e-­‐
noticeboard 4.9 Support and encourage flexible working for those with caring responsibilities 56 Flexible working and compassionate leave never a problem Flexible working opportunities always discussed at review meetings, Exec committee Dept leads Annual review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) SAT members within their Increased uptake of formal flexible working options – recorded by HR 57 Children are welcomed into the department offices (within safety regulations) Departments hold daytime social events for families Celebrate new births – announce in IfWH newsletter, flowers to be sent on behalf of IfWH Encourage daytime scheduling of departmental social events depts Annual staff survey – next May 2014 Staff survey shows that 100% staff feel able to access flexible working Issue 5: ORGANISATION AND CULTURE -­‐ ENSURE TRANSPARENCY OF RECRUITMENT, PROMOTION AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES LEADS: Peter Brocklehurst (PB), Eridan Rocha Ferreira (ERF), Marcia Jacks (MJ); all SAT are ambassadors for Athena values We have a gender-­‐balanced department with good and improving career progression opportunities for men and women. We now aim to embed the Athena SWAN principles of transparency and gender-­‐neutrality into our working practices. Description of action/ problem identified 5.1 Embed Athena SWAN principles within all departmental practices Actions already taken SWAN self assessment team (SAT) meets regularly, currently 8 women and 4 men (60:40, Need to reflecting embed Athena IfWH SWAN female:male principles staff) beyond the award application process SAT lead is member of the executive board Further action Responsibility Timescale Success planned measure SAT will continue to meet quarterly to review progress of SWAN action plan Athena SWAN update to be included at executive board meetings to increase awareness at senior level SAT member at every departmental and IfWH meeting to raise profile of gender balance issues; agenda includes Athena updates 58 PB (director) Annual staff NJR, MJ survey – next May SAT members 2014 share within own depts Exec committee and academic board meeting agendas always include Athena update Increased awareness and sharing of Athena principles across IfWH, increased awareness of policies and practices that support career development of women, positive feedback from staff 5.2 Aim for 60:40 female:male representation on IfWH committees Attendance data recorded by HR, reviewed sporadically Unequal representation Currently of men and 50:50 F:M women on committees (currently more men) Aim for 60:40 representation on all committees (reflecting IfWH female:male staff) PB (Director) NJR, MJ Dept leads SAT raise awareness within depts Invite women to attend academic board, with >1 month advanced notice, through email and on website May 2015 60:40 F:M representation achieved, reflecting Annual proportion of staff female staff survey – across IfWH next May 2014 All staff report opportunities to attend meetings, with no barriers reported Annual record of female and male numbers on Institutional committees, publicise data on IfWH Athena webpage 5.3 Monitor staff membership of external committees Public engagement and representation of women on committees outside of UCL is not routinely 59 Data collected by HR, reviewed sporadically Annual record MJ of staff Exec membership committee on committees outside of IfWH – data collection through appraisal and HR monitoring; if imbalances identified, SAT and exec Annual staff survey – next May 2014 Data show balanced representation of IfWH staff on external committees, accounted for in workload Annual review of data by SAT (see External 6.5, 6.6) representation raises profile of women at monitored 5.4 Increase proportion of external female speakers as positive role models Unequal weighting of external speakers (more men) 5.5 Make Athena SWAN activities visible to IfWH staff Many staff unaware of Athena principles and practices committee to consider further steps Invited speakers -­‐ many successful women and men but gender of speakers not monitored Increase proportion of female external speakers, aim at least 50:50 F:M to provide positive male and female role models Exec committee ERF Athena SAT Sept 2014 At least 50:50 F:M external speakers Annual review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Excellent feedback from meetings, reports published on website Organisers to be aware of 50:50 requirement and approach potential speakers in order to achieve this Athena links now embedded on IfWH website homepage Quarterly MJ, JKH Athena Athena SAT bulletin update posted on IfWH homepage and emailed to all staff, highlighting success stories (Athena, recruitment, promotion) and opportunities Athena SWAN/ work-­‐
life balance e-­‐
noticeboard on intranet 60 IfWH May 2014 Quarterly Athena bulletin well received, includes useful information pertinent to female staff E-­‐noticeboard and Rockefeller noticeboard regularly updated Noticeboard at Rockefeller building visible students and staff from other depts, sharing IfWH activities and good practice 5.6 All line managers to undertake gender equality/ unconscious bias training Unconscious bias training course provided and compulsory for all line managers Unconscious MJ, CA, JO bias training mandatory for all line managers 5.7 Transparent institutional policies and procedures for recruitment, promotion, presentations etc Every attempt made to be transparent in working practices but this is not routinely monitored Selection process for recruitment and promotion transparent, available on IfWH website and supplied to all applicants Survey suggested these are not always fully transparent 61 Dec 2013 Selection process for courses/ training, presentations and funding transparent, on IfWH website and supplied to all applicants PB (director) NJR, MJ Exec committee 100% line managers have completed unconscious bias training, positive feedback on training May 2014 Departmental procedures/ policies which involve Annual selection of staff staff are survey – visible and next May accessible on 2014 IfWH website Annual review of data by SAT (see 6.5, 6.6) Data show increase in job and promotion applications, gender balance maintained 60:40 F:M Staff report easy access to promotion criteria and feel that these are transparent and fair 62 Issue 6: MONTIOR GENDER BALANCE IN IfWH PRACTICES, MONITOR ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, RESPOND TO RESULTS LEADS: Nikki Robertson (NJR), Kate Bennett (KBe), Marcia Jacks (MJ) Our student and staff statistics are collected by gender however these data are not routinely reviewed and are published sporadically. A key part of our ongoing Athena SAT work will be regular review Description of Actions action/ already problem taken identified 6.1 Annual staff survey No formal mechanisms in place to monitor experiences at IfWH Staff survey undertaken as part of Athena self-­‐
assessment process 6.2 Dissemination Results of of staff survey autumn 2012 results staff survey have been disseminated to staff via email and are included in Athena application, available on website Further action planned Responsibility Timescale Success measure Annual staff survey in May MJ, SD, JKH, NJR Annual completion of survey Annual staff survey – next May 2014 Year-­‐on-­‐year improvement in staff feedback on life at IfWH Disseminate staff survey results to all staff by email within 2 months of survey Publish staff survey results on IfWH website within 2 months of survey Email and publish commentary on survey findings/ 63 MJ, KBe, NJR Annual staff survey feedback Athena SAT to within 3 review results months and plan next (i.e. next steps, in by Aug consultation 2013) with all staff via dept meetings Survey results available to all Steps taken to improve working practices at IfWH on basis of survey findings; action plan is shared, staff are consulted and report positive impact actions arising following survey 6.3 Annual student survey No formal mechanisms in place to monitor experiences at IfWH Student survey being designed by SAT at time of Athena application Annual student survey in December AP, SD, ERF, JH First student survey complete by Dec 2013 Annual survey in Dec 6.4 Dissemination of student survey results Disseminate student survey results to all staff and students by email within 2 months of survey Publish student survey results on IfWH website within 2 months of survey AP, KBe, JH Annual student survey feedback Athena SAT to within 3 review results months and plan next (i.e. next steps, in by March consultation 2014) with all students via dept meetings Annual completion of survey Year-­‐on-­‐year improvement in student feedback on life at IfWH Survey results available to all Steps taken to improve student life at IfWH on basis of survey findings; action plan is shared, students are consulted and report positive impact Email and publish commentary on survey findings/ actions arising 6.5 Quarterly review of 64 Data currently All data to be MJ, CA, JO, available KBe Annual review of All gender balance data is gender balance data Data is collected but not routinely monitored 6.6 Quarterly publication of gender balance data collected by HR: recruitment, promotion, appraisal completion, committee membership, attendance at decision-­‐
making meetings, uptake of family leave electronically to SAT team via shared drive IfWH Athena SWAN application data now published on IfWH website All data by MJ, CA, JO gender to be published in quarterly in IfWH bulletin (email and website) Data is collected by HR but not disseminated 6.7 Monitor hits to IfWH website 65 Annual review of all data at Athena SAT meeting – rolling schedule of data to be reviewed across quarterly SAT meetings Aim 2/3 women across IfWH – at every research level and on every committee Visits to IfWH Monitor hits MJ website not to IfWH, monitored review at quarterly SAT meetings data by SAT – rolling schedule from May each year, clock starts May 2013 reviewed within the 4 SAT meetings each year Findings provide stimulus for further actions, leading to year-­‐on-­‐year improvement May 2013 All data by gender updated annually on website; shows year on year improvement with 60:40 F:M representation across IfWH Aug 2013 Continued improvement in info on website, increased hits every quarter 66