Athena SWAN Silver Department award application
Name of institution:
Date of application:
University College London
Deadline: November 30, 2012
Department:
Medical Physics & Bioengineering
Contact for application: Prof. Jem Hebden
Email:
j.hebden@ucl.ac.uk
Telephone:
020-7679-0280
Departmental website:
www.ucl.ac.uk/medphys
Date of university Bronze and/or Silver SWAN award: May 2009
Level of award applied for:
Silver
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 SET activities that have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the departmental mission.
I am delighted to express my enthusiastic support for this application for an Athena SWAN
award. I have led the application process, and chaired the self-assessment team.
The stark underrepresentation of women in Physics and Engineering has been one of the few
negative aspects of working in my chosen career field. While increased awareness and
proactive policies are establishing a more even playing field for women within the workplace,
sadly these can only impact what is already a disappointingly small cohort. It is depressing to
acknowledge that we cannot be as good as we can be when we consistently fail to attract a
representative fraction of the most able women into our discipline. Last year, an
overwhelming majority (79%) of UK A’level physics students were male (Institute of Physics,
2012). Physics has invariably been the poor relation of Life Sciences and Medicine in this
respect, which have historically achieved a superior gender balance. In recognition of this, it
has been the department’s mission since I became Head of Department four years ago to
exploit our link with medicine and actively promote Medical Physics to young women in
secondary schools who might otherwise not consider Physics or Engineering as a career.
Our proactive engagement activities have been led by my colleague Prof. Clare Elwell, whose
academic roles include departmental Public Engagement Coordinator, and Beacon Mentor in
Public Engagement across three UCL Faculties. Although most scientists in receipt of public
funding recognise their duty to inform the public about their work, Prof. Elwell is additionally
aware of her potential as a role model to women, and demonstrating that achievement at
higher levels of academia is possible for women who have had career breaks and worked
part-time to balance family commitments. We frequently receive invitations to speak to
schools, and under Prof. Elwell’s leadership the department has assembled a team of
volunteers (male and female staff and PhD students) who are provided with the training and
tools to engage with both scientific and non-scientific audiences. Our department has also
substantially increased its involvement in Open Days and Taster Courses, some of which
specifically target female audiences (e.g. a Faculty-organised “Girls in Engineering” Taster
Course). A tangible impact of this work has been a dramatic improvement in student
1
recruitment. During the past four years, our average intake of undergraduates has more than
tripled, and the gender ratio has become increasingly more balanced.
To encourage a greater proportion of female postdoctoral staff to apply for fellowships, a new
mentoring scheme was introduced, where every postdoctoral research associate (PDRA) is
offered mentoring from a senior academic outside of their own research group. So far this has
resulted in one fellowship application from a female researcher.
While being optimistic about future trends, our SWAN action plan is heavily focussed on
accelerating our rate of progress by increasing awareness of existing policies and the need
for proactive practices, by building the confidence of female students and junior staff, and by
highlighting our successes and positive role models.
[499 words]
2. The self-assessment process – maximum 1000 words
Describe the Self-Assessment Process. This should include:
a)
b)
c)
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;
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;
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.
Our self-assessment team consists of the following members of the department:
Prof. Jem Hebden, Head of Department
Prof. Clare Elwell
Dr. Dean Barratt, Senior Lecturer
Dr. Ben Cox, Research Fellow
Dr. Anne Vanhoestenberghe, PDRA
Ms. Sophie Brand, PhD student
Ms. Karen Cardy, Departmental Administrator and Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison
Officer (DEOLO).
Mr. Andy O’Reilly, Personal Assistant and Department Receptionist
Selection of our team was based mostly on previously expressed interest in the underlying
issues (during various discussions with the Head of Department and others), while
maintaining diversity of roles and academic grades across the department. Team meetings
were chaired by the Head of Department, Prof. Jem Hebden, who has previously represented
the department on a team coordinating SWAN applications at a Faculty level. He joined the
department in 1992 after several years working in the USA, and became Head of Department
in 2008.
Prof. Clare Elwell leads a large research group and has two major enabling roles within the
department: Intercalated Student Tutor and Public Engagement Coordinator. She has the
experience of pursuing a very successful academic career while bringing up a young family.
She has had two periods of maternity leave since she joined the department in 1995, and
since the birth of her first child in 1997 she has always worked part-time, either 0.6FTE or
0.8FTE (see Case Study in Section 10 for more details). Prof. Elwell was also involved in the
preparation of a previous Faculty of Engineering SWAN application.
Dr. Dean Barratt is a former holder of a 5-year research fellowship in the department, and has
recently transferred to a permanent post.
Dr. Ben Cox joined the department in 2003, and is currently a research fellow and First Year
Tutor. He has had two periods of paternity leave (in 2009 and 2012) during his five-year
research fellowship, and typically works from home one day a week to help facilitate childcare
arrangements. He will transfer to a permanent post when his fellowship ends in February
2013.
Dr. Anne Vanhoestenberghe joined the department as a PhD student in 2002, and
subsequently became a PDRA.
2
Sophie Brand is a PhD student in the department, and transferred from full-time to part-time
(officially 0.5FTE) after she returned from maternity leave to have her first child in 2011.
Sophie works flexible hours, depending on babysitter options, at an equivalent of 60-70% of
full time.
Karen Cardy has been the Departmental Administrator since 2001, and she currently serves
as the Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer (DEOLO).
Andy O’Reilly is a Personal Assistant to the Head of Department and also serves as the
Department Receptionist. Andy has been responsible for collecting various student and staff
data, and taking minutes during team meetings.
In June 2012 the Head of Department met with the UCL Head of Equalities and Diversity,
Sarah Guise, to review the department’s SWAN activities, and to discuss membership of a
self-assessment team. The first meeting of the current team occurred in July 2012, although
various informal discussions had been held between team members prior to this. The aims of
the first meeting were to review how various recent changes in department practices and
reorganisation had impacted gender representation at every level, and to formulate a plan for
preparation of this application. The second team meeting occurred in September, when the
accumulated student and staff data were reviewed, and initial discussions were held on the
contents of a proposed Action Plan. Thereafter, the team held several further meetings, and
communicated as a group almost daily via email, exchanging and developing ideas.
The team proposed and conducted two fact-finding meetings. The first involved inviting all of
the department’s female PhD students to an informal lunch (on October 18, 2012), hosted by
two female members of our team (Prof. Elwell and Dr. Vanhoestenberghe). Twenty out of
twenty-six students attended. After a very short presentation on the purpose of the meeting,
students were invited to talk about their decisions to undertake a career in science, their
experiences of being part of the department, and their views on career progression
opportunities. There were three principal findings:
 Overall the department is regarded as a comfortable and supportive environment for
women to work;
 More information could be made available on maintaining a work-life balance, and how it is
possible to build and sustain a successful academic career while bringing up young
children;
 There may be issues regarding how some female students (and their supervisors) set their
career targets and levels of ambition, and the effect that this has on the day-to-day roles
they assume in research groups.
A second lunchtime meeting was held to which all female research staff were invited. Similar
topics were discussed and, although attendance was disappointing (ten staff attended) the
feedback was equally constructive. The issues raised were generally very similar to those
highlighted by the PhD students, with the addition of the following:
 Female staff would appreciate more information on career progression, and specifically on
the fellowship route for establishing a career in academia.
 There was a concern that staff mentors may not be sufficiently well informed about career
advice and family-friendly policies.
The feedback from both meetings has strongly informed our Action Plan, as described later in
this application.
The self-assessment process has been an enlightening and positive experience for our team,
and we eagerly look forward to putting our proposed plans into action. Throughout, the team’s
progress has been reported to members of the department’s academic staff via monthly
Academic Group meetings. The team has developed a strong identity, and members will
continue to interact both virtually (weekly, via group emails) and physically (meeting at least
four times per year) during the next three years to help facilitate planned actions and monitor
their outcomes.
[952 words]
3
3. A picture of the department – maximum 2000 words
a)
Provide a pen-picture of the department to set the context for the application, outlining in particular any
significant and relevant features.
The Department of Medical Physics & Bioengineering is a relatively small, research-intensive
department with 15 HEFCE-funded academic staff, and an additional four senior research
fellows. The department evolved from hospital-based medical physics departments, and has
existed in its current form since 1988. Initially the department was a member of the UCL
Faculty of Clinical Sciences, but joined the UCL Engineering Sciences Faculty in 2002.
Ours is the largest academic medical physics department in the UK, with a very strong record
of support from UK Research Councils, medical charities, and industry. An essential feature
of the department’s research has been to provide a bridge between basic science and
healthcare, with close collaborations with clinicians. Although staff are involved in both
research and teaching, the department’s activities are biased far more towards research. The
department currently has around 40 postdoctoral research staff and 80 PhD students.
The department runs two undergraduate programmes: a 3-year BSc (Physics with Medical
Physics) and a 4-year MSci (Medical Physics). Both are taught in conjunction with the UCL
Department of Physics & Astronomy, where students spend the majority of their time
(especially in years 1 and 2) taking core physics modules. Until 2009, these programmes
were run by the Physics & Astronomy Department, and the average annual intake was
around 6 students. In 2009 we took over control, and have subsequently grown the
programmes to a point where we currently achieve an average annual intake of around 20
students. Our department also runs an Intercalated BSc (IBSc), where a cohort of medical
students take our third-year modules. This also attracts an average of about 20 students per
year.
Our MSc degree programme (Physics and Engineering in Medicine) attracts up to about 60
students per year, of which a significant (but dwindling) proportion are part-time. Part-time
students have traditionally been those following a prescribed programme of training to
become NHS clinical scientists, although this training has now changed so that our MSc is no
longer a recognised component. Last year we introduced a distance learning version of our
MSc, which attracted 5 part-time students (4 overseas). The teaching load for our academic
staff is relatively light (around 40 lecturing hours per year on average) and fairly evenly
distributed. Some PDRAs provide a few hours of teaching per year, but always on a voluntary
basis. Relatively low student numbers means that staff and students get to know each other
well, and student feedback invariably supports a view that we are friendly and approachable.
Our department is characterised by its multidisciplinarity: our staff and students come from a
wide range of educational backgrounds, including physics, medicine, biology, computer
science, mathematics, and several engineering disciplines. From a management point of
view, the small size of the department makes it relatively easy to implement changes and for
all staff to influence the development of new strategic directions. As a result, the department
has a reputation of being both cohesive and progressive. Our greatest weakness is the lack of
physical space, primarily for our flourishing research activities.
[504]
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.
4
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.
Our department does not operate Access or Foundation courses.
(ii)
[9]
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.
After taking over control of the undergraduate programmes from the Department of Physics &
Astronomy in 2009, we were responsible for all promotion and recruitment activities. The
effect has been a substantial increase in intake, and of female students in particular, as
illustrated in the graph above. All students are full-time. The average percentage female
intake during the past four years is 44%, whereas prior to 2009 the average was less than
15%. HESA does not publish separate figures for Medical Physics, but the cohort of full-time
students taking Physics degrees in the UK is currently 22% female (about the same fraction
as taking physics at A’level).
During the next three years we propose to build upon this recent success by continuing to
improve how we present ourselves to prospective female students. This will include more
focus on success stories involving female students and staff on websites and publicity
materials, more information on family friendly policies, and ensuring a positive experience
during student visits, UCAS days, and outreach events [Actions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5].
[174]
The female:male ratio among our cohort of Intercalated BSc students is somewhat lower.
Although the ratio for the UCL medical school intake as a whole is typically around 50:50, only
a minority of those medical students meet the entry requirements (A’levels in maths and
physics) for our IBSc degree. Since around 79% of UK students taking A’level physics are
male, it is probable that a significant majority of the eligible UCL medical students are male.
5
However, we accept students without A’level physics on this programme on condition that
they are prepared to carry out preparatory work during the summer before starting the course.
Although our department cannot influence the recruitment into the UCL medical school, our
IBSc Tutor, Prof. Clare Elwell, coordinates departmental representation at an annual
“Intercalated student Fayre” where we have an opportunity to promote our programme to
second-year UCL medical students. We ensure that there is an equal gender balance among
students and staff representing the department at the Fayre.
[163]
(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.
Whereas the total number of students registering annually for our MSc programmes has
fluctuated significantly, the proportion of female students has remained very close to 50%.
The average over the past seven years of 48% compares very favourably with the HESA
national average of 24% for students taking postgraduate degrees in physics.
[52]
The MSc completion rates shown above for males and females are statistically
indistinguishable.
(iv)
[13]
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.
6
Despite a steady increase in the total number of female students on our postgraduate
research programmes, the proportion of female students remains consistently low, around
32%. This is higher than the HESA national average of 24% for students taking postgraduate
degrees in physics, but disappointing nevertheless. Since some of our postgraduate students
are recruited from those completing our own undergraduate degrees, we anticipate that the
growing proportion of females on our undergraduate programmes will soon produce an
improvement in the female:male ratio on our postgraduate research programmes.
Our plan to address this problem involves a proactive engagement with female
undergraduates to discover more about what influences their decisions for and against
pursuing careers in science. We propose to hold a further fact-finding lunchtime meeting with
female undergraduates, similar in format to those we have conducted for female PhD
students and research staff [Action 1.4]. This meeting will be organised and hosted by female
members of the self-assessment team. The team will then use the feedback to inform
development of more effective departmental practices to attract women towards research
degrees.
[179]
(v)
Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate
taught and postgraduate research degrees – comment on the differences between male and female
application and success rates and describe any initiatives taken to address any imbalance and their effect
to date. Comment upon any plans for the future.
During the past four years, the cohorts of undergraduate applicants, those receiving offers,
and those providing firm acceptances have all been about 50% female on average. Note that
in most cases a firm acceptance is given prior to the student receiving his/her A’level results
(or equivalent), and therefore an equal gender ratio for firm acceptances does not
automatically translate into a 50% female intake. The data exhibit no statistically significant
difference between male and female application success rates (i.e. ratio of acceptances to
7
applications), although the comparison with the actual intake suggests that males have been
slightly more successful than females at meeting the entrance criteria.
[106]
Meanwhile the cohorts of applicants, those receiving offers, and those providing firm
acceptances for our taught MSc programmes are consistently at 40% or larger, and reached
50% last year. Again, the data show no statistically significant difference between male and
female application success rates. By contrast with the undergraduate data, females have
been slightly more successful than males at meeting entrance criteria, leading to an average
female intake of 48% over the past seven years. On average, fewer than 5% of our MSc
students had been undergraduates in the department.
[90]
While our annual intake of postgraduate research students has been steadily increasing, the
fractions of applications, offers, and acceptances for female students shows disappointing
trends. All three categories exhibit a decrease over the past three years, and the female
success rate (ratio of acceptances to applications) has also declined.
Addressing this imbalance will be one of two major foci of our team’s activity over the next
three years. Our fact-finding meeting with undergraduates [Action 1.4] will hopefully identify
reasons why some women are not considering careers in scientific research beyond their first
degree. We anticipate that lack of information (on how women can succeed in academia,
alternative career pathways, and what assistance is available) and issues of confidence for
some female students (relative to male students) will be major factors, as revealed by our
meeting with female PhD students.
As part of our Action Plan we will establish a mechanism for annually reviewing and modifying
our postgraduate recruitment publicity materials in order to emphasize that a successful
academic career is compatible with flexible working arrangements [Action 2.2]. Furthermore,
we propose to create a Women in Medical Physics feature on our website, highlighting
8
achievements of females in the department, including positive examples of working part-time,
flexible hours, and/or managing childcare responsibilities (male and female case studies)
[Action 1.1]. We have been inspired by the “Academic Women in Physics” website hosted by
the Physics Department at Imperial College:
www3.imperial.ac.uk/physics/staff/academicwomen ,
and we propose to recruit a female PhD student and a female PDRA to help develop a similar
website tailored to the needs of our department. Finally, we will create an additional online
departmental resource providing easy access to UCL and departmental policies and
procedures regarding career progression, promotion, and maintaining a good work/life
balance [Actions 6.1].
[295]
(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.
The substantial increases in female student recruitment starting in 2009/10 is not yet
influencing the undergraduate degree classification data, and thus the percentage of females
achieving at least a 2-1 class degree, shown above, largely reflects the performance of the
small number of females (between 4 and 7) taking our one-year IBSc. The average over the
past six years shows no statistical difference between degree classifications achieved by
males and females.
[71]
9
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.
Women are severely underrepresented at all grades in the department, and especially at
senior levels. The situation nevertheless exhibits an improving trend over the past three
years, exceeding 25% of total staff for the first time, and two additional female staff members
at lecturer/senior researcher level (while male numbers have decreased or are unchanged at
senior levels since 2009). Although HESA does not have statistical data for Medical Physics
as a discipline, the proportional of female staff in the combined Russell Group physics
departments at all grades is 11%, less than half of our current proportion.
A second major focus of our team’s activity over the next three years will be a concerted effort
to significantly improve female representation among our research staff. Our proposed
actions are designed to provide information and address confidence issues highlighted by
some of our female PhD students. A new webpage will provide easy access to family-friendly
policies and practical advice, and our proposed Women in Medical Physics webpages will
highlight female successes [Actions 1.1, 6.1]. In addition we propose to introduce group
mentoring sessions for all female PhD students and junior research staff, offered annually and
conducted by female members of our staff. These will provide information on developing
research careers and will be designed to instil confidence in women that they can expect to
10
be just as successful as their male colleagues [Action 3.2]. Finally, we propose to conduct a
series of discussions with female PDRAs in each research group in turn, to increase
awareness of fellowship schemes for career progression [Action 3.5].
[260]
(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.
The department turnover numbers are small. Except for the resignation of one male
professor, the only departures have occurred at junior levels. The average female turnover
the past three years has been 2.9%, while the average male turnover has been 10.1%. As
part of our Action Plan, we will implement a mechanism to routinely gather information on why
female PhD students and research staff leave the department, and ascertain whether lack of
support and encouragement played a part in their decision [Action 3.4].
[83]
[1999 words]
Supporting and advancing women’s careers – maximum 5000 words
4. Key career transition points
a)
(i)
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.
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.
Recruitment data has only been systematically collected and stored by UCL since the
introduction of an online recruitment system (ROME) in 2009. The department currently
makes around 15-20 academic/research staff appointments per year. The percentage of
female applications, invitations for first interview, and appointments for all departmental
academic staff positions is shown above. While the fraction of applications from females
remains disappointingly and consistently low at around one fifth of the total, the percentages
of women invited for interview and being appointed exhibit strong upward trends, such that
over half of the new staff joining the department in 2011 were women (i.e. 9 out of 17
appointments).
In order to improve the number of applications received from female candidates, we will trial a
scheme, for an initial period of two years, to review all advertisements, job descriptions, and
person specifications generated by the department. The review will be performed by the selfassessment team, who will ensure that all recruitment materials are attractive to people who
have not necessarily followed the mainstream academic route, and highlight the university’s
and department’s family friendly policies, including flexible working hours [Action 3.3].
[188]
11
(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.
Since 2008 the department has achieved five academic promotions from Senior Lecturer to
Professor (one female, four male), and one promotion from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer
(male). There have been no unsuccessful promotion applications. Professor Clare Elwell had
been appointed a Lecturer in the department in 1999, and achieved a professorship 9 years
later (see detailed Case Study in section 10). Childcare responsibilities meant that Prof. Elwell
was employed an average of 60% of full time during that interval. For comparison, the last
four male members of the department to achieve incremental promotion from Lecturer to
Professor took an average of 16 years.
Potential candidates for promotion are identified through the appraisal process. UCL policy is
that appraisals “ideally take place annually, but no less frequently than every two years”. All
academic staff (including those on externally-funded five-year research fellowships) are
appraised by the Head of Department. He strives to appraise junior academics and fellows at
the recommended yearly interval. Appraisals explore the achievements of the staff member
under each of the UCL categories for promotion, and a suitable timeline for achieving
promotion is discussed. This discussion takes into account the range of external factors which
impact on academic careers, such as parental responsibilities.
[204]
b)
(i)
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.
Recruitment of staff
– comment on how the department’s recruitment processes ensure that female candidates are attracted to
apply, and how the department ensures its short listing, selection processes and criteria comply with the
university’s equal opportunities policies.
All our recruitment is currently performed using an online system (ROME). The uploaded job
descriptions, person specifications, and advertisements are currently checked for
inappropriate gender bias at three stages: by the person uploading the materials (the
Departmental Research Administrator for grant-funded posts and the Departmental
Administrator for all others), by the Departmental DEOLO (who is also the Departmental
Administrator), and finally by UCL Human Resources staff. However, as part of our Action
Plan we will introduce a scheme requiring the self-assessment team to review all
documentation to ensure they are phrased to encourage applications from people who have
not necessarily pursued the mainstream academic route, including those looking to return to
academia following a career break. This review process will be implemented for a period of
two years in the first instance [Action 3.3].
During the past four years, the Head of Department has approached excellent qualified
women to encourage them to apply for vacant academic positions. In 2011, this resulted in
the appointment of a new female lecturer (Dr. Karin Shmueli), a former PhD student in the
department then working in the USA, whom the Head of Department personally contacted
with a strong encouragement to apply. This will be adopted as departmental policy [Action
3.6].
We aim to achieve a gender-balance on appointment panels, although this sometimes
conflicts with our need to avoid burdening female academic staff with a disproportionate
amount of work serving on such panels. When necessary, we enlist the assistance of female
staff working in other, related UCL departments or roles. We note, however, that there has
been no formal monitoring of the gender-balance on panels, and this is highlighted in our
Action Plan [Action 5.1]. In additional to mandatory training in recruitment and selection, many
staff (including the Head of Department) have undergone unconscious bias training.
[301]
(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.
12
The key career transition point where our department has had a poor record of transition of
female staff is the highly critical one from postdoctoral research associate (PDRA) to
academic staff (either Lecturer or Research Fellow). Only one of our female researchers has
made that transition during the past twenty years, while eight of the current male academic
staff and research fellows are former PDRAs in the department. The department has an
excellent record of achieving externally-funded five-year fellowships (holders of which have all
subsequently been able to secure permanent HEFCE-funded academic posts in the
department), but we have not had a single female applicant for a five-year fellowship
(successful or otherwise) until October 2012, when one of our self-assessment team (AV)
submitted a fellowship application to EPSRC.
In an attempt to address this severe transition problem, three years ago we established a
postdoctoral mentoring scheme, where every PDRA is offered personal mentoring from a
senior academic outside of their own research group. This occurs in addition to the annual
appraisals which PDRAs receive from their line manager (who is normally the head of their
research group). The mentoring scheme has been designed by, and is operated by, the
department’s PDRA Committee, which consists of four elected PDRA volunteers, and it meets
with the Head of Department on the second Friday of every month. (No female quota is
imposed on Committee membership, but historically it has had a roughly equal number of
male and female members). PDRAs are invited to meet with their mentors at least twice per
year, and receive advice on matters such as career progression. It is also an opportunity for
PDRAs to learn about the culture within different research groups, where there might be
different expectations and motivations.
The female mentees are not necessarily assigned a female mentor (although mentees are
able to express a preference). Nevertheless, as part of our Action Plan, we will introduce
group mentoring sessions for all female PhD students and junior research staff, offered
annually and conducted by female members of our staff. These will provide information on
developing research careers (including via fellowship applications) and will be designed to
instil confidence in women that they can expect to be just as successful as their male
colleagues [Action 3.2].
As a result of feedback from our recent consultation with female research staff, we also
propose to hold a meeting involving all mentors, to ensure that every mentor is sufficiently
well informed about institutional and department family-friendly policies, and is able to provide
adequate advice about fellowship schemes and other career options [Action 6.2].
Subsequently, all new mentors and new staff with supervisory responsibilities will undergo a
brief one-on-one meeting with the Head of Department in order that they are also made
aware of this information and of the their responsibilities with respect to career advice [Action
6.3].
The Departmental Research Committee (DRC) is also tasked with regularly identifying
suitable internal candidates for fellowships among our PDRAs, particularly in response to
specific calls by various UK and EU funding bodies, and is sensitive to the severe
underrepresentation of women among our previous applicants.
[521]
5.
Career development
a)
(i)
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.
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?
All staff at UCL are required to undergo regular appraisal. PDRA and administrative staff are
appraised by their line manager (usually the head of group for PDRAs), while all academic
staff (including five-year research fellows) are appraised by the Head of Department. The
interval between consecutive appraisals must not exceed two years, although the Head of
Department strives to appraise junior academics and fellows annually.
13
Our staff are made aware of the university’s criteria for promotion via our (annually updated)
Staff Handbook, our staff pages on our website, and as part of every appraisal. As mentioned
above, every appraisal of an academic staff member explores his or her achievements under
each of the UCL categories for promotion (teaching, research, enabling, and knowledge
transfer), and a suitable timeline for achieving promotion is discussed. This discussion takes
into account the range of external factors which impact on academic careers, such as
parental responsibilities. Although individuals at UCL have the option of nominating
themselves for promotion, it is far more common for nominations to come from the Head of
Department. Thus the decision to submit a case for promotion is invariably the result of
agreement between the staff member and the Head of Department that such an application is
merited and timely.
Prof. Clare Elwell has provided informal career advice to other females within the UCL Faculty
of Engineering when either approached by the individual or following a recommendation by a
line manager. She has also served on the UCL Promotions Panel, so is well placed to provide
guidance on meeting criteria for promotion.
[261]
(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?
Academic staff joining our department are assigned an experienced mentor (usually a senior
academic in a similar area of research). This mentor provides advice and support on all
aspects of academic life, and also plays a pastoral role to ensure individuals feel at home
within the department as soon as possible. Female academics are offered the choice
between male and female mentors. Mentors are expected to meet with mentees at least
monthly during the probation period, and twice yearly thereafter. However, mentors are
chosen so that they are likely to interact with their mentees on an almost daily basis.
Career development support is also provided through additional mentorship from the Head of
Department. As well as formal annual appraisals and/or probationary meetings, the Head of
Department also serves an additional mentoring role through regular (either weekly or
monthly) meetings throughout the probationary period.
In addition to institutional training, all our new staff receive a Departmental Staff Handbook
(updated annually) which describes both UCL and departmental practices, policies, and
opportunities. Nevertheless, it is evident from our meeting with female PDRAs that some staff
still fail to receive the information they need, and we propose to address this by highlighting
our policies on career progression, promotion, flexible working, and maintaining a good/life
balance prominently on our website [Action 6.1], as well as ensuring that PDRA mentors are
sufficiently well informed about these issues [Actions 6.2, 6.3].
[234]
(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.
The department has been somewhat cautious in the promotion of female-only support
specifically for students, as a result of a survey of our female undergraduate and MSc
students conducted in October 2010, which expressed strong opposition to the appointment
of a departmental "Advisor to Women Students" on the grounds that it could be
discriminatory, particularly if the advisor has to be female, and if male students are not
provided with their own advisor. The survey was conducted by students through our
Departmental Staff Student Consultative Committee (DSSCC, which is jointly chaired by two
PhD student representatives – both of whom are female). Nevertheless, the department
decided to nominate an academic Advisor to Women Students (highlighted on our website
and in student handbooks), who students are invited to consult as an alternative to their tutor
(who in most cases is male).
Despite the instinctive negative reaction of (at least a very significant majority of) our female
students towards gender-based support, we anticipate that this attitude will moderate as we
14
engage with them on the issues that many women scientists encounter as a result of their
gender. As described above, we have already begun the process of highlighting to our female
PhD students the specific challenges they might face sustaining an academic career, and our
Action Plan is focussed on significantly increasing the support and encouragement available
for female students, and hopefully without it being perceived as discriminatory. We aim to
make students, both male and female, aware of the scarcity of women in senior positions in
engineering in order to help them understand why such interventions are necessary.
Our productive fact-finding meetings with PhD students and staff will be extended to
undergraduates [Action 1.4]. Our principal approach to encouraging female students to
attempt transition to a sustainable scientific career is through highlighting successful women
and promotion of role models. Our Women in Medical Physics website feature will highlight
achievements of females in the department, reporting positive examples of working part-time,
flexible hours, and/or managing childcare responsibilities (male and female case studies).
Most critically, our feature will aim to provide evidence to our female students that there need
be no limit on the ambition of their academic careers [Action 1.1]. We will also provide an
online resource for information on policies and procedures regarding career progression,
promotion, and maintaining a good work/life balance [Action 6.1].
Our female students will also be encouraged through our recognition of excellent performance
by our undergraduate, MSc, and PhD students. During the past five years we have increased
the number of prizes awarded annually by our students from two to four. During this period,
70% of the prizewinners have been female (in fact the two new prizes have yet to be won by
a male student). This success is already highlighted on our departmental website.
[467]
6. Organisation and culture
a)
(i)
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.
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.
Departmental Committee
Academic Group
Teaching Committee
PDRA Committee
Staff-Student Consultative Committee
Research Committee
Teaching Steering Group
No. of male members
26
20
4
8
5
7
No. of female members
9
7
0
8
1
1
The male and female memberships of the six principal committees within the department are
listed above. Academic Group represents all academic staff, the departmental administrator,
and elected representatives of research staff and students. The Teaching Committee is a
sub-set of Academic Group, including all staff involved in teaching plus student
representatives. The PDRA Committee consists of the four elected research staff
representatives (the Committee holds annual elections among PDRA staff). We note that
although the current Committee membership is 100% male, 12 months ago the membership
had been 75% female. The Departmental Staff-Student Consultative Committee consists of
student representatives of each year of each programme, the programme tutors, and the
Head of Department. Student representatives are volunteers, with elections performed by the
students when required.
The memberships of the Research Committee and Teaching Steering Group are both
appointed by the Head of Department in consultation with the respective chairs. Although
female representation on both could be increased, the inevitable consequence would be
burdening a small cohort of female academic staff with a disproportionate amount of work.
[212]
15
(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.
As reported above in section 3b(vii), just over 25% of our staff are female. However, while
37% of our PDRAs are female, the fraction is just 13% for HEFCE-funded academic staff, and
0% for research fellows. Historically, our HEFCE-funded academics have been appointed
either via open competition or as a result of a process (involving intensive internal review of
performance and future plans) to retain a fellow at the end of 5-years of fellowship support.
While the last two recent open competitions resulted in one female being appointed (to
lecturer), so far the department has never had a female 5-year fellow. Thus our Action Plan
includes a proposal to introduce female-only group mentoring to inform, encourage, and
support female PhD students and junior research staff, especially in regard to fellowships as a
route towards a successful career in our discipline [Action 3.2].
[142]
b)
(i)
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.
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?
As mentioned above, the department only has two committees to which members are
appointed (the Research Committee and the Teaching Steering Group). The Head of
Department makes this selection based on a combination of current roles (e.g. programme
tutors sit on the Teaching Steering Group) and personal wish to contribute (normally resulting
from discussion during appraisal). In a department of our relatively small size, it is not
essential to place an upper limit on the academic staff membership of these committees, so
the Head of Department is generally pleased to accommodate anyone expressing a
willingness to join either committee.
The Head of Department is very sensitive to the issue of “committee overload” for female
academic staff, who already serve on more appointment panels than the average male
academic in the department in the interests of gender balance. The current approach is to
consult with female academics to assess what combination of roles best serves their career
prospects and personal aspirations.
Prof. Clare Elwell has served on various external committees, including a promotion panel for
the Faculty of Engineering and an Admissions Committee for the Medical School, and has
been appointed the Beacon Mentor in Public Engagement across three UCL Faculties. [200]
(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.
Because of our relatively small size, virtually every member of academic staff in the
department has at least one well-defined enabling role in the department. (The only exception
is a male professor whose research council-funded fellowship “buys him out” of non-research
activities). These roles are assigned by the Head of Department, but not unusually result from
a specific suggestion by the staff member that they wish to contribute in a certain area. On his
appointment in 2008, the current Head of Department re-allocated every major enabling role
except one; the remaining role has subsequently been divided between two people to spread
the associated workload.
Teaching workloads for staff in the department are relatively light compared to most other
UCL departments. Internal audits of teaching and tutoring responsibilities are performed every
two or three years, which invariably show a fairly even distribution among academic staff.
Appropriate care is taken to ensure that both enabling and teaching contributions are
weighted according to part-time status. The trap that all Heads of Departments must carefully
avoid is assigning the greatest workloads to those staff who are most efficient, most diligent,
and least likely to complain.
16
There has been a widely held perception at UCL that research achievements (i.e. publications
and grants) carry far more weight towards academic promotion at UCL than contributions
towards teaching and enabling. While staff in our research-focussed department are unlikely
to achieve promotion without a strong research record, the published UCL criteria are clear
that substantial contributions to teaching and enabling are also expected. The Head of
Department has strongly emphasized this during staff appraisals. The value placed on
enabling contributions has also been underlined by recent professorial promotions of the
departmental Undergraduate Tutor and the Graduate Tutor.
[288]
(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.
The department schedules all regular meetings within the interval between 10 am and 4 pm.
Monthly meetings of the Academic Group are held at 2pm on Wednesdays, and termly
meetings of the Teaching Committee are held either immediately before or after an Academic
Group meeting. Meetings of the DSSCC are held at lunchtimes so that students can avoid
clashes with lectures, and lunch is provided by the department. The Research Committee and
the PDRA Committee both meet monthly on Fridays, at 10:30am and 2pm respectively.
Meetings of the Teaching Strategy Group are held when required (2 or 3 times per year), and
are usually scheduled using a Doodle Poll to find a day and time convenient for everyone.
The department has two members of academic staff (one male and one female) who work
part-time as a result of childcare responsibilities, and their availability is a primary
consideration in the scheduling of most departmental meetings and events.
Social events are organised by the Departmental Social Committee, comprised of both staff
and students. Regular ad hoc social gatherings within the department (e.g. a Coffee and
Cake afternoon) are held in mid-afternoon, so can be attended by those with childcare duties.
The Social Committee has striven to avoid events based on a “night out in a pub” which is
generally unfriendly to various groups, not least people with young families. Although the
annual Christmas Party is an evening event, the date is fixed well in advance to allow staff
time to make alternative childcare arrangements if they wish. Another annual event is a
Departmental Sports Day, which is held during the day, typically in June. Each of these
events is open to all students and staff.
[283]
(iv)
Culture –demonstrate how the department is female-friendly and inclusive. ‘Culture’ refers to the
language, behaviours and other informal interactions that characterise the atmosphere of the department,
and includes all staff and students.
The department has a reputation of being both cohesive and progressive, and largely devoid
of cliques and political machinations which allegedly are not uncommon within academic
departments at UK universities. Its relatively small size enables all staff to have the
opportunity to influence the development of new strategic directions and play a part in
implementing changes. Undergraduate student feedback invariably highlights the department
as being exceptionally student-friendly, which stems from our relatively low student numbers
and small class sizes.
In July 2009, and again in July 2012, the department held a one-and-a-half-day Retreat,
which all departmental staff were strongly encouraged to attend. The events were held at a
Hertfordshire hotel, and the full costs were covered by the department. The purpose of each
Retreat was to enhance social and professional interaction between staff and to build a
stronger departmental identity. Each event was organised by two committees: one designed a
series of “formal” sessions, intended to address different areas of work activity, such as
teaching, research, grant-writing, while a second committee designed a programme of
interactive activities (“team challenges”) intended to encourage greater communication and
cooperation between department staff. A gender balance was achieved on both committees.
The feedback in both cases was universally enthusiastic. Both Retreats have had an
immediate and very positive impact on social dynamics within the department – with
noticeably greater numbers of coffee-break discussions between individuals in different
17
research groups who previously had very little contact beyond an occasional greeting in the
corridor.
Following the success of the staff Retreat in July 2009, the department also held its first “PhD
Student Retreat” in September 2010, which was organised by the PhD representatives to the
DSSCC. Nineteen PhD students (6 females) participated in the event, which involved
spending a few days in the Peak District, using low-cost student hostel accommodation. All
the students thoroughly enjoyed the Retreat, which has helped enormously to improve
communication between students in different research groups within the department,
especially where the students work in different buildings. The department held a second PhD
Retreat in November 2012, involving three days spent in the New Forest. Thirty-six students
(17 females) participated in the second Retreat.
[361]
(v)
Outreach activities – comment on the level of participation by female and male staff in outreach activities
with schools and colleges and other centres. Describe who the programmes are aimed at, and how this
activity is formally recognised as part of the workload model and in appraisal and promotion processes.
Participation in, and organisation of, outreach and public engagement events have become a
major part of the department’s activity during the past four years. To our knowledge we are
one of the few departments at UCL to have a dedicated Public Engagement Coordinator Prof. Clare Elwell, who is also the UCL Beacon Mentor in Public Engagement to the UCL
faculties of the Built Environment, Engineering Sciences, and Maths and Physical Sciences.
Prof. Elwell is also a recent recipient of the UCL Provost’ s Award for Public Engagement.
Prof. Elwell has assembled a team of volunteers (men and women) from among our
academic staff and PhD students who are provided with the training and tools (e.g. for
interactive demonstrations) to engage with both scientific and non-scientific audiences. The
subject matter of our work enables us to communicate with a very wide spectrum of
audiences. Several of our staff (male and female) have instigated outreach activities in
nursery, infant and primary schools. Connections with schools attended by the children of our
staff and students are an excellent outreach opportunity. Three members of staff (all female)
have contributed to challenging stand-up comedy science events held in a local pub. Various
research groups have exhibited their work at science festivals including the Royal Society
Summer Science Exhibition and British Science Association Festival. Our department has
also substantially increased its involvement in college and faculty organised events including
Open Days, Pecha Kucha evenings, Taster Courses, and Masterclasses.
A major emphasis of our outreach work has been to actively promote Medical Physics to
young women in secondary schools (before they choose their GSCE subjects) who might
otherwise not seriously consider Physics or Engineering as a career. Our female scientists
are aware of their potential as role models to younger women and where appropriate we have
been very successful in providing majority female teams for public engagement and outreach
activities, e.g. the Girls in Engineering Taster Course. We also contribute to the UCL Women
in Engineering website http://www.ucl.ac.uk/women-in-engineering/ .
Prof. Elwell regularly exploits opportunities to communicate her own positive experience of
combining success at the higher levels of academia with career breaks and working part-time.
She was featured in the Royal Society publication “Mothers in Science” and has recently been
selected to contribute to the MRC-funded Suffrage Science publication which highlights the
contributions of female researchers in the physical and life sciences. She is also in
discussions with the investment bank JP Morgan about how to share best practice on matters
of diversity.
Public engagement is widely recognised within the department and UCL as an important and
necessary component of an academic career, and – under the general heading of Knowledge
Transfer - is a fundamental component of the appraisal and promotion processes. Importantly
there are a number of senior academics actively involved in these activities – which provides
an excellent demonstration to early career researchers of the importance of science
communication.
[484]
18
7. Flexibility and managing career breaks
a)
(i)
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.
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.
The department received three notifications of maternity leave since 2006. All three women
returned following the period of leave.
[19]
(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.
Formal requests for paternity leave are made via an online tool known as MyView, which is
also the university platform for requesting annual leave and registering periods of sick leave.
All requests are reviewed and approved by the line manager, but may be discussed with the
Head of Department if the request would require additional resources or significant
readjustments to departmental activities. During the past four years, four requests for
paternity leave have been received and approved. There have been no requests for adoption
and parental leave during the past four years.
[92]
(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.
The department has no formal method of recording applications for flexible working, but as
described below flexible working hours is an inherent characteristic of academic life within the
department. We propose to introduce a mechanism for recording requests for flexible working
[Action 4.1].
[43]
b)
(i)
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.
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.
The department supports all requests for flexible working if at all possible. Staff are formally
notified of the options available via the induction process on joining the department, and
during regular appraisal sessions thereafter. For the majority of staff whose principal activity is
research, a flexible working pattern is virtually the default arrangement. As a unit, the
department’s administrative team are required to provide a reasonable degree of support
during normal “office hours”, although they work together to accommodate as much individual
flexibility as possible within that structure, both for the long term (in case of staff with young
children) or at short notice (e.g. the need to respond to exceptional circumstances, such as
the ill health of a dependant). We propose to promote greater awareness of the available
options by creating a prominent page on the departmental website [Action 6.1].
[141]
(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.
Requests for maternity/adoption leave are made through the Departmental Administrator, who
coordinates appropriate discussions between the staff member, the line manager, and the
Head of Department. The Departmental Administrator encourages the staff member to make
use of UCL’s Gender Sabbatical Policy, which provides one term of sabbatical leave without
teaching commitments for research active staff returning from maternity. This enables them to
quickly re-establish their research activity. It is an expectation that such staff will wish to adopt
flexible working hours on return, and this is strongly supported. One member of our selfassessment team is currently benefiting from this policy.
[100]
[4541 words]
19
8. Any other comments – maximum 500 words
Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other SET-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.
A university-wide staff survey was conducted in 2012, to which 47 members of the
department (34 male, 13 female) responded. The survey asked staff whether they agreed or
disagreed with a large set of specific statements. In only a few instances (listed below) were
the differences between male and female responses statistically significant (greater than
20%), although these data must still be treated with caution, as the errors are very large due
to the small number of female responders.
 More females (77%) than males (53%) agreed that they receive regular and constructive
feedback on their performance.
 More females (46%) than males (18%) thought that they can meet the requirements of their
jobs without regularly working excessive hours.
 More females (100%) than males (79%) feel that they are kept well informed about what
the university is doing.
 Fewer females (31%) than males (56%) agreed their pay is fair.
 Fewer females (36%) than males (76%) believe that relations between support and
academic/research staff are generally good.
We hypothesize that, since the majority of support staff in the department are female, the
observed differences might reflect differences between academic and support roles rather
than gender disparities within a given role.
Nevertheless, the data display significant issues common to both genders which are being
addressed by the department and university (in addition to our Athena SWAN activities), such
as insufficient feedback on performance (particularly by males), the need to work excessive
hours (particularly by males), and unfairness of pay (particularly by females).
[248 words]
9. 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.
See pages at end of document.
10. Case study: impacting on individuals – maximum 1000 words
Describe how the department’s SWAN activities have benefited two individuals working in the department. One of
these case studies should be a member of the self assessment team, the other someone else in the department.
More information on case studies is available in the guidance.
Clare Elwell joined UCL as a Research Assistant in 1991 and completed her PhD in the
Department of Medical Physics & Bioengineering in 1995. Her research involves the
development and application of optical methods for investigating the human brain. She gained
an MRC Fellowship in the same year that she became pregnant with her first child. With the
support of her Head of Department she negotiated a return to work part-time (0.6FTE). Clare
was able to balance her part-time working hours with continuing to build her research profile.
One important aspect of this was departmental support of flexible working hours to
accommodate necessary travel to national and international conferences.
Whilst on extended maternity leave with her second child in 1999 she applied for a lectureship
with full transparency of her intention to continue to work part-time. She was the only female
candidate, and the only applicant wishing to work part-time. She was awarded the lectureship,
20
taking up the post on continued part-time (0.6FTE) status. Course organisers and the Head of
Department facilitated the necessary adjustments to the teaching timetable to accommodate
a staggered return to work.
Clare was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 2005 and after discussion with the Head of
Department and head of her research group she increased her hours to 0.8FTE. She
continued to build a successful multidisciplinary research team investigating acute brain injury
in adults, neurodevelopment in young infants and neurological consequences of
cardiothoracic procedures. She has secured substantial funding from EPSRC, MRC, the
Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and industrial sponsors.
Clare is tutor to the cohort of Intercalated Medical Students taking a BSc in Medical Physics
and is the departmental Public Engagement Coordinator. With departmental support, the help
of a timely Female Promotion workshop run by UCL-HR, and the encouragement of senior
female academics from across the faculty, she was promoted to Professor in 2008. Clare
continues to work part-time (0.8FTE), being absent from college on Fridays, but adopting a
flexible working pattern where required.
Immediately after obtaining his PhD, Adam Gibson joined the department in 2001 as a
Postdoctoral Research Associate, working on a project to develop a novel technique for
imaging the brain, breast, and other organs using laser light. Three years later he obtained an
EPSRC Advanced Fellowship which involved extending his previous research work into tools
for imaging the brains of newborn infants in intensive care.
Adam’s son was born in January 2006, and soon after returning to UCL after a period of
paternity leave, Adam arranged with his Head of Department to switch to part time status
(0.8FTE) with an agreement that he would be able to spend one day per week working from
home. This arrangement has existed ever since. Staff and students are made aware that
Adam is typically at UCL from Wednesday to Friday, but is usually available via email and
phone during certain periods on Mondays and/or Tuesdays.
Meanwhile, in 2008 Adam was awarded a highly prestigious grant under the EPSRC
Challenging Engineering Scheme, and the part-time arrangement was fully approved by the
funding body. This award coincided with his very well deserved promotion to Reader. By
appropriate scheduling of relevant departmental meetings and student lectures to avoid the
first two days of the week, Adam contributes fully to the department’s academic activities. He
is organiser of two course modules and contributes lectures to several more. He is Chair of
the Department’s Research Committee (which meets monthly) and is responsible for
management of the department’s website.
Adam coordinates the department’s contributions towards a Natural Sciences undergraduate
programme, and is Tutor to a cohort of Natural Sciences students. Adam’s research activities
and his childcare responsibilities frequently demand flexibility in his work schedule, and the
department is normally able to accommodate alternative arrangements when required (e.g.
Adam will occasionally need to perform experiments or attend a conference on a Monday
and/or Tuesday and work from home later in the week). Adam and his Head of Department
are anticipating further modifications to Adam’s working arrangements over the next few
years, in order to adapt to changes in childcare requirements as his son progresses through
school. Adam’s current career trajectory should ensure a promotion to professor within a few
years.
[704 words]
Action Plan
The plan on the following pages is deliberately front-loaded, with most actions being initiated
during the first half of 2013. However, the outcomes will be monitored and reviewed annually
by the self-assessment team, and the actions will be revised as considered appropriate.
21
Desired
outcome
Issue(s)
identified
Actions
Enhance proportion
of female
undergraduates
towards 50%
Average female
proportion of intake
since 2009 has
been 44%.
Action 1.1: Generate Women in Medical Physics
webpages to highlight female successes, case
studies, and UCL/departmental policies and good
practice.
Action 1.2: Outreach events to continue to target
girls-only secondary schools.
Action 1.3: Review and modify printed and online
undergraduate publicity material, and verbal
information given to prospective students at UCAS
days and outreach events.
Action 1.4: Conduct fact-finding meeting with
department’s female undergraduate students.
Increase proportion
of female
postgraduate
research students
by at least 1% per
annum.
Increase in
representation of
females among all
grades of academic
and research staff
(recruitment,
retention, and
promotion) by at
least 1% per
annum.
Average female
proportion of PhD
students is around
32%. Decline in
percentages of
female applicants,
offers and
acceptances.
Proportion of female
academic and
research staff is
increasing too
slowly, especially at
senior grades.
Person Responsible and Timescale
PR= person(s) responsible.
T = timescale.
SET = self-assessment team.
Action 1.5: Ensure strong representation of female
students and staff at UCAS days, Open days, and
Taster Courses.
Action 1.1: Generate Women in Medical Physics
webpages to highlight female successes, case
studies, and UCL/departmental policies and good
practice.
Action 2.2: Review and modify printed and online
postgraduate publicity materials.
Action 1.1: Generate Women in Medical Physics
webpages to highlight female successes, case
studies, and UCL/departmental policies and good
practice.
Action 3.2: Introduce annual group mentoring
sessions for all female PhD students and junior
research staff.
Action 3.3: Introduce mechanism for review and
modify all staff recruitment materials. The UCL
Athena SWAN logo will be included on all job
advertisements.
PR: Head of Department with assistance of
female volunteer PhD student and postdoc.
T: Webpages online by June 2013.
PR: Public engagement coordinator.
T: At least 20 events per year.
PR: Undergraduate Tutor in consultation
with SET.
T: From January 2013, including all future
material issued by the department.
PR: Prof. Clare Elwell with assistance of
other members of SET.
T: Before end of March 2013.
PR: Undergraduate Admissions Tutor and
Public Engagement Coordinator.
T: Effective immediately.
PR: Head of Department with assistance of
female volunteer PhD student and postdoc.
T: Webpages online by June 2013.
PR: Graduate Tutor (Research) in
consultation with SET.
T: Henceforth, including all future material
issued by the department.
PR: Head of Department with assistance of
female volunteer PhD student and postdoc.
T: Webpages online by June 2013.
PR: Prof. Clare Elwell.
T: First session to occur before July 2013.
PR: Departmental Administrator with
assistance of SET.
T: System in place by January 2013.
Review process after two years.
How success is
measured
Annual review of female
student intake by SET.
Report on findings to SET
(who consider and
implement further actions).
Annual review of female
student intake by SET.
Annual review of female
student intake by SET.
Annual review of female
staff recruitment by SET.
Annual review of female
staff retention and
promotion by SET.
Annual review of female
staff recruitment by SET.
22
Action 3.4: Gather information on reasons why
female PhD students and research staff leave the
department.
Action 3.5: Hold meetings with small groups of
female postdocs to promote opportunities for career
progression via fellowships.
All students and
staff are able to
benefit from
institutional and
departmental
family-friendly
schemes and
policies.
No mechanism for
recording requests
for flexible working
No mechanism for
recording gender
balance on
appointment panels.
Insufficient
awareness of
schemes and
policies.
Action 3.6: Adopt as departmental policy to
approach excellent qualified female researchers
with encouragement to apply for vacant academic
positions.
Action 4.1: Introduce mechanism for recording
requests for flexible working.
Action 5.1: Introduce mechanism for recording
gender balance on appointment panels.
Action 6.1: Create an online resource (i.e.
departmental webpage) which provides easy access
to information on family-friendly policies, promotion,
career progression, and clearly explains the
processes involved.
Action 6.2: Organise a group meeting with
departmental staff supervisors and mentors,
ensuring that they are equipped to inform their
mentees about institutional and departmental familyfriendly schemes and policies, as well as career
options for PDRAs.
Action 6.3: Hold one-to-one meetings with new staff
with mentoring and supervisory responsibilities to
ensure they are fully aware of institutional and
departmental family-friendly schemes and policies,
as well as career options for PDRAs.
PR: Departmental Administrator with
assistance of SET.
T: Mechanism for data collection in place
by March 2013. Review process after two
years.
PR: Prof. Clare Elwell with assistance of
other members of SET.
T: Between March 2013 and March 2014.
PR: Head of Department.
T: Effective immediately.
PR: Departmental Administrator with
assistance of SET.
T: Mechanism in place by March 2013.
PR: Departmental Administrator with
assistance of SET.
T: Mechanism in place by March 2013.
PR: Head of Department with assistance of
Website Administrator.
T: Webpage online by March 2013.
Annual review of female
staff retention by SET.
Annual review, by SET, of
number of fellowship
applications submitted by
female staff.
Annual review, by SET, of
number of applications for
academic positions
submitted by women.
Annual review of female
staff retention by SET.
Annual review of female
staff recruitment by SET.
Annual review of requests
for promotion, flexible
working, parental leave,
etc., by SET.
PR: Head of Department with assistance of
other members of SET.
T: Meeting to be held before July 2013.
PR: Head of Department.
T: From August 2013 onwards.
23