UCL DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL, ENVIRONMENTAL
AND GEOMATIC ENGINEERING
FROM THE HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
PROFESSOR NICK TYLER
Athena SWAN Silver Award Panel
FAO Ms Julie Ashdown
29 May 2009
To whom it may concern
It is with great pleasure that I write to endorse the application made by the Department
of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering for an Athena SWAN Silver Award.
The department has a key priority to make sure that it operates in a way that
encourages all members of staff to have a sense of engagement and contribution to the
full range of activities, irrespective of issues such as race, religion, gender or sexual
orientation. I believe wholeheartedly that by encouraging such a culture we can build not
only better research and teaching but also a more wholesome culture from which all
students and staff can learn to inform their lives throughout their future careers,
whether these take place in the department or elsewhere. In this way it is a key
component in our endeavour to change the world for the better for all people.
We made a start on this process in 2003 in the recruitment of a large number of staff,
most of whom are women, and in redesigning our degree programmes to be attractive
to a wider range of interests, many of which being more likely to be attractive to women
applicants.
However, simply changing the demographics, although clearly important, is not nearly
enough. We have restructured the department in a way that should make it easier for
women staff to take on roles of responsibility and we are trying to encourage a more
family-friendly and accepting culture. There is clearly a long way to go and we have in
place both short and long term plans to improve the situation even further in the next 5
years.
The aim is to have a department in which all people can feel comfortable and able to
contribute their science and engineering wisdom to the overall endeavour. Ensuring that
women are fully involved in all processes within the department is essential for our
future development and is thus a major element of our operational approach.
Nick Tyler
Chadwick Professor of Civil Engineering
Head of Department
Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering
University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT
Tel: +44 (0)20 7679 1562; Fax: +44 (0)20 7679 1563
n.tyler@ucLac.uk ; www.cege.ucl.ac.uk
Athena SWAN Silver award application form
Name of institution: University College London
Year: 2009
Department: Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering
Contact for application: Dr Tao Cheng
Email: tao.cheng@ucl.ac.uk
Telephone: 02076792738
Departmental website address: www.cege.ucl.ac.uk
Date of Bronze SWAN award: 01/03/2006
Applications at Silver level should demonstrate what the department is doing
in addition to university-wide policies to promote gender equality and to
address challenges particular to the discipline.
Click here for additional guidance on completing this form.
We recognise that not all institutions use the term ‘department’, and that there
are many equivalent academic groupings with different names. If in doubt,
contact Athena SWAN staff in advance to check whether your department, or
equivalent, is eligible to apply.
It is preferable that the contact person for the application is based in the
department.
Letter of endorsement from the Head of Department
An accompanying letter of endorsement from the Head of Department should
explain how SWAN plans and activities contribute to the overall university
strategy.
The letter provides the opportunity for the Head of Department to confirm their
support for the application and to endorse and commend any activities which
have made a significant contribution to the achievement of the university and
departmental mission.
The letter should not exceed 500 words.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
1. A picture of the department
Provide data on the following areas, and comment on their significance and
how they have affected action planning. Data should be provided over a
three-year period to enable comparisons to be made. The purpose of asking
for this data is to identify what you are doing to create a pipeline for future
appointments in your discipline, how you are attracting new staff and what you
are doing to retain staff and promote them. The data also enable the
recognition panel to get a snapshot of the department. If you are unable to
provide any of the data please comment on the reasons for this.
We recommend that you use graphical illustrations to highlight the trends
emerging from the data, in addition to providing the statistics and analysis.
The tables and graphical illustrations must be included in a separate
spreadsheet with the data clearly labelled.
There is a maximum of 100 words for the commentary on each section (i–xvi).
Student data
(i)
Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses –
comment on the data and describe any initiatives taken to attract nontraditional groups of women to the courses.
We do not have access or foundation courses specific to the department. We
broadened our entry criteria in 2004/5 following discussions with school
students. We found that the ‘normal’ requirements of Civil Engineering
departments tended to act against women students because of the weight
placed on SET A Level subjects. Our criteria are now:
Grade A in 3 A Level subjects and Evidence of Numeracy
We aim to develop the thinking processes that will enable our graduates to
change the world for the better, rather than ‘just’ developing civil and
environmental engineers. This has proved more attractive to women
applicants.
(ii)
Undergraduate male and female numbers – full and part-time –
comment on the female:male ratio compared with the national picture
in your discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to address any
imbalance or negative trends and the impact to date. Comment upon
any plans for the future.
The national ratio of female: male is about 18%, in our case it was about
33.1% for the 5 years 2004/05 - 2008/09. There was a big drop in 2006/07 (to
30.1%). The action described above in 2006/7 was planned before this drop
as part of a strategy of generating a twenty-first century engineering
department. We recruited a large number of early-career academics, most of
them women, in 2004/05 with this change in mind. The increase in the
number off female academic staff and the change in degree programmes
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
coincided with the new programmes and we have since seen a sizeable
increase in the student gender ratio from 29.7% to 39.5%. We think the new
programmes are successful in terms of UG female recuritment and we will
continue with this approach (Action S1,L2)
(iii)
Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught
courses – full and part-time – comment on the female:male ratio
compared with the national picture in your discipline. Describe any
initiatives taken to address any imbalance and the effect to date.
Comment upon any plans for the future.
We have 12 postgraduate taught (PGT) courses in various subjects. The
national ratio of PGT female : male is 36.3%. In our case it was 37.3% over
the past 5 years. Similarly to UG in 2005/06, there was a big drop in this ratio.
However, it returned to 52.3% in 2007/08. However, now it has decreased to
about 35.4%. As for the completion of PGT, the proportion of females is
higher (70% in 2007/08) than the proportion of males (50% in 2007/08). There
seems to be a drop in the proportion of females, from 100% in 2003/04, to
94% in 2004/05 and 2005/06, and to 70% in 2007/08. A similar pattern can be
found in male students, but the decrease is relatively lower. We need to
analyze the indivual cases to understand why the propeortion of completing is
decreasing, esp females (Action S1,L1).
(iv)
Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees – full
and part-time – comment on the female:male ratio compared with the
national picture in your discipline. Describe any initiatives taken to
address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any
plans for the future.
There are about 50 postgraduate research (PGR) students, 21 are female and
33 are male. The female:male ratio in each year from 2004/05 to 2008/09 was
30.%, 48.6%, 56.1%, 55.3% and 63.6% respectively. The reasons for
improvement in PGR ratios are unclear - the fact that research degrees are
typically chosen on an individual basis means that whether or not a student
applies for a research degrees depends on whether their interests seem to
match those of individual academics in the department. We are investigating
the reasons for the change in the gender ratio. The arrival of a large number
of female academics in 2004/05 might be a positive influence as this shows
that the department is receptive to women (Action S1, L1).
(v)
Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender
for (ii), (iii) and (iv) above – comment on the differences between
male and female admissions and describe any initiatives taken to
address any imbalance and the effect to date. Comment upon any
plans for the future.
In 2005/06 the gender ratios for UG courses were:
applications: 25.9%, offers: 32.4% and firm acceptances: 27.1%. In 2008/9
they were: applications 31.6%, offers 38.1% and acceptances 41.3%. We
believe this is due to the courses being more attractive to female students.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
Also, the rate of firm acceptances to applicants (success rate) of females is
much higher.
In 2004/05, the gender ratios for PGT courses were:
applications: 34.9%, offers: 38.3% and acceptances: 36.8%. In 2008/09 they
were: applications 35.2%, offers 44.6% and acceptances 37.5%.
The firm acceptance ratio of PGR has increased from 30.0% in 2004/05 to
40.0% in 2008/09. As noted above it is very difficult to know exactly why this
should be and we are investigating this so that we can build on the outcome
(Action S1,S4 ).
(vi)
Degree classification by gender – comment on any differences in
degree attainment between males and females and say what action
you are taking to address any imbalance.
The ratio (female to male) of receiving UG degrees is increasing from 17.8%
in 2004/05 to 32.6% in 2008/09. The proportion of females receiving 2:1 or
above is increasing dramatically compared with their male colleagues. In
2005, this ratio was 25% for females and 22% by males; By 2007 it had risen
to 43% for female and 45% for males, and in 2008 it rose to 71% for females
and but fell slightly to 42% for males. This change is not the result of the new
programmes as these students were all studying on the previous curriculum.
Perhaps the presence of more women academic staff in the department acted
as an encouragement to female students to perform better. We are
investigating this (Action S1, S4, L1,L2).
(vii)
Length of time for postgraduate completion by gender – comment
on any differences in completion times between males and females
and say what action you are taking to address any imbalance.
There is not much difference in the average length for postgraduate
completetion for females as opposed to males, although the general length is
getting shorter, from about 5 years in 2004 to 3.8 years in 2008. There is no
apparent imbalance, so no action is necessary. Data will continue to be
monitored (Action, S1).
Staff data
(viii)
Number of male and female staff (academic and research) at each
grade – comment on any differences in numbers between males and
females and say what action you are taking to address any
underrepresentation at particular grades/levels.
Currently, we have female research assistants (66.7%), lecturers/researchers
(56.5%) and senior lecturers and research fellows (30.8%), much higher than
UK HE figures (26.6%, 22.7% and 16.7%).We recruited a large number of
early career women academics in 2004/5. One has already been promoted to
Senior Lecturer and two have been put forward in the 2009 round for
promotion from Lecturer to Reader. One woman professor was appointed in
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
2007, but unfortunately had to leave in 2008 for personal reasons. The Head
of Department takes a personal interest in trying to ensure that the
opportunities to achieve the criteria for promotion are made available and
known to the members of staff concerned. Opportunities are made available
to research staff as academic positions become available.
(ix)
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 you are taking to address this.
Although these data are recorded as part of the recruitment process, they are
returned to the Human Resources department. It appears that they do not
keep these data after their initial processing in relation to the specific
appointments being made. We will start keeping and analysing this data at the
departmental level and action will be taken after suitable analysis has been
completed. However, a more substantive effort is to change the way we
describe posts - job titles and job descriptions etc (as described in more detail
in Section 2(v) below) (Action S1, L3).
(x)
Turnover by grade and gender – comment on any differences
between men and women in turnover and say how you plan to address
this. Where the number of women in the department is small you may
wish to comment on specific examples.
The main cause of churn in the department is the retirement of senior male
staff. A robust approach is taken to replacements to ensure that opportunities
are available for women to apply for positions as they become vacant. One
woman Senior Lecturer left in 2009 to take up a post overseas and one
female professor took early retirement in 2008 for personal reasons.
(xi)
Maternity return rate – comment on whether your maternity return
rate has improved or deteriorated and say how you plan to improve
further. If you are unable to provide a maternity return rate, please
explain why.
So far 100% of people who have taken maternity leave have returned to the
department. More recently, the opportunity has been made available for
returnees to take a sabbatical shortly after their return. In the one case where
this has been taken up, the person was offered a position overseas during the
sabbatical and decided that this would be the best move for her career.
(xii)
Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake – comment on the
uptake of paternity leave by grade and parental and adoption leave by
gender and grade and whether this has improved or deteriorated and
say how you plan to improve further.
Paternity leave has been taken in the two applicable cases in 2008/9.
Adoption and parental leave has not been applicable.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
(xiii)
Promotion application and success rates by gender and grade –
comment on whether these have improved and say what further action
may be taken. Where the number of women is small you may comment
on specific examples of where women have been through the
promotion process. Explain how potential candidates are identified.
All promotion cases have been successful in the last three years, incuding 3
female and 4 male. Promotion cases are based entirely on merit. However,
the Head of Department encourages people who could be ready for promotion
to make their cases and this is considered as a normal activity in the appraisal
process. Maternity, Carer and other leave granted to staff are considered in
the course of the promotion process within UCL. However, the importance of
academic quality is the main driver and it would not be expected that anyone
who is not able to meet the relevant criteria would be promoted (Action L5).
(xiv)
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.
The department has been restructured in 2009. Although there are several
reasons for such a large change (merging departments, new appointments,
retuirements etc.), the issue of fair representation on committees and
decision-making processes was an important driver. Day-to-day management
responsibility is given to three Section Heads (1F, 2M). Strategic departmental
overview is the responsibility of a directorate (4M, 0F). Decision-making
bodies (Departmental Teaching, Research Committees) are advertised and
appointments made from among the responses. Academic Staff Committee
comprises all members of academic staff. Two female staff members of the
department are on UCL committee of Equal Opportunities (Action L5).
(xv)
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 you may wish to comment on
specific examples.
In the past, three female (one professor, one senior lecturer and one lecturer)
and two male support staff have applied for, and been granted, flexible
working. Currently, one member of support staff is working flexible hours. This
is an issue discussed at appraisal and on the occasions when a member of
staff raises issues for which flexible working might be part of a solution with
the Head of Department.
The department has an informal flexible working practice which means that,
subject to certain conditions, the emphasis is changed from the need to ask
for flexible working to the right to be able to work flexibly, subject to
constraints on consequent impositions made on other staff and suitable
communications about working arrangements.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
(xvi)
Female:male ratio of academic 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 you are doing to address them.
In 2005-2007, there was 1 female lecturer on a fixed-term contract (cover for
Maternity Leave), and 4 males at different grades on fixed-term contracst.
After 2008, all the academic staff are on open-ended contracts.
2. Initiatives to advance and support women in the department
Provide commentary on the thematic areas below, explaining what the key
issues are in your department, based on the data above, what steps have
been taken to address any imbalances, what success/impact has been
achieved so far and what additional steps may be needed (maximum 200
words each for sections i–xii).
(i)
Promotion and career development – comment on the appraisal and
career development process and the evidence of gender balance in the
process of identifying people for promotion.
Appraisal is carried out every two years, except for probationary staff, who
receive an annual appraisal. Progression in UCL is highly dependent on
research performance and thus a cornerstone of support for progression has
to be support for the generation of strong research proposals and bids for
funding. It is significant that the department has 2 EPSRC Challenging
Engineering Award winners and both are women. People are invited to
consider promotion every year and to put themselves forward. Additionally,
people are identified for promotion by the Head of Department following
discussions with the Section Heads, Directors, the Professoriate and, in some
cases, the Dean. Support in generating the promotion case is then developed
with experienced staff as appropriate to the individual’s situation. We are
starting from a base of small numbers of eligible candidates and this is being
accelerated as quickly as possible (Action L5).
(ii)
Support for staff at key career transition points – comment on any
initiatives, drawing out different approaches at different levels.
The main transition points of relevance here are Postdoc to Lecturer and
Senior Lecturer/Reader to Professor. In both cases this is discussed at
appraisal so that due attention is paid to the UCL Excellenence document in
terms of understanding of what would be contributions to the promotion
criteria and how this might be achieved. In the PD-Lecturer case, there is an
issue of the availability of posts and we do aim to ensure that postdoctoral
researchers are prepared in terms of teaching skills and publications etc. to
enter a full academic post, whether this is at UCL or elsewhere. Senior
members of staff and supervisors provide advice and support for these
transitions as a routine.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
(iii)
Flexible working – comment on the numbers of staff working flexibly
and at what grade 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 you raise
awareness of the options available.
UCL's flexible working policy requires staff to apply to the Head of Department
if they wish to arrange a flexible working regime. The department is trying to
institute a more flexible working policy which would make family-friendly
working the norm (where people so desire) without the need for a special
application to the Head of Department. However, this does require
consideration to be made in relation to the impacts on staff who are in
attendance in the department, for example in dealing with students, visitors
and other enquiries initially directed at staff who are absent at the time.
Family-friendly working is encouraged and considered routinely in appraisals
and is available on a case-by-case basis by arrangement with the Head of
Department and line manager.
(iv)
Culture – comment on how you demonstrate that the department is
female-friendly and inclusive.
The department has endeavoured to bring a more female-friendly culture to
bear on its activities although this has not permeated as far through the
department as we would like. There has been concern about the use of
language, actions/gestures and modes of discussion between staff. The Head
of Department monitors this and acts to advise people when language,
gestures etc. are inappropriate. The situation is improving and the main action
at this time is vigilance at a wider level - by Section Heads and Directors. A
Reading Group for women staff and students has been set up (chaired by a
student). The group reads and discusses a variety of items focused around
equality issues.
(v)
Recruitment of staff – comment on how your recruitment processes
ensure that female candidates are attracted to vacancies and how you
ensure that recruitment processes comply with the university’s equal
opportunities policies.
Staff wishing to take career breaks, ma(pa)ternity leave, sabbaticals etc. are
included in the ongoing life of the department
Changing the way in which positions are described so that they are more
attractive to women applicants is an important element of the approach (as it
was for the undergraduate student recruitment). By opening the areas of
interest, titles and job descriptions for posts has tended to make them more
attractive to people who have not necessarily followed the mainstream
academic route and thus this helps to encourage a broad range of applicants,
including women, to apply where otherwise they might have felt that they were
not suitable for the post. All recruitment processes follow the university
regulations on gender balance and monitoring through all stages of the
process. Appointment panels include at least one woman and are as gender-
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
balanced as possible given the spread of expertise amongst the staff.
Applicants are made aware of our family friendly policies and procedures.
.
(vi)
Representation on decision-making committees – comment on
evidence of gender balance in the mechanism for selecting
representatives.
We aim to operate an open and transparent process for the appointment of
people to departmental committees. Representatives are not selected until
after applications have been received in response to an advertisement. All
committee positions are on a termed basis (usually 3 years). Positions such
as Programme Directors are appointed for 5 years, of which the first is
shadowing the previous occupant and the last is being shadowed by the
subsequent occupant. As part of the restructuring process, all departmental
committees are being reconsidered in terms of their membership. Applications
are encouraged and a gender balance is sought when selecting committee
members. We do not currently have enough women on our committees and
we would like more to apply. All staff may attend all committee meetings if
they wish.
(vii)
Workload model – comment on evidence of transparency and
fairness.
In the past, workload allocation models have been simple to allow for the
widest interpretation in terms of appropriate workload. This is now being
changed to a more detailed form, within the broad departmental framework of
60:20:10:10 (Research: Teaching: Enabling: Knowledge Transfer) in order to
help achieve a better balance. It is important that due value is given to all
forms of activity, including outreach, enabling, committee work etc., and the
new models are being devised to enable this to happen. The broad framework
seeks to ensure that all staff undertake a fair mix of work and have the
opportunity to contribute to the four categories of endeavour as outlined in
UCL policy. Thus all staff are encouraged to be active in all four activities and
account will be made when the new models are in place of how these are split
for each individual and across the department.
(viii)
Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return –
comment on the mechanisms for covering workload absence and
specific support on return.
Appropriate cover for all applications for maternity leave is provided through
the UCL Maternity, Carer, Paternity Leave schemes. Normally departments
cover the costs unless the woman is on a grant and then it can be paid
centrally. Recently a sabbatical period following the return to work has been
arranged. Once a member of staff has advised their line manager of their
pregnancy, a Risk Assessment is undertaken to ensure that due support in
terms of assistive equipment, scheduling of activities and rest facilities can be
arranged. The Risk Assessment is reviewed throughout the pregnancy to
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
esnure that appropriate responses are made when required. Workload is
reviewed and, if necessary, altered to accommodate the pregnancy.
(ix)
Timing of departmental meetings and social gatherings – evidence
of consideration for those with family responsibilities.
Departmental meetings are timed, as far as possible, to take place between
10am and 4pm. We asked staff if they wanted these to take place on different
days, but the preference was for consistency so that people knew when
meetings would take place. All meetings are being programmed into a
departmental calendar so that all staff can know well in advance when such
meetings occur and can, if possible, make arrangements to attend. In
extremes and where possible, teleconference facilities can be arranged so
that someone unable to attend a meeting can contribute. The department
holds social gatherings from time to time and these are intended to be family
friendly (we try to make it convenient for people with childcare responsibilities
to attend) (Action S3, L6).
(x)
Outreach activities – comment on the level of participation by female
and male staff and whether they get recognition for being involved and
the time and work put in.
Staff are all expected to work on outreach and due account is given to this in
terms of their workload allocation (this comes into KT, Enabling as well as
Teaching and Research activity categories). Thus far, these have included
school outreach, taster courses, open days and Women in Science and
Engineering events.
All staff are allocated a small amount of discretionary cash to use for going to
conferences without the need to ask for approval and all staff are encouraged
to take part in professional society/institution and conference activities.
Departmental seminars have been a poor activity in the past. Following the
restructure, these will be given by all staff and access to sponsors, invited
speakers etc will be available to all staff. The actual number of speakers of
each gender will depend on the numbers available and the appropriate stage
of their work. We try to make sure that we have as many women speakers as
possible in order to provide the stimulus to staff and students to recognise
achievements by women in their area (Action S2).
(xi)
Induction and training – comment on the support provided to new
staff at all levels, noting what new arrangements you may be planning,
as well as details of gender training.
New staff are provided with a mentor and a buddying system is in place for
staff and research students. Both systems could operate better. The Head of
Department operates an open door policy for all staff. Management training is
encouraged for all members of staff. However, there is a problem of providing
suitable mentors for staff at different stages in their career and this is likely to
affect female staff. The Head of Department is discussion with UCL to try to
find a better way to identify and use mentors - especially high-level mentors -
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
so that early career staff can have good access to the right level of apprpriate
experience. This is an ongoing task.
All new staff have received induction and this process is being improved
further. Training is actively encouraged by the Head of Department. Following
discussion with the female staff, a special training programme of business
networking was organized for female staff. This is an area of concern and we
are taking steps to improve the situation on induction and training (Action L5).
(xii)
Support for female students – comment on the support provided for
female students to enable them to make the transition to a sustainable
academic career, particularly from postgraduate to researcher.
Female students wishing to make a transition to an academic career have
been few in number in comparison to the numbers wishing to work in industry
or government following their graduation. Students are all given support to
follow the path they wish and, if they are experiencing signs of gender
prejudice the department will support them if they wish to pursue action as a
result of disadvantage. Thus far, no student has reported such a problem so
we have been unable to assess whether what we have in place would be
sufficient (Action L5, S2).
3. Case study: impacting on individuals
Describe how your department’s SWAN activities have benefitted an
individual woman working in the department (maximum 200 words).
Tiziana Rossetto was one of a number of early career academics recruited in
2004 as part of a programme to develop a culture change in Civil Engineering,
both within the department and beyond. The recruitment process sought
applicants with new ideas and no baggage at the start of their career who
wanted the freedom to develop their research and teaching beyond the
received norms they would have had during their education. This was
intended to be interesting to women applicants and indeed out of the 10
appointments on offer, 7 of the appointments were women. The early career
mentoring programme was provided in part by a senior woman member of
staff; however this was not sufficient in Tiziana’s case and this role was
effectively picked up by the Head of Department. The mentoring identified the
need to apply for specific research funding available from EPSRC which was
aimed to find future research leaders. Support in research proposal
preparation by senior members of the department resulted in a successful
application for one of the prestigious EPSRC Challenging Engineering grants.
These are highly competitive and are awarded to early career researchers
who show promise of being future research leaders. Following the award of
the grant, Tiziana was nominated by the department for the Isambard
Kingdom Brunel Prize, leading to her selection to give the Brunel Lecture at
the British Association for the Advancement of Science Science Festival in
2008.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
4. Further SET-specific initiatives
Comment on any particularly innovative programmes not covered above
which have been undertaken, noting their effectiveness to date and any plans
to introduce new initiatives and/or review present practice (maximum 200
words).
The Head of Department is looking for ways to fund a sabbatical programme
so that the prospect and use of sabbatical leave is feasible for both those
members of staff wishing to take a sabbatical and those who remain in the
depatrment while others are away. This depends on the financial outcomes of
the UCL budgeting process and will depend on the amou t of income received
by the department through research and other sources.
We are undertaking an exercise similar to the one conducted for the
undergraduate programmes in 2004/5 to identify what women are looking for
in terms of PGR and PGT programmes, so that we can consider appropriate
modifications to these to attract a wider range of quality students (Action S1,
L1).
5. The self-assessment process
Describe the Self-Assessment Team members and the action planning
process, as well as any consultation processes that were undertaken
(maximum 500 words).
The team consist of following members:
Porf. Nick Tyler (M), Head of Department
Dr Tao Cheng (F), Senior Lecturer, Departmental DEOLO
Dr Sarah Bell (F), Senior Lecturer
Dr Paul Greening (M), Senior Lecturer, Deputy Dean of Student
Dr Liora Malki-Epshtein (F), Lecturer, UCL Committee of Equal Opportunities
Ms Karen Rafferty (F), Graduate Development Administrator
Mr Mark Fairweather (M), Departmental Administrator
We aimed to have a group which contained a variety of nationalities
experiences of academic life and international work ethics, ages, and
experience of parenthood and career breaks are represented. All members
have been enthusiastic and taken responsibility for different areas.
This approach to the self-assessment process started from a staff meeting in
March 2008 when Sarah Bell presented the gender data of the academic staff
to the Academic Staff. The main issue we identified is that there were many
junior female staff and few readers and professors. Female staff were
involved in most committees but none at the time as chair. Therefore, how to
help the junior female staff seek promotion and let female staff take more
important positions have been set up as the priorities. This was one of the
drivers for the restructuring of the department, so that more senior roles were
available which could be open to female staff.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
Other issues were identified relevant to the job nature and resposibility of
each member. For example, Paul Greening identified the issue of recruting
female undergraduate students and now is working with the Gradute Tutor to
improve the number of women applying to Postgraduate Teaching Courses
and the Postgraduate Research Programmes. He is also leading the website
task-force team to improve the departmental website. Mark Fairweather
noticed that the recuritment data is not held in central system and is building a
database with the department manager to rectify this.
In order to advance women to higher grades, a women’s reading group has
been formed and a website will be developed for that. Sarah Bell has taken
the initiative to form the women's reading group based on the fact that articles
of successful women's stories have been shared by colleagues. For the same
purpose, a training programme for business networking was organized by
Karen Rafferty. In the future more women-oriented training courses will be
organised.
In addition, Tao Cheng has attended recent relevant seminars and meetings.
She discussed the issues with previous DEOLO of the department, and
evaluated the progress with UCL Equal Opportunities Officer. She also
collected opinions extensively in the department including Liora MalkiEpshtein for her UCL pespectives.
The head of the department, Nick Tyler, understands the history of the
department and the problems more than anyone else. He contributed many
innovative ideas to promote woman in all aspects, such as special funding for
sabbatical leave to support junior staff (including most females) and
teleconferences for flexible working and meeting.
Based on the contribution from all the members mentioned here and
suggestions from all the members from the department, we define our
objectives and action plan in the next section.
6. Action plan
Please attach your action plan which summarises actions identified from the
data and commentary above, naming the person responsible and time scale.
7. Any other comments
Please comment here on any other elements which you think relevant to the
application, e.g. recent mergers between departments (maximum 100 words).
The Department of Civil, Environmenta and Geomatic Engineering was
formed out of two departments in August 2007. This altered a number of
issues in relation to equality issues as there was a large difference between
the two departments in terms of gender balance (50% and 20%), leading to
slightly different approaches to working culture. These are now being
resolved, in part through the processes described in 5 above.
Athena SWAN Silver award form
www.athenaswan.org.uk
University College London
Dept of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering
Athena SWAN award application 2009 - Illustrations
(ii) Students on Undergraduate (UG) Courses
Students on Undergraduate (UG) Courses
200
45.0%
180
40.0%
160
35.0%
140
30.0%
120
25.0%
100
20.0%
80
15.0%
60
40
10.0%
20
5.0%
0
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Female
51
53
49
52
66
Male
155
158
163
175
167
32.9%
33.5%
30.1%
29.7%
39.5%
Ratio F:M
UK HE institutions 2006/07 full-time Undergraduates
Female
MaleRatio F:M
Civil engineering
1840
10220 18.00%
0.0%
(iii) Students on Postgraduate Taught (PGT) Courses
Students on Postgraduate Taught (PGT) Courses
70
60.0%
60
50.0%
50
40.0%
40
30.0%
30
20.0%
20
10.0%
10
0
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Female
23
19
13
23
23
Male
63
49
51
44
65
36.5%
38.8%
25.5%
52.3%
35.4%
Ratio F:M
Proportion completing Postgraduate Taught (PGT) Courses
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
Female
100%
94%
94%
85%
70%
Male
73%
86%
90%
80%
50%
UK HE institutions 2006/07 full-time postgraduates
Female
MaleRatio F:M
Civil engineering
870
2395 36.30%
0.0%
(iV) Students on Postgraduate Research (PGR) Courses
Students on Postgraduate Reserach (PGR) Courses
45
70.0%
40
60.0%
35
50.0%
30
25
40.0%
20
30.0%
15
20.0%
10
10.0%
5
0
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Female
10
18
23
21
21
Male
33
37
41
38
33
30.3%
48.6%
56.1%
55.3%
63.6%
Ratio F:M
UK HE institutions 2006/07 full-time postgraduates
Female
MaleRatio F:M
Civil engineering
870
2395 36.30%
0.0%
(v) Applicants / Offers / Acceptances to Undergraduate (UG) courses
Applicants/Offers/Acceptances (UG)
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2004/05*
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Applicants - Female
126
115
172
148
Applicants - Male
486
441
586
469
Offers - Female
82
77
113
98
Offers - Male
253
231
287
257
Firm Acceptances - Female
19
23
28
33
Firm Acceptances - Male
70
54
71
80
Raito of Female to Male
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2004/05*
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Applicants
25.9%
26.1%
29.4%
31.6%
Offers
32.4%
33.3%
39.4%
38.1%
Firm Acceptances
27.1%
42.6%
39.4%
41.3%
Success Rate (firm acceptances : applicants)
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2004/05*
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Female
15.1%
20.0%
16.3%
22.3%
Male
14.4%
12.2%
12.1%
17.1%
(v) Applicants / Offers / Acceptances to PGT Courses
Applicants/Offers/Acceptances (PGT)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2004/05*
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Applicants - Female
105
84
126
108
102
Applicants - Male
301
244
262
291
290
Offers - Female
67
58
76
65
75
Offers - Male
175
152
149
168
168
Firm Acceptances - Female
14
17
29
38
36
Firm Acceptances - Male
38
37
72
97
96
Raito of Female to Male
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Applicants
34.9%
34.4%
48.1%
37.1%
35.2%
Offers
38.3%
38.2%
51.0%
38.7%
44.6%
Firm Acceptances
36.8%
45.9%
40.3%
39.2%
37.5%
Success Rate (firm acceptances : applicants)
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Female
13.3%
20.2%
23.0%
35.2%
35.3%
Male
12.6%
15.2%
27.5%
33.3%
33.1%
(v) Applicants / Offers / Acceptances to PGR Courses
Applicants/Offers/Acceptances (PGR)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2004/05*
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Applicants - Female
26
32
48
26
31
Applicants - Male
108
101
105
81
68
Offers - Female
20
25
26
12
9
Offers - Male
71
61
69
42
28
Firm Acceptances - Female
6
13
16
8
6
Firm Acceptances - Male
20
17
33
28
15
Raito of Female to Male
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Applicants
24.1%
31.7%
45.7%
32.1%
45.6%
Offers
28.2%
41.0%
37.7%
28.6%
32.1%
Firm Acceptances
30.0%
76.5%
48.5%
28.6%
40.0%
Success Rate (firm acceptances : applicants)
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Female
23.1%
40.6%
33.3%
30.8%
19.4%
Male
18.5%
16.8%
31.4%
34.6%
22.1%
(vi) Degree Attainment of students on UG Degree Courses
Degree Attainment on Undergraduate (UG) Courses
60
60.0%
50
50.0%
40
40.0%
30
30.0%
20
20.0%
10
10.0%
0
0.0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Female
8
4
16
14
14
Male
45
27
29
56
43
17.8%
14.8%
55.2%
25.0%
32.6%
Ratio F:M
Proportition receiving 2.1 or above
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Female
25%
0%
31%
43%
71%
Male
22%
37%
34%
45%
42%
(vii) Students on PGR Courses - average time to submission
Avergae time (years) to submission (where submitted)
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Female
Male
2004
2005
5.0
4.8
2006
2007
2008
3.8
4.4
3.9
4.3
3.6
3.8
(viii) Number of male and female staff (acedemic and research) at each grade
Senior Lecturers & Readers
Lecturers
25
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
20
15
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2005
2006
2007
2008
Professors
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2005
2006
Female RA
Male RA
Female
Male
2008
2007
2008
2009
3
2
4
2
2
1
Female L/F
14
15
17
16
13
2
Male L/F
10
17
22
21
21
Female Senior L/F/R
4
5
4
4
4
RA - Research Assistant
Male Senior L/F/R
8
7
7
7
9
Female P
1
1
1
1
0
Male P
12
11
11
10
11
Total
58
63
65
61
53
L - Lecturer
F - Research Fellow
R - Reader
P - Professor
Female empolyees vs UK HE institutions 2006/7 (%)
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Research assistant
Lecturer
Senior lecturer/reader
Professor
CEGE 09
66.7%
56.5%
30.8%
0.0%
UK HE
26.6%
22.7%
16.7%
4.5%
(Ref: HESA 2008)
UCL Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering Athena SWAN application 2009 - Action Plan
Objectives (2009-2012):
STUDENTS
L1. To attract more female postgraduate students aiming at least 10% above UK HE average (ratio of female to male: 35.4% vs 36.3%)
and keep their successful completion rate above 80% (now is 70%)
L2. To maintain the number of female undergraduate students at least 20% above UK HE average (ratio of female to male: 39.5% vs
18.%, so already above)
STAFF
L3. To attract more applications to academic positions from females
L4. To have more female postgraduate research students going into academic positions at UCL or elsewhere
L5. To support and advance women to higher grades
L6. To maintain the supportive and friendly atmosphere in the department
In order to achieve these long term objectives, we will take actions as listed in the following table.
Short term actions:
S1. Improve statistical data gathering and analysis to improve monitoring and decision support
S2. Make positive actions more widely known through the departmental newsletter (for internal issues) and website (for issues of
interest to people outside the department and UCL)
S3. Organise teleconferencing facilities for departmental meetings and seminars
S4. Investigate PG teaching in terms of attractiveness to 21st century students (as we have done already for UG programmes)
UCL Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering Athena SWAN application 2009 - Action Plan
Objective
Problem identified
Action
S1, L1
Proportion of completing PGT
courses drops largely, esp. for
females
Difference in degree attainment and
receiving 2:1 of PGR
More application from female UG to
MSc and PhD
Collect data of uncompleted
cases and identify if extra
support can been provided
Investigating why the female
ratio is higher
Questionnaires to female UG
students following similar
approach that has been taken
for UG female applications.
S1, L1
Degree award of MSc in Transport
by gender
Course Coordinator Oct 2009
S1, L2, L1
Lack of progression data of
undergraduates by gender
Collect data and combine
with other data provided by
UCL
Access data from central
system
Teaching
administrator
Oct 2009
S1, L3
Lack of job application details
Departmental
Manager
July 2009
S1, L4
Lack of data about of transition from
postdoc to independent researcher
Access data collected by
eRecruitment by UCL (from
July 2009).
Collect data on next
destination of postdocs and
career progression.
Graduate Tutor and
supervisors
Oct 2010
S1, L1
S1, L1
Responsible
Person(s)
Graduate Tutor and
Phd supervisors
Time
Scale
Oct 2009
Monitoring
Graduate Tutor and
PhD supervisor
Undergraduate
Tutor and Graduate
Tutor
Oct 2010
Data collected and
analysed
Substantial
improvement of female
applications and offers
to PGT and PGR
courses
Data collected and
analysed; 2010
Oct 2009
Data collected and
analysed
Full data collected and
analysed; Oct 2010 and
onwards
Full recruitment data
available and analysed.
Success of CEGE
(female) postdocs in
gaining independent or
other significant
research positions.
Objective
Problem identified
Action
S2,
L1,L2,L6
Knowledge of what the department
has done/is doing is not widespread
S3, L6
Investigation of the possibility of
teleconference
Increase of female ratio and firm
acceptances of PGR
Items in the departmental
newsletter and website as
appropriate
Checking the cost of
hardware and line rental
Questionnaire will be
conducted to identify the
main issues
Special fund support to
women coming from
industrial sources – for career
transfer
Ensure promotion
opportunities are discussed at
annual appraisals
Promote personal
development courses for
women
Web design
S4, L1
L1
More female applications to EngD
programme
L5
Less females at staff higher grades
L5
Training tailored to females
L5, S2
Reading Group Discussion on
SWAN Website
Sabbatical leave for junior staff
(including females)
L5
Special fund will be provided
to support female and other
junior staff
Key:
DEOLO: Departmental Equal Opportunities Liaison Officer
HoD: Head of Department
HoS: Head of Section
Responsible
Person(s)
All
Time
Scale
October
2009
Monitoring
IT Manager
Jan 2010
Feedback review
Graduate Tutor
Oct 2010
Data collected and
analysed
HoD, EngD
Director &
Graduate Tutor
Oct 2010
Onwards
More applications from
females to EngD
HoD & HoS
Oct 2009
DEOLO
Oct 2009
Individuals identified
for promotion
consideration
Attendance on these
courses
Group Coordinator
& IT manager
HoD
Oct 2009
Oct 2009
Annual review
Number of visitors to
the website
Annual review