UCL DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
John Shawe-Taylor
Professor of Computational Statistics and Machine Learning
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
7th December 2012
I am pleased to confirm my wholehearted support for the UCL Computer Science submission for an
Athena Swan Silver Award. Computer Science as a discipline has struggled with gender inequality in
many parts of the world and not least in the UK. This is the result of quite complex associations and
messages that are sometimes difficult to unravel; but the result has been an enormous loss of talent
to a subject that is in many respects well-matched with female talents. The Athena Swan submission
is an important step in our putting this situation right, something to which I am deeply committed.
We are very fortunate that our Department has a number of high profile female academics including
four members of our professorial staff. Professor Angela Sasse leads our Information Security
Research Group and is a world leader. Professor Ann Blandford was the previous Director of the UCL
Interaction Centre (UCLIC), while Professor Yvonne Rogers assumed this role just over a year ago.
Both are extremely productive and influential researchers. In addition to the professorial staff we have
a number of excellent female colleagues who are making major contributions in their fields. Space
does not allow mention of all of the women in the Department who are helping to make it a successful
academic unit, but Jill Saunders our Admin Manager, and JJ Giwa our Facilities Manager deserve
special mention for their extraordinarily dedicated and professional contributions. I would also like to
mention Professor Sue Black who has a strong connection with the Department and has assisted us
in preparing our Athena Swan submission. Sue is well-known for her championing of women in
computing and her high profile campaign to save Bletchley Park and is currently writing a book about
this that the Department will help to finance.
Despite the positive examples cited above, there is significant underrepresentation of women at all
levels of our Department. Our discussions of the reasons for this have led us to understand the extent
to which this underrepresentation extends back into interest in computing in schools. We are
recruiting from an already depleted pool. Our departmental strategy and academic mission is to work
to turn this completely unacceptable situation around at all levels. In order to tackle this situation in its
entirety we are therefore engaging at many different levels, including promoting computer science
among girls at school, improving our messages to attract women to apply to UCL at all levels and,
once part of our community, to support and nourish their work and careers.
I would like to conclude by reiterating my absolute commitment to seeing these developments
through, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because I believe that gender balance
can enormously benefit our department and the discipline of Computer Science.
Yours sincerely,
John Shawe-Taylor
Professor of Computational Statistics and Machine Learning & Head of Department
UCL Department of Computer Science
University College London Gower Street London WC1E 6BT
Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 7680 Fax: +44 (0)20 7387 1397
J.Shawe-Taylor@cs.ucl.ac.uk
www.ucl.ac.uk/staff/J.Shawe-Taylor
1 Athena SWAN Silver department award application Name of university: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON Department: COMPUTER SCIENCE Date of application: 30/11/12 Date of university Bronze and/or Silver Athena SWAN award: 2006 (Renewal: May 2009)
Contact for application: JOHN SHAWE-­‐TAYLOR Email: j.shawe-­‐taylor@ucl.ac.uk
Telephone: 02076797680
Departmental website address: http://www.cs.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. Letter of endorsement from the head of department: maximum 500 words Attached 461 words 2 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 Name
Role in the AS team
Biographical Data
Professor John Shawe-­‐Taylor
Chair Instigator
Dr Sue Black
Member
Catalyst
Ideas
Professor Zhaoping Li
Member
Women in CS Coordinator
Dr Stephen Hailes
Member
Data analysis
Dr Graham Roberts
Member
Teaching and Curriculum
Dr Ivana Drobnjak
Member
Athena Swan communication
Hard working dynamo
Sarah Chisholm
Member
Data analysis
Head of Department. Married, one child. Used to combine picking child from school with other work commitments. Has tried to ensure weekends are kept free of work, including combining trips to project meetings or conferences with family trips.
Senior Research Associate since 2010. Four children. Veteran champion of women in SET specifically women in computing, e.g. set up BCSWomen network in 2001, online network with 1.5k female members. Completed BSc(Hons) Computing Studies full-­‐time and PhD Software Engineering full-­‐time for 3 years, part-­‐time for 4 years and full time lecturing: all whilst single parent with 3 children. Currently living with partner, one child at home. Professor. Married with two children. Had the second child during first year at UCL. Children in nursery when young and had housekeeping help. Living close to campus/nursery so as to be flexible in working from home and from office/lab. Department Women in CS coordinator providing advice to young CS women. Husband also works at UCL and helps with childcare. Took children on sabbatical to Asia. Deputy Head of Department (2005-­‐). Married (to a UCL academic), two children, one of whom is now at University, one at GCSE level. Both children were born whilst I was working at UCL, and both children attended UCL nursery in the early years of their lives -­‐ they were dropped off and picked up by us both. Childcare is and has always been a joint responsibility, usually done together.
Departmental Tutor (2003-­‐ date) responsible for student welfare in the department, also Director of studies (2007-­‐date) responsible for organising the teaching in the department. Not married, no child responsibilities. Acted as a carer for late mother for five years during a long illness with serious mobility problems. Currently looking after elderly father.
Leverhulme Trust Fellow & Proleptic Lecturer (May 2012 -­‐ date). Post-­‐Doctoral Research Associate at UCL since 2009. While pregnant with first child was awarded Leverhulme Trust Fellowship and soon after a UCL lectureship. Had strong support from the department. After coming back from a 6-­‐month maternity leave, initiated Post-­‐Break award scheme at UCL for parents coming back from maternity leave. In first ever round in February 2012, was awarded £10000, which was spent hiring personnel to help get work up-­‐to-­‐speed. Worked full-­‐time ever since. Currently pregnant with twins. First child is in nursery. Husband a busy barrister who helps out. PhD student since 2010. Not married, no childcare responsibilities.
Larissa Romualdo Suzuki
Member
Women in CS Research
Dave Twisleton Member
Action plan
JJ Giwa
Coordinator PhD student since 2011. Google Anita Borg Scholar, Ambassador of the Anita Borg Institute. Married, no childcare responsibilities.
Technical Support Officer in Department since 2002, also Dept Safety Officer. PG Cert in Learning Technologies 2008. Two girls, 7 and 19 months, balancing childcare with wife ,who works, and childminder. Governor at daughter’s Primary School.
Joined the Department in Jan 1995 as the Assistant Departmental Secretary. Was away for 6 months of maternity leave in 2007 and returned on a 3-­‐day week basis 3 for a period of 4 months. Became Departmental Administrator responsible for Facilities Management and Operations in 2009. Married and mother of two children. A Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer.
Working was highly collaborative both at and between meetings. All members are extremely enthusiastic and have taken responsibility for different areas. Dr Dean Mohamedally (Senior Teaching Fellow), Ms Alex Douglass-­‐Bonner (PhD Student), Dr Simon Julier (Undergraduate Admissions Tutor) and Dr Anna Cox also contributed. 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 After an initial meeting in July 2012 to launch the project, the core Athena Swan team met first twice monthly, then weekly from September 2012. The main goals were to identify and discuss the objectives of the Athena SWAN initiative; collect and discuss the data required; and to formulate a plan of action leading up to and following our submission. Our meetings were highly collegial and animated, often consisting of brainstorming and discussion of identified issues. JJ and Jill provided administrative support. Sarah and Alex, in collaboration with Steve Hailes, obtained and worked with the data. In November we also presented our work to the department’s External Advisory Board which included industry experts from Google, IBM, SAS, Causata and Cisco. During a very active discussion we received useful input on how to address work-­‐life balance issues. We had discussions about making computer science careers more attractive for girls with J P Morgan, Careers Officer of City of London School and the headteacher of Townley Girls Grammar School. We invited the head to talk to us about gender issues from the school’s perspective. This then fed excellently into our action plan for increasing the number of female undergraduate applicants. We have really enjoyed working together as a group and are excited about the progress we have made already, but that is just the beginning… 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. We have really enjoyed meeting up over the last few months and plan to carry on meeting at least every two months to discuss and review progress and of course come up with new ideas. We will report our progress, successes and achievements through our dedicated Women@CS web pages, our Facebook and Twitter, and departmental meetings, e.g. 4 Academic Staff meetings, Departmental Staff Meetings, External Advisory Board and the UCL Faculty of Engineering Sciences’ Women in Engineering group. We will monitor implementation of the action plan, looking for changes in the data. One of our key action points is to make the data collection easier and more automatic. We will also consult regularly with students and staff via a Women@CS focus group, our Facebook and Twitter pages and our new department blog. The group will work on building a community in which women can network, get support, develop confidence, learn skills and grow.
992 words 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 Computer Science is one of the leading UK departments in research and teaching in computer science. In the most recent Research Assessment Exercise, 80% of our work was rated world-­‐leading or internationally excellent. UCL Computer Science also prides itself on the quality and breadth of its teaching portfolio: we admit highly able students, and provide courses that are grounded in the fundamentals of our discipline but that extends the students both technically and in terms of qualities of cooperation and leadership, using a variety of practical problem-­‐ and project-­‐based tasks. We run both undergraduate programmes and a wide variety of postgraduate programmes, most of which are linked directly into our research base and that draw on the expertise of cutting-­‐edge researchers. 5 The department comprises 54 academic & 53 research staff, as well as 31 support staff. There are currently 244 undergraduates, 132 taught (MSc) postgraduates and 148 research postgraduates. The department comprises a number of research groups, most of which have associated research centres that both integrate expertise from outside the department and act as an outward facing presence through which we can promote the activities taking place in the department and forge new links. This structure can be seen in the diagram above. Our specialties include virtual environments and graphics, computer vision and imaging, networks, software systems engineering, human-­‐computer interactions, information security, intelligent systems, media futures, bioinformatics, financial computation, and programming principles, logic and verification. In the UCL tradition, we are multidisciplinary – sharing ideas and resources from other departments and the wider world to incorporate into our novel research. b) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning. Student data (i)
Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses – comment on the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract women to the courses. Not applicable – UCL CS doesn’t offer foundation courses.
(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. 2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Female
33
18%
28
16%
36
18%
44
21%
53
27%
48
20%
UCL
Male
153
152
159
168
141
196
82%
84%
82%
79%
73%
80%
Total
186
180
195
212
194
244
Female
4195
20%
3565
19%
3465
18%
3520
18%
?
?
?
?
UK
Male
16430
15590
15815
16215
?
?
80%
81%
82%
82%
?
?
Total
20625
19155
19280
19735
?
?
6 Over the last 6 years female student Comparison of percentage of numbers have been increasing from female UG students at UCL vs UK 30% a baseline from of 18 to 20 %. average Having a similar number of female 20% students to the national average is not good enough for us. We want UC
10% more female students in our L department and plan to increase 0% the percentage year on year, providing them with an environment where they will thrive. We have many initiatives in our department to encourage and support female students. Listed below are many of our actions, which are either ongoing or planned to begin in 2013. We are very proud of our students and include examples here of just some of their achievements.
Showcase Role Models: use all channels available (Facebook, Twitter, Departmental website and blog) to showcase our female students and staff to show our UG students that there are some very cool females at UCL doing some really cool things in computing. Top women programmers in our 1st year Robotics class, now one year on -­‐ Giulia (left) is now leading a software systems engineering team, developing UCL CS’s first 3D Games Console and Kinga is now Student Chair for the Special Interest Group (SSIG) in Information Security. Open Days and Conference Days Ensure that at least half of the speakers and others involved with our Open Days are female, and that all materials, slides etc. used at open days have photos etc. showing positive female role models. Ensure that these days happen not only at Year 12 as is the case now when the girls already chose their study area, but earlier on at Year 9 before the girls are committed to a particular direction. Real world focus Embed a real world focus for computer science in our courses, with especial focus on year one. 7 Scholarships Provide scholarships targeted at female students across the department. PR, marketing, social media We are keen to showcase our female staff and students and their great achievements both internally and externally. We have set up Facebook and Twitter accounts which are proving popular, screenshots of these are on the front page of our submission. We are also setting up a departmental blog which will aim to include female staff and students in 50% of its content. Not only will we have female specific channels, but also our general PR and marketing channels will aim to have 50% of content female staff/student related. Outreach activities Build on our already strong links with schools, increase the amount of schools that we are linked to, and work more closely with them to improve and deepen the relationship Stephanie and Tina are dedicated Android and iOS fans. Together with a team of our best app developers, they represented UCL as ambassadors at this year’s UK DroidCon Android conference, the largest apps conference in the UK. Here they reached out to top companies such as Intel, Sony and app service providers to learn and engage with communities of software developers. UCL-­‐CS were the only university to demonstrate apps technologies at the show. Strong emphasis is placed on student visibility to companies. High quality and topical events for school teachers We plan to trial holding an event next summer aimed at teaching teachers programming. It has been found that the way programming is taught to girls can make a massive difference in whether they enjoy it or feel alienated by it. Carnegie Mellon University ran a program, which linked teaching programming to teachers with teaching them gender awareness1. We aim to trial a similar event at UCL next summer. 2 year undergraduates doing projects in schools As part of our outreach activities one of our medium term plans is to explore the feasibility of creating a link between the undergraduate students in our department and both the schools from which they originated, and schools and colleges in developing regions. nd
Career Progression Broker links between our feeder schools and industry. We already have very strong links in place (JP Morgan, Google, Cisco and IBM), and at the recent External Advisory Board meeting, several of the industrial members, suggested they would be quite 1
Allan Fisher and Jane Margolis. 2002. Unlocking the clubhouse: the Carnegie Mellon experience.SIGCSE
Bull. 34, 2 (June 2002), 79-83. DOI=10.1145/543812.543836
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/543812.543836
8 happy to have a system in place in the department which would connect them up with schools. (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. 2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
UCL
Female
50
35%
37
28%
54
25%
52
31%
32
24%
Male
91
93
160
116
100
UK
65%
72%
75%
69%
76%
Total
141
130
214
168
132
Female
1670
21%
1515
21%
1810
20%
2135
21%
?
Male
6140
79%
5595
79%
7080
80%
8275
79%
?
Total
7810
7110
8890
10410
?
Our department has been steadily Comparison of percentage of female PGT oscillating about a 28% baseline for the students at UCL vs UK average past five years. This is significantly above 40% the national average of around 21% and 30% is quite encouraging. Nevertheless, as in UCL the case of the undergraduates we aim 20% UK to increase these numbers. 10% The MSc numbers are significantly larger 0% than at the undergraduate level and this 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 is most likely due to existing very applicable and exciting MSc courses that we have. We are also partners in teaching on the MSc Human Computer Interaction with Ergonomics, which has a consistently high number of female students (currently 50%). We aim to continue providing these Masters and are actively thinking how we can improve them even further. From our Masters in Financial and Software Systems Engineering, Irina and her team presented a case study to an executive panel of senior architects and project managers from IBM Global Business Consulting Services. They received Distinction awards from both academics and senior industry members. Similar to our plans for the undergraduates, we aim to increase how much we feature female staff and students in marketing and publicity materials; not only do we positively reflect our female student population but we also include featured research by our academic and research staff. 9 (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. UCL
Female
24
24%
23
26%
24
22%
24
18%
30
21%
30
20%
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Male
74
67
87
113
111
118
UK
Total
76%
74%
78%
82%
79%
80%
98
90
111
137
141
148
Female
180
23%
185
21%
165
17%
210
21%
?
?
?
?
Male
615
77%
715
79%
780
83%
770
79%
?
?
?
?
Total
795
900
945
980
?
?
Postgraduate research enrolment has been fairly steady around 22%, which is above the national average baseline of 20.5%. However, our aim is to further improve the ratio. In order to have more PhD students we need to both inspire our own undergraduate and MSc students to choose to do research, and to Comparison of percentage of female successfully attract candidates from other PGR students at UCL vs UK average universities to choose to do their PhD at 30% UCL. Here are a few initiatives we are 20% planning: Summer research posts (internships) of 10% UG students with academics The goal of this action point is to attract 0% undergraduates to choose careers in 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 research, and we believe this will result in increasing our PhD numbers. The system is already in place. UCL UK Women@CS group We plan to create a dedicated group to build a community in which women in our department can develop confidence, learn skills, develop networks and grow. We will do this through organising events, mentoring, conferences, outreach and professional networking. We have read about this this working at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) with great success. Dr Sue Black who is part of our Athena Swan Working Group has many years of successful experience in this area and will be part of making this group a resounding success. (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. UG
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Applications
Female
Male
108 (17%)
533
93 (17%)
447
114 (17%)
551
112 (18%)
525
153 (20%)
623
121 (17%)
594
Offers
Female
Male
63 (19%)
264
52 (18%)
232
63 (18%)
290
66 (22%)
236
65 (23%)
217
81 (19%)
335
Acceptances
Female
Male
19 (16%)
98
16 (16%)
81
31 (20%)
125
35 (26%)
100
24 (23%)
82
39 (21%)
144
10 The data for all three groups imply that the proportion (by gender) of offers made is in line with the proportion of applications received. The only data point that is different is Postgraduate Research 2009/10, which we believe was a one off anomaly. PGT
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Applications
Female
Male
271 (27%)
731
249 (26%)
714
349 (27%)
923
426 (28%) 1084
444 (27%) 1174
794 (40%) 1186
Offers
Female
153 (34%)
141 (28%)
172 (29%)
180 (28%)
144 (25%)
206 (33%)
Male
294
362
424
452
442
420
Acceptances
Female
Male
76 (32%)
158
85 (31%)
192
90 (25%)
264
88 (27%)
237
71 (22%)
254
122 (31%)
276
This data shows that the application process at the Department is not favouring men, and re-­‐enforces our determination to focus on the goal of increasing the number of female applicants in all three groups. The initiatives for this are described in the previous sections. PGR
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Applications
Female
Male
44 (24%)
141
46 (19%)
198
41 (18%)
190
56 (22%)
200
78 (24%)
250
73 (26%)
211
Offers
Female
Male
12 (29%)
29
11 (20%)
43
6 (8%)
69
19 (21%)
72
25 (32%)
52
15 (26%)
42
Acceptances
Female
Male
7 (24%)
22
8 (21%)
31
4 (7%)
52
12 (17%)
58
22 (36%)
39
10 (26%)
28
(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. UG
Completion
award year Female
2008
6
2009
8
2010
8
2011
3
2012
13
Classification
Male
29
30
28
43
26
1
0%
13%
0%
0%
23%
Female
2:1
2:2
50%
33%
50%
38%
63%
25%
67%
0%
38%
31%
Male
3
17%
0%
13%
33%
8%
1
24%
33%
14%
23%
35%
2:1
34%
37%
50%
49%
46%
2:2
31%
23%
36%
28%
19%
3
10%
7%
0%
0%
0%
The data shown in this table is quite worrying. We can see that in 2008/10 and 11 no female students received a first class degree and in 2011 33% of females received a third class degree compared to 0% of male students. Partly with this in mind in 2011 we revised our undergraduate programme with the intention of making it much more strongly problem-­‐based. Figures for 2012 are much improved but we are not complacent, this issue must be addressed and is an item on our action plan. 11 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 Academic Lecturer Senior Lecturer Reader Professor Total 2007 2/15 (
13%) 1/7 (
14%) 1/10 (
10%) 3/14 (
21%) 7/46 (15%) 2008 2/17 (12%) 0/6 (0%) 0/8 (0%) 3/16 (19%) 5/47 (11%) 2009 2/19 (
11%) 1/7 (
14%) 0/6 (0%) 3/18 (17%) 6/50 (12%) 2010 3/19 (
16%) 1/9 (
11%) 0/5 (0%) 3/18 (17%) 7/51 (14%) 2011 3/15 (20%) 1/13 (8%) 0/5 (0%) 4/21 (19%) 8/54 (15%) *Lecturers also include Teaching Fellows and Senior Teaching Fellows We are keenly aware that the percentage of female staff in the department is low and are focusing our efforts on improving this situation. We are very happy that the department has four female professors but recognise that 0% to 20% females in different roles leaves lots of room for improvement. We will be working as per our action plan to improve this situation with a three-­‐pronged approach: o Use of current best practice for making positions attractive to females when advertising future academic positions. o A formalised talent spotting process ensuring that females with potential are given appropriate advice, support and coaching. o A mentoring program which encourages female staff to achieve their potential. Research Research Research Senior Research Research Assistant Associate Fellow Fellow Total 2007 2/5 (40%) 2/33 (6%) 1/3 (33%) 0/2 (0%) 5/43 (12%) 2008 1/4 (25%) 4/36 (11%) 1/5 (20%) 0/1 (0%) 6/46 (13%) 2009 2/7 (29%) 7/48 (15%) 1/7 (14%) 0/1 (0%) 10/63 (16%) 2010 0/3 (0%) 12/56 (21%) 2/8 (25%) 0 14/67 (21%) 2011 0/3 (0%) 12/38 (32%) 3/12 (25%) 0 15/53 (28%) The data for research posts shows more females employed than in academic posts, at 28% overall, but we are not complacent. We also want to improve the percentage of female research staff. We identified that obtaining an academic post is one of the hardest steps to achieve on the academic career path as there are very few posts available. From our observations and external research, we also note that this career point often occurs when women are in their early/mid-­‐thirties and personal factors (such as wanting to have children) overlap with the straining demands of work. We will also be working on getting our PhD students interested in academic careers. 12 (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. 2009 2010 2011 -
3 male voluntary leavers (Swan grade 5) no female leavers
3 male voluntary leavers (Swan grade 2x5, 1x4)
no female leavers
11 male voluntary leavers (Swan grade 1x6, 6x5, 3x4, 1x1)
1 female voluntary leaver (Swan grade 5)
We have a very low staff turnover, with only one female leaving in the last three years. NB We did not include research staff leaving when the grant funding ends.
2000 words 4. Supporting and advancing women’s careers: maximum 5000 words Key career transition points a) Provide data for the past three years (where possible with clearly labelled graphical illustrations) on the following with commentary on their significance and how they have affected action planning. (i) Job application and success rates by gender and grade – comment on any differences in recruitment between men and women at any level and say what action is being taken to address this. Applicants
Interviews
Appointments
Female
Male Withheld
Female
Male Withheld Female Male Withheld
2009 116 (43%)
152
1
6 (14%)
35
1
3 (23%)
10
0
2010
10 (14%)
59
0
4 (31%)
9
0
4 (40%)
6
0
2011
37 (23%)
120
1
8 (36%)
14
0
7 (54%)
6
0
2012
55 (20%)
220
4
10 (26%)
29
0
1 (13%)
6
1
In general from this data we can see that there is no obvious bias towards men in recruitment of research staff, and a slight preference towards female applicants both at interview and appointment stage. Two data points are worrying however: o In 2009 from a 43% level of applications from females only 23% females were appointed o In 2012 only 13% females were appointed when 26% were interviewed. ACA
Applicants
Interviews
Appointments
Year
Female
Male Withheld
Female
Male Withheld Female Male Withheld
2009
3 (50%)
3
0
0
1
0
0 (0%)
1
0
2010
14 (24%)
43
2
1 (50%)
1
0
1 (50%)
1
0
2011
40 (19%)
171
1
3 (14%)
18
0
1 (20%)
4
0
2012
11 (10%)
102
1
1 (8%)
12
0
0 (0%)
2
0
RES
Year
13 Regarding academic staff, there are less appointments in general so it is harder to make more concrete conclusions. However, similarly to research staff, the data convincingly shows lower number of female candidates applying for the posts in the first place. We as a Department are working hard to increase these numbers both for research and academic staff and our action points regarding this have been described already in 3 (vii). However, in order to maintain the current fair recruitment trend, we will put monitoring in place to insure it continues. (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. Applied Successful Female Male Female Male 2010 L -­‐> SL 0 1 0 1 SL -­‐> R 0 1 0 1 R -­‐> P 0 1 0 1 2011 L -­‐> SL 0 3 0 3 SL -­‐> R 0 1 0 1 R -­‐> P 0 1 0 0 2012 L -­‐> SL 0 2 0 2 SL -­‐> R 1 2 1 2 R -­‐> P 0 1 0 1 * L=Lecturer, SL = Senior Lecturer, R = Reader, P = Professor The data shows that most applicants that apply for promotion get it (with one exception in 2011). However, of all applicants over the last three years only one was female. We noted that the method by which potential candidates are identified is through a professorial committee that reviews all non-­‐professorial academic staff. While this process does not require individuals to put themselves forward, there is a potential to overlook the specifics of females unless this is specifically flagged. The department is already running professional and developmental courses for staff related to career planning. They involve improving leadership skills, grant and publication writing to encourage our less experienced academics to progress and be considered for promotion. In addition to this we discovered that mentoring by more senior academics can be really crucial in the earlier stages of academic career. We therefore plan to put a mentoring program in place alongside other initiatives, described within this document and detailed as part of our action plan, designed to improve female staffs’ confidence and awareness of how to apply for promotion. 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. 14 (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 We found that the department ensures its advertising, short listing and criteria adhere to the university’s equality policies. UCL organises recruitment and selection training for members of staff involved in interview panels. The training is mandatory, and the department ensures that we comply with this requirements. Our shortlisting and interview panels comply with UCL regulations and where possible, to include male and female members of staff. However, we do believe we could take a more pro-­‐active approach to attracting the right female candidates. Currently we are working on improving our work-­‐life balance structure and providing stronger support for women. We plan to make this obvious in our advertisements for future job vacancies in the department. (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. It can be observed from the data we have shown that that the number of female researchers decreases as we go further on the academic path – see histogram (average over the last five years is shown). Mentoring: We plan to introduce mentoring at every level of the academic career. Students will be mentored by research staff, research staff by the academic staff. As a department we already have plenty of developmental courses in place, mentors will identify which skills need to be built and recommend appropriate training for their mentees. Yearly meetings with HoD: We plan to put in place lunch meetings of our female academic staff with the Head of Department during which they can give opinions on the situation in the department, raise issues that need to be addressed and also feedback the opinion of the younger members of staff and students that they are mentoring. Networking and role models: We plan to use our Women@CS group to facilitate these for students and all staff levels. 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. 15 (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? UCL staff are expected to Propordon of female staff/students at key take part in the Appraisal, transidon points averaged over last 5 years Review and Development 100% Scheme. Normally, staff 80% have an appraisal meeting 60% Female with their line manager each Male year (no less frequently than 40% every two years). The 20% scheme’s aim is for all 0% members of staff to UG PGT PGR Research Academic understand the department’s expectations of them, an opportunity for detailed discussion of their contributions, and to feel valued. This scheme also includes an opportunity for identifying training and development needs and ensuring that they are met. Interestingly, our records show that female line managers are consistently good at carrying out regular appraisal meetings with the staff they line manage. The definition of clear and stretching objectives is key to the process and is also important in creating the conditions for promotion. We therefore plan to dedicate a session to this topic led by Ann Blandford at the next Awayday in March 2013. Special attention will be paid to gender specific issues in setting such objectives and appraisals generally. (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 staff have a thorough induction with HR Manager, line manager and other relevant staff. Gender equality training is covered as part of the mandatory online equalities training that all new staff have to do within their probation period. The flexible working policy, professional and personal development are all part of our induction material, both in print and web-­‐based. Our administrative staff send all the relevant information to all the new staff, together with meeting them and informing them of the possibilities in person. We will make sure that the mentors remind their mentees about this material and where it can be found from time to time as well. (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. 16 This has not been provided by the department in the past, but is an area where we plan to make significant changes as indicated elsewhere in this document. 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 (ii)
External Advisory Board
Finance Committee
Management Team
Operations and Premises
Teaching Committee
Heads of Research Groups
Female
3
3
3
4
3
2
Male
20
7
9
9
18
10
Current numbers for committee membership show a much higher representation on our committees by men than women. This has occurred for different reasons on each committee. The External Advisory Board (EAB) which comprises 20 males and 3 females depends on companies putting forward people to sit on the board or UCL CS department staff members asking a contact that they have in industry to sit on the panel. In a recent meeting the EAB themselves noted that the department needed to do some work on getting more female staff and students into the department, so it is clear that they are keen on promoting an awareness of gender issues. The Teaching Committee mainly comprises of the course leaders within the department. Some thought needs to be given as to how to either have more female staff as course leaders or to get a greater representation of women on the teaching committee by another means. The Head of Research Groups committee comprises of academics who are heads of research groups. As above, this needs to be looked at to work out the best way of ensuring that the gender balance on the committee can be addressed. (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. Our academic staff is on open-­‐ended contacts. Our research staff is on open-­‐ended contracts with grant/project end dates. Although this is formally considered open ended, it ultimately depends on the grant being renewed, or a PI getting a new grant or a project being extended. So, in a conversation we had with one of the Athena Swan team members, we were advised to consider these kind of contracts fixed term. Hence, the ratio is the same as in 3.b)(vii) Staff Data, and therefore the main action points to address these are summarised there. 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. 17 (i) Representation on decision-­‐making committees – comment on evidence of gender equality in the mechanism for selecting representatives. What evidence is there that women are encouraged to sit on a range of influential committees inside and outside the department? How is the issue of ‘committee overload’ addressed where there are small numbers of female staff? The main committees involved in the running of the Department are the Management Committee, Finance Committee, Teaching Committee, and Professorial (Promotions) Committee. These committees all have female representation, but we will continue to monitor this aspect more carefully in the next months. Improving the representation of women on committees is Action Point 5.7 and will start to be addressed in early 2013. See section 4a (i) Organisation and culture for more details.
(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. Our workload model is based on a fixed teaching allocation of two modules per academic with exceptions made for particularly heavy administrative or other commitments as for example head of department or for new recruits. Administrative duties are shared as evenly as possible, again with new recruits typically being shielded from these duties during their first year or two. We will consider the possibility of introducing allowances specifically recognising circumstances arising during careers of female academics in order to adjust these allocations where appropriate. (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. Our departmental meetings are usually held between 10am-­‐4pm as some of our female and male staff have family responsibilities (e.g. nursery, school pick ups). The only exception is the board meeting which is at 4pm, but that is organised by the faculty and not our department. We have instigated a monthly academic staff lunch that provides an opportunity for discussions and social gathering. The timing is deliberately aimed to allow maximum inclusiveness. Other events are our biannual awaydays that involve spending two days at an offsite location. We encourage all academic staff to attend these important events. (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. 18 The department has a strong tradition of friendly and supportive collaboration that characterises most of UCL. Every effort is made to ensure that any criticisms are couched in a positive light to encourage growth and adaptation to meet new challenges. We have recently acquired a good quality coffee machine that has provided a focal point for social gathering in our common room throughout the day. This has encouraged mixing between groups and helped those less familiar with the department to feel welcomed and settled here. The Department holds a summer party which is aimed at all members, including their families, and children. These are usually held in the early evening, but occasionally the party has been held on a weekend to allow more people to attend as part of a day out in London. (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. At present, our outreach activities are mainly limited to running open days at UCL, coupled with a generally encouraging attitude for staff and students to visit schools and participate in the educational process through governorships, etc. However, the department is currently working with the Institute of Education and others to seek to develop training programmes for new teachers, and we are seeking to develop links with girls schools through our contacts at Townley and elsewhere. For example, Hornsey Girls School, a school with a high number of BME pupils, have been invited to a “Coding Day” where they will be designing applications. Students on the MSc Software Systems Engineering have been designing web services to support schools and charities. We plan to hold a UCL-­‐based conference next summer with a primary focus on girls and their teachers.
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. (ii)
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Maternity 1
0
0
1
2
1
19 Since 2007 our department has experienced a 100% return rate following maternity leave. The numbers of female staff taking maternity leave is relatively small, however all are supported to return to work under conditions suited to their family commitments and in line with our flexible working policy. (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. We are aware that our male staff have been taking paternity leaves of approximately two weeks. In the past this has been reported to their line managers. Last year a formalised human resources (HR) process was set up for fathers taking paternity leave. We believe that this will make this kind of data more accessible and consistent in the future. We also plan to conduct an informal survey in which we can learn more about the length of the leave and the reasons behind. The department adopts a very informal and supportive approach to offering flexibility around family commitments. This approach enables staff to work flexible hours to fit in their new home demands. We have not received any applications for parental or adoption leave in the last three years, however, we would fully support those in the future. (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 a very informal and flexible approach to work arrangements, hence we do not hold a record of applications and success rates for flexible working. Most employees discuss this with their line managers and a dedicated HR person within the department in order to get a solution that suits all. Based on our discussions with staff involved we believe that this arrangement is working for all. Future staff questionnaires will have appropriate questions on this topic to ensure that this is working for all staff.
b) For each of the areas below, explain what the key issues are in the department, what steps have been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed. (i) Flexible working – comment on the numbers of staff working flexibly and their grades and gender, whether there is a formal or informal system, the support and training provided for managers in promoting and managing flexible working arrangements, and how the department raises awareness of the options available. Flexible working is arranged both formally and informally within the department so accurate numbers are not available. Managers do not have any formal training in managing and promoting flexible working hours, however based on numerous individual examples 20 we came across in the past few months, our department has a very good record in supporting flexible hours. For example, we interviewed a PhD student who was working flexible hours after she came back from maternity leave, and an academic on this team was actively encouraged by both the line manager and the support staff to take as much leave as she needs and to organise suitable flexible hours once she is back. We do however recognise that there are still some members of the department who do not take flexible hours work option and we do plan to implement a system that would further raise the awareness and be more pro-­‐active in encouraging women to take this option. The action plan for this is described in the paragraph five of the next sub-­‐section. (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. Before going on a maternity leave, staff have a number of options to take in order to make the pregnancy period more manageable. They can either work from home once the travelling becomes too hard, or use some of their annual leave, or take sick leave in case the pregnancy is difficult and prevents them from working. Once they are ready to talk about their pregnancy they usually have a meeting with their line manager in which they discuss the start/end date of their maternity leave, cover during the time they are gone and are offered general support. Once they are back at work, flexible or part time work hours are in place to help with transitioning to the regular work atmosphere. Individual cases show that staff are aware of these and from various case studies we have, we discovered that they do use the options that are provided. In order to help maternity returners get back up-­‐to speed with their work the Department set up a Post-­‐Break Award. The award is especially designed to provide grants after large breaks, such as maternity leave. It has a value of £10000 and is meant to help with getting the awardee’s research back up-­‐to speed once the leave has finished. Our department is very friendly and open regarding bringing babies to work during/after the maternity leave has ended. One of our self-­‐assessment team academic staff members worked with her baby daughter in the office, took her to various meetings, and when necessary sometimes breastfed her in the shared office. Another student brought her baby regularly to her meeting with her supervisor. Our Department is very friendly and open, making this kind of situation not only possible but also comfortable. There are also easy accessible designated areas for breastfeeding and baby changing in the building. We acknowledge that there are some cases when staff choose not to use the available facilities for maternity leave and flexible work hours. We believe that this is due to peer pressure and the general demands of the competitive academic life both internally in the Department and externally. 21 In order to address this we plan to set up a more organised encouragement system in which staff are not only supported when taking a leave and flexible work hours, but actively encouraged to do so. The best people to give this kind of encouragement in the Department are the line managers and the HoD, as they can offer reassurance regarding the expectations from the Department. Currently a dedicated HR member in our department is in charge of processing applications for maternity leave. To broaden the scope of this process we aim to provide a checklist which includes: a pre/post leave meeting with the HoD; all information about cover arrangements and a contact person that can help; the line manager to be briefed by the HR about the need to encourage staff to consider one of the plentiful options the Department offers, and any other relevant material mothers-­‐to-­‐be should be aware of. 3995 words 5. Any other comments: maximum 500 words Please comment here on any other elements which are relevant to the application, e.g. other STEMM-­‐specific initiatives of special interest that have not been covered in the previous sections. Include any other relevant data (e.g. results from staff surveys), provide a commentary on it and indicate how it is planned to address any gender disparities identified. The appointment of a designated departmental Athena Swan champion is going to be key in us making sure that the action plan is implemented. Our use of social media to start creating a community of interest and support around what we are doing has already proven to work well. We have 111 members of our Facebook page already giving us a reach of over 28k people that potentially can see what we post, see chart below for more details. Our Twitter account has been followed by almost 100 people too and we have had quite a bit of interaction with people both inside UCL and externally. 22 We have really enjoyed working on this project. Our group and our department are all keenly committed to making a difference when it comes to increasing the amount of female staff and students and to making the department as female friendly as possible. We believe that it will not be one or two initiatives alone that make a difference but improving the overall culture through our many initiatives and actions working together. We look forward to seeing rising numbers of female staff and students over the next few years. 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. 7. Case study: impacting on individuals: maximum 1000 words Describe how the department’s SWAN activities have benefitted two individuals working in the department. One of these case studies should be a member of the self assessment team, the other someone else in the department. More information on case studies is available in the guidance. Case Study 1 (Ivana Drobnjak -­‐ Athena Swan team member): I had a great experience working as a Postdoctoral Researcher at UCL's Department of Computer Science when I had Nina. I took 6 months maternity leave paid in full (4 maternity + 2 annual months leave) and I was advised by the very friendly administrative staff throughout so I always felt well informed and supported. At the time, I was on a 3 year fixed term contract funded by the EPSRC project grant of my supervisor. The maternity leave was paid by the grant body (EPSRC policy), additional to the 3 years of the contract, so the length of my contract was extended. My supervisor and the other colleagues at the department were also very friendly and supportive, and there were quite a few keeping in touch meetings during which I had Nina sleeping next to me or she was adoringly looked after by the group's PhD students. I was back at work after 6 months and chose to work full time. Nina was settled in the UCL nursery which is wonderful and is just next door so I could always go and see her during the day if I wanted to. This made me feel much better about working full time. Now, two years after giving birth, I am a Leverhulme Trust Research Fellow and a Proleptic Lecturer here at the Department of Computer Science, UCL. I am a very hard working person with a lot of energy and I worked pretty much all the way until the last couple of days before giving birth. Throughout the pregnancy I was applying for fellowships and was awarded a Leverhulme Trust Fellowship and sometime later a lectureship. Throughout all this I had a very strong support by my department, and I felt that me having a baby was looked upon with kindness and shared excitement. I did feel that my work suffered a bit because I was away for 6 month, so I prompted the Department to initiate an award for people who are coming back from a break -­‐ Post-­‐Break Award. I was awarded £10 000 in its first round, and could then afford to hire a research assistant 23 for a few months. This was really helpful to me as I could get up to speed with my research. Now, I am pregnant again -­‐ with twins -­‐ and feel very comfortable and excited of becoming a mother again in such a friendly and supportive environment such as UCL Computer Science. Case Study 2 (Kelly Androutsopoulos -­‐ non Athena Swan team member): I joined UCL in 2010 as a Research Associate when the CREST research centre moved from Kings College London. My supervisor and head of group were very excited and supportive during my pregnancy. The administrative staff made sure that I was comfortable, for example I moved to the first floor from the fourth to avoid walking up four flights of stairs. I was due to give birth in April so worked until end of February 2011 and was off on maternity leave in March. My son was born at the end of March. While on maternity I was on a fixed term contract ending in June 2011. Since I have been back, my contract has been extended for 2 years enabling me to continue with my research. Everyone has been very supportive with me coming back to work. I was given the option of going part-­‐time if that suited, but in the end I decided to go back to work full time in February 2012. The department is very flexible with working hours to accommodate picking up/dropping off at nursery and working from home when my son has been sick. Since coming back to work I have: organised a research workshop where I was given total control over who to invite etc This has led to organising another workshop that is co-­‐located with the POPL conference. I also got two journal publications accepted. The department are very supportive with travel as its difficult for me to travel to international conferences at the moment, but I am hoping to next year. I’m also currently helping with teaching support for the first year students. 694 words 24 Action
Description of Action
Further Action Planned at November 2012
1 Baseline Data and Supporting Evidence
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Monitor UG student data: applications,
offers, acceptances, progression
(particularly on programming
modules), degree classification
Monitor PG student data: applications,
offers, acceptances, progression and
achievement
Monitor staff data: appointments,
fellowships, promotions, pay awards
Monitor numbers of female staff on
departmental committees
Run staff and student surveys focusing
on positive and negative experiences
within the department
2 UG and PG Students
Review the representation of women
in all department publications both
online and offline, aiming for 50%
2.1 representation
Ensure representation of women at
2.2 Open Days brought up to 50%
Provide Scholarships for female
2.3 students within the department
Promote and encourage applications
for both internal and external awards
2.4 to female students
Progress Log
Responsibility
Timescale
Continue to monitor, set up data collection
systems where lacking
Current data not
complete
Teaching committee,
ASWG
Annual
Continue to monitor, set up data collection
systems where lacking
Continue to monitor, set up data collection
systems where lacking
Teaching committee,
ASWG
Annual
ASWG
Annual
Continue to monitor
Current data not
complete
Current data not
complete
Current data not
complete
ASWG
Annual
Continue to monitor
To begin when AS
Champion in post
ASWG
Annual
To begin when AS
Champion in post
ASWG + AS Champion Annual
First open day taking
feedback into account
held November 2012
Awaiting approval of
funds
Review
ASWG + AS Champion quarterly
Review
HoD
Annually
Representation of females
Nov-12 increases
To begin when AS
Champion in post
Review 6
ASWG + AS Champion monthly
Number of females gaining
Jan-13 awards increases
Conduct review
Working with Open Day organiser to recruit
student ambassadors and have more female
speakers. Produce leaflets & posters
targeting female applicants.
HoD to get approval from relevant university
committees
Page on Women@CS website listing awards
Promote and publicise positive stories
about and achievements of female
To be actioned by AS Champion when in post To begin when AS
2.5 students both internally and externally early 2013
Champion in post
AS Champion
Discussion held by HoD
and Sue Black with Prof
London Hopper moving to UCL for 2013,
Caroline Wardle,
Run female focused events that
previously organised by Queen Mary College. Caroline to organise
promote and encourage students and Prof Caroline Wardle who has organised it for London Hopper for and
faciliate networking between students the last few years also moving over to UCL to at UCL in 2013 and in
2.6 and staff
work with us
future
Women@CS
Start Date How Success will be Measured
Higher percentage of females at
Jan-13 every point
Higher percentage of females at
Jan-13 every point
Higher percentage of females at
Jan-13 every point
Higher percentage of females on
Jan-13 committees
Mar-13 Feedback increasingly positive
Representation of females
Mar-13 increases
2013 Scholarships provided
Ongoing
Number of positive stories
Mar-13 increases
Ongoing
Mar-13 Female focused events run
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
Looking at the possibility of using Mentornet,
US based online mentoring for female
students. Previously introduced by Sue Black
Set up a mentoring program for female and run very successfully at London South
To begin when AS
students
Bank University.
Champion in post
Embed a focus on real world uses for
computer science into courses,
especial focus on year one semester
Discussions ongoing with ASWG and Year 1
one
Tutor
Offer short summer course for
incoming students in problematic
Discussions ongoing with ASWG and Year 1
areas.
Tutor
Summer Course to support ICT
Course content being
teachers transitioning to CS and
discussed with Institute
promote CS as a choice for girls.
Implement first course in summer 2013
of Education
Review strategies for increasing female
students degree classification, review
assessment process to see if a focus on
more coursework-based assessment
2.11 would help
ASWG investigating with teaching staff
2.14 2nd year UG doing projects in schools
Act as a broker between schools and
2.15 industry
In order to increase tha awareness of pupils
of the variety of careers in computer science,
having connections both with the academia
and with industry is crucial. Given our
exisiting strong links with the industry we can
act as a broker in this process.
Create links with more secondary
2.13 school headteachers
Teaching committee,
ASWG
Set up in
2013
UG tutor
Annual
UG Tutor
Set up in
2013
Real world content in first year
Sep-13 courses increases
Progression and final
Summer
classification closer to that of
2013
male students.
Director of Studies
Set up in
2013
Summer
2013
More female applicants of high
quality
Annual
Progression and final
classification closer to that of
Mar-13 male students.
Director of Studies
Annual
Increase of the number of
applicants from those schools
that were present at the
Spring 2013 Conference days.
Director of
Studies+ASWG
Ongoing
UG Tutor
Working with Director of Studies to organise,
create and plan the content for the additional
coference days. The goal would be to have
The planning stage is
students present their projects.
already in process.
We so far have have a
strong link with the
Headly Grammar
School Head teacher.
We plan to invite headteachers to our
One of our AS team was
Conference days as well, and also connect
invited there to give a
with the ones we know would be interested presentation
Explore the feasibility of creating the link
between the UG students and both the
schools they originate from and schools in
Very early stages. So far
developing regions
just an idea.
Introduce Conference Days for
secondary school pupils, Year 9 and
2.12 Year 12
Students mentored, students
surveyed before during and after
to ensure any issues dealt with
Mar-13 and successes celebrated
Director of Studies
We have generated an
interest and got
approval from our
industry partners to act
as a broker.
HoD + Deputy
Increase in number of schools we
Nov-12 are connected to
Links established
Ongoing
Nov-12 Relationships established
We aim to improve and extend the scheme by
increasing the number of project topics,
allocating extra departmental funding to
encourage both academics and students and
finally, to have the process advertised more
widely e.g. including for example having
project days during which the
UG Research summer internships with academics/research staff would present their
2.16 the academic staff
projects to students.
The basic system is
already put in place.
There are several
projects that students
can choose from and
these are advertised on
our webpages.
UG Tutor
3 Key Career Transition Points, Transitions and Promotions
Ensure that females are encouraged to
apply for positions within the
department by using best practice in
3.1 advertising positions
To be actioned by ASWG early 2013
Ensure that females coming back from
maternity leave can get back up to
3.2 speed quickly with their work
Ongoing
Post-Break Award
instituted especially
designed to provide
grants after periods of
big breaks, such as
maternity leave. It has
a value of £10000
Set up a mentoring program for female
staff with a focus on achieving their
Review of exisiting programs before deciding
3.3 potential
on program to implement
Ensure that female staff are aware of
promotion criteria and application
information and encouraged to
3.5 achieve their potential
4 Career Advice and Support
Dedicated session planned at staff awayday
March 2013
UCL-HR
Ongoing
Line manager/PI or
Head of Research
Group as appropriate
in collaboration with
ASWG
Annual
ASWG working with
HoD
Line manager/PI or
Head of Research
Group as appropriate
working with ASWG
Formalise a talent spotting process to
highlight females with potential and
Review of exisiting programs before deciding
3.4 give them appropriate advice/coaching on program to implement
A dedicate session to
this topic will be led by
Ann Blandford at the
next awayday in April
2013. Special attention
will be paid to gender
specific issues in setting
such objectives and
appraisals generally.
Ongoing
Line manager/PI or
Head of Research
Group as appropriate
working with ASWG
Summer
2013
Internships established
Advertisements for positions in
Mar-13 future are female friendly
Annual
2012 Post-break award is taken up
Mentoring program set up,
mentees surveyed before during
and after to pick up issues and
2014 celebrate successes
Annual
Framework set up to formalise
the process reporting in to the xx
2014 committee
Annual
All mentors to ensure that their
mentees are aware of the
Mar-13 promotion criteria
Promote success stories from the
department of achieving work life
4.1 balance
Set up department blog
Encourage and support female staff
who wish to take part in high profile
4.2 media activities
Include a blog post about this and contact all
relevant staff asking if they would like to
participate
AS Champion
AS Champion
Line manager/PI or
Head of Research
Group as appropriate
working with ASWG
Set up mentoring specifically for
women before, during and after going
4.3 onto maternity leave
as 3.3
At least
monthly
updates
Success stories highlighted on
the department blog and social
media channels and if
Feb-13 appropriate externally too
Annual
Annually invite female staff to
put themselves forward for
media training, mentors to
Apr-13 encourage female staff to apply
Annual
Process set up to match mentors
2014 with mentees
5 Culture, Communications and Departmental Organisation
Run unconscious bias training for all
5.1 staff
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Publicise success stories of staff and
students within the department both
internally and externally
Formalise the departmental workload
allocation model, ensure that all "soft"
activities such as communicating with
students are taken into account in the
model
Set up a general departmental blog
which aim for 50% representation of
women in content
Set up departmental social media
channels which aim for 50%
representation of women in content
Set up women@cs group for all
females within the department,
academic staff, support staff and
students
UCL-HR
(Organisational Staff
Development)
To be held at Staff awayday 2013
See 5.4, 5.5, Internal emails pointing at
department blog, website and social media
channels
Facebook and Twitter
regularly highlighting
success stories since
September 2012
Review of department workload model,
research into current best practice
AS Champion
Ongoing
HoD
Annual
All staff given unconscious bia
training
Success stories highlighted on
the department blog and social
media channels and if
Feb-13 appropriate externally too
Summer
2013
Workload model formalised and
details shared with all staff
To be set up by AS Champion when in post
To begin when AS
Champion in post
AS Champion
Blog set up, content both text
Early 2013 and images 50% female focused
To be reviewed up by AS Champion when in
post
To begin when AS
Champion in post
AS Champion + ASWG
Social media channels set up,
Early 2013 content 50% female focused
To be set up by AS Champion when in post
To begin when AS
Champion in post
AS Champion + ASWG
Group set up and starts meeting
Early 2013 regulalrly
Improve the representation of women
on key departmental committees,
Produce action plan to ensure this is carried
5.7 aiming for 50% representation
out
HoD, ASWG
review
quarterly
50% representation of females
Early 2013 on all committees achieved
Employ a member of staff with the
remit of championing and
implementing the Athena Swan action
plan. This person will also be
5.8 Women@CS coordinator.
Have women@cs reps representing
each grouping within the department
5.9 e.g UG, Support staff etc.
To be set up by AS Champion when in post
Athena Swan/women@CS committee
to meet at least every 2 months to
5.10 implement and review the Action Plan
Social Media presence for Women@CS
to promote dept members and engage
5.11 with STEM campaigns
HoD
UCL-HR
Athena Swan champion
Early 2013 appointed
HoD
women@cs group lead
Currently meeting
every Wednesday
lunchtime, in future to
be held at least 2
monthly, probably
more frequently as we
all enjoy the meetings
2 monthly meetings at least
so much :)
women@cs group lead 2 monthly
Established Facebook
group and Twitter
accounts, 100+
Prescence set up, to be expanded and
members already and
review
enhanced, screen shots inculded in document good feedback/reach
AS Champion
quarterly
6 Career Break and Flexible Working
Time departmental meetings to ensure
care givers and those working flexibly
6.1 can attend
All meetings currently held midday with lunch
Ensure that special events and social
occasions are held within times that
care givers and those working flexibly
6.2 can attend
Event organisers
Encourage online participation at
meetings for those unable to attend in Write blogpost highlighting ways to join
person due to childcare or other
meetings remotely, include on department
6.3 commitments
webpages
Departmental
Committee Chairs and Review
Secretaries
Annually
KEY
ASWG
HoD is currently
securing funding for
this position
Athena Swan Working Group currently the group that have worked
together to produce this submission.
The AS Champion will be a member of
this group
Head of Department
University College London Human
Resources
Departmental
Committee Chairs and Review
Secretaries
Annually
Review
Annually
Early 2013 Women@CS reps appointed
Athena Swan committee
Jan-13 meetings held * 6 per annum
Social media activity, especially
Nov-13 referrals.
started
Departmental meetings held
during 10am-3pm
Social events mainly held during
2013 10am-3pm
Facilities made available for
online attendance at important
meetings and staff made aware
that they are able to attend this
Mar-13 way
Women@CS
PI
AS Champion
Women's network being set up for all
female students and staff in the
Computer Science department. The AS
Champion will be a member of this
group
Prinicipal Investigator on a research
project
New member of staff soon to be
recruited to champion Athena Swan
initiatives within and for the Computer
Science department. Will work with
and report to the HoD and be a
member of ASWG and Women@CS