Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback
Summary of UCL department feedback from SWAN panels
November 2012 submissions:
In November 2012, four UCL departments applied for Athena SWAN awards, along with
the UCL Institutional bronze renewal. The following is a combination of the key themes
from the feedback from all these applications.

HoD letter: panels liked letters that were honest and genuine, and that demonstrated
personal commitment and engagement from the HoD. The HoD being identified as the
key contact for the submission was seen positively. Panels wanted the HoD to show
the link between SWAN and the department’s strategy and track record. Also use
specific examples of work being done.

The self-assessment process: SATs are expected to be representative and diverse.
The panels appreciate honest and clear descriptions of the self-assessment process and
the SATs reporting mechanisms. Discussion with individuals or departments across and
outside of UCL was seen to be important. Consultation with staff is expected.

A picture of the department: Panels appreciated clear graphical representations of
data that included percentages and reference to raw numbers. They wanted to see a
clear narrative that identified the key issues from the data, and suggested actions in
response to analysis with reference to the action plan.

Supporting and advancing women’s careers: it is important fully explain relevant
policies and practices, for example how promotions procedure works in your
department. Panels wanted to see a clear explanation of what actions are planned and
what has been implemented. Always discuss any impact identified. Mentoring, core
hours, transparent workload model and annual appraisals were viewed as good
practice.

Action plan: panels want to see clear, achievable action plans with clear and realistic
deadlines across the next three years. Where possible, success measures should be
quantified or measurable. Panels were concerned when the majority of actions fell to
one person.

To achieve silver = impact, impact, impact.
1
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk
Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback
April 2013 submissions:
In April 2013, six UCL departments applied for Athena SWAN awards. This included one
Silver renewal, 4 Silver awards and 1 Bronze. The following is a combination of the key
themes from the feedback from all these applications.

HoD letter: Panels liked letters that clearly illustrated a personal commitment to
Athena SWAN. All HoD letters were viewed positively by the panels.

The self-assessment process: Panels liked to see senior involvement in the SAT,
especially the HoD. The SAT should be representative and diverse (genders, grades,
student representation, clinical/non clinical). The panel liked to see the roles each SAT
member had undertaken. Panels welcomed plans for the SAT lead to rotate.
The panel welcomed SATs meeting with other SWAN departments, and that members
had attended SWAN events within the university and externally
Departments were praised for evidencing staff engagement in SWAN and awareness of
SAT, and consultation (surveys, focus groups etc.)

A picture of the department: Panels preferred data to be presented in percentages
and raw numbers. The panels welcomed additional data, for example student
destination data, PhD completion times. Welcomed references to surveys / focus
groups / staff consolation in this section
Always discuss issues raised in the data analysis – don’t ignore any problems. Panels
appreciate an honest discussion about data – both positives and negatives.
The panel commended the data presentation in the DoM application.
Where a strong argument could be made, the panel commended actions to increase
the number of male students (PALS)

Supporting and advancing women’s careers: Panel liked to see survey data to
evidence improvements in staff opinions, appraisal completion rates etc.
Where a work load model was in place, the panel welcomed that Athena SWAN
activities were included. The panel welcomed administrative duties with a heavy
workload (e.g. SWAN lead) are rotated every few years. Workload models should be
transparent and fair.
The panel welcomed additional data and information, for example outputs and grant
value by gender and/or RAE and REF data
Strong actions are needed in response to data analysis – for silver standard, the panel
will expect to see appropriate and proactive actions
Must show impact of actions for silver!
2
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk
Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback

Action plan: Panels expect to see the SAT take ownership for actions. Actions should
follow on from discussions in the application, and should clearly be responding to
needs identified. Action plans should not be dominated by ‘monitoring’ actions.
Success measures must be measurable – avoid vague success measures
The panel commended the PALS action plan

Good practice examples:
o
Neurology: Maternity mentors – mentors have previously taken maternity
leave in the Institute
o
Mental Health Sciences: Demanding administrative roles, including Athena
SWAN, are rotated every few years and accommodated into work plans.
o
PALS: Paternity / Adoption / Maternity is discussed at Induction, and female
employees who apply for maternity leave entitlement are made aware that UCL
promotes shared maternity/paternity leave. Teaching sabbatical for maternity
returners
o
Division of Medicine: Female senior postdocs will be trained and invited to sit
on staff recruitment panels
o
Ophthalmology: Eminent female scientists, chosen by each research
department in turn, are invited to give a scientific seminar, followed by a panel
discussion publicising and reviewing the Institute’s Athena SWAN activities.
3
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk
Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback
November 2013 submissions:
In November 2013, UCL departments received 5 bronze and 5 silver awards. The following
is a combination of the key themes from the feedback from all these applications.

HoD letter: Panels welcomed letters that illustrated current actions and impact,
intentions and plans for the future, and evidenced real commitment from senior
management.

The self-assessment process: Panels commented on the response rate of surveys –
praising those departments who had a good response rate, and asking departments
with low response rates to comment, and include actions in the future to improve
survey response rates. Panels seem to see survey response rate as a signal of a
department’s engagement in the Athena SWAN process.
Assessment panels expect SATs to be diverse – the SAT should have a good gender
balance, representation from staff at all levels, and all job types – for example
including teaching, research and senior academic staff. Staff from all research groups
and/or different department buildings should be represented. Some departments were
specifically praised for their balanced membership – particularly for including post docs
and students.
The panels welcomed information on how the SAT feeds into senior management and
how it sits within the committee structure of the department.
For large departments, the panel commended self assessment teams that were
supported by smaller SAT working groups.
The panels commended the Head of Department being involved with, or leading the
SAT
The panel welcomed SATs attending external events and communicating with other
SWAN departments or external organisations
Several panels commented that the SAT should meet more regularly than once a
term/quarterly.

A picture of the department: Raw numbers and percentages must be presented for
staff and student data
If an issue is identified, e.g. certain degrees are more male dominated than others in
the department, always provide a clear discussion around why this might be the case,
and how the department intends to investigate further or put actions in place to
address the issue.

Supporting and advancing women’s careers: Don’t assume the panel will know
how appraisal or promotion work at UCL – make sure processes such as promotion are
explained clearly.
4
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk
Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback
Avoid relying too heavily on one key action; ensure there is a spread of actions in
response to data and consultation with staff.
Panels praised the inclusion of, and suggested additional data sets (that aren’t asked
for in the application form) – e.g. REF data by gender, male/female successful and
unsuccessful grant applications. Ensure this data is presented by gender, and that
gender-specific actions are in place where appropriate.
Many panels said they would have like more information on issues identified in the
application. This is often hard given the word restriction, but try to discuss all issues
identified, and outline UCL procedures that the panel will not be aware of, for example
the promotions process.
If a survey has been run in the department, use the information from the survey
throughout the application as evidence of impact and to support discussion and
analysis.
When discussing outreach activities, comment on who is leading on, and taking part in
outreach activities as well as the target audience. E.g. try to avoid all-female outreach
teams.
Panels welcomed the inclusion of unconscious bias training for staff in the application
and action plans.

Action plan: Actions plans must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant and Time bound), with specific, measurable outcomes and targets.
Actions should be developed in response to data and staff consultation – actions should
not just be focused on data collection.
Increasingly, panels are asking to see the actions embedded within the text – not just
referenced (e.g. see Chemical Engineering Silver renewal)

Case Studies: It is important the case studies show formal support mechanisms that
are in place and available to all staff in the department, and highlight actions
implemented as a result of Athena SWAN that have directly helped someone. Avoid
using case studies that suggest an individual was lucky to have a supportive PI rather
than benefiting from department policy and practice.

Good practice examples:
o
UCL Ear Institute: Actions such as the careers day, and the new mentoring
scheme were developed in direct response to feedback from the staff survey.
o
Division of Surgery and Interventional Science: A women’s forum that
meets and feeds information into the SAT process, along with a SWAN
champion at each departmental site (Bloomsbury, Royal Free and Stanmore)
5
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk
Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback

o
Department of Mathematics: In-depth analysis of student data – analysis of
data by UK / international students – led to targeted actions in relation to the
gender balance of students and the progression of female students to PGR
study and post doc positions.
o
Eastman Dental Institute: Analysis of grant applications and success by
gender. Applicants are supported via the grant review committee who give
constructive feedback on drafts, and a planned bi-monthly grant writing
workshop.
o
Department of Chemistry: Research fellows and early career lecturers are
assigned an academic mentor who is unconnected with their research to assist
them with grant applications, CV improvements and interview techniques.
o
UCL Medical School: The department has research strands on gender and
ethnicity, and this research feeds into the SAT.
o
Department of Chemical Engineering: Development fund for PhD students
to enable them to travel to international conferences.
o
Institute of Epidemiology: Establishment of an early career researcher
forum
o
Institute of Child Health: Have set up a ‘MADS’ (Mums and Dads) group to
support parents and carers within the department.
o
Division of Infection and Immunity: £100k allocation for bridging funds for
junior scientists. Take up will be monitored by gender.
As always, to achieve silver you must show evidence of impact. For a silver
application, panels are looking for actions to be in place, and have been in place for
enough time to show their impact. The panels were also looking for evidence of culture
change and/or supportive and welcoming department culture.
6
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk
Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback
April 2014 submissions:
UCL achieved 2 awards in April 2014 – 1 Bronze and 1 Silver. The following is a
combination of the key themes from the feedback from applications made (highlighting
issues that differ from the feedback outlined above).

HoD letter: Panel welcomed letters that highlighted how SWAN had been integrated
into the structure, decision making processes and strategy of the department.
For Silver applications, the panel expected to see evidence of impact within the HoD
letter.

The self-assessment process: Panels liked to see plans for rotation of SAT
membership – particular the SAT chair.
Panels would like to see a broader discussion in relation to the experiences of the SAT
– considering work/life balance as including flexible working – not just who does or
doesn’t have caring commitments.
Panels should include representation from PhD students.
The assessment panel welcomed the Cancer Institute’s consultation with the private
sector as part of their self assessment process.
Where staff surveys or focus group have taken place, make it clear whether these will
be repeated in future.

A picture of the department: Panels welcomed a consideration of succession
planning.
Where data was not available, panels expected to see actions in place to address this
in future.
The panel welcomed clear and consistent presentation of data.
Where there are interesting trends in the data, e.g. large increase in the overall
number of staff or students in a particular year, this should be mentioned and
explained wherever possible.

Supporting and advancing women’s careers: It is important that good practice
and activities are incorporated into policy – panels consider this to be important so that
informal practices are recognised within the structure and organisation of the
department – this guards against the possibility of informal good practice being
undermined by future changes in leadership.
When describing policies make it clear whether these are UCL-wide or department-level
activities. Where you are discussing UCL policies, make it clear what the department
has done to implement these policies and evidence the impact.
Ensure evidence of impact is predominantly based on evidence rather than anecdote.
7
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk
Summary of UCL Athena SWAN award feedback
Provide data where possible to help evidence the impact of actions – for example,
appraisal completion rates.

Action plan: The panel appreciated the Institute of Cardiovascular Science’s use of a
Gantt chart in addition to their action plan.
Panels would like to see a key or list of abbreviations used.
Ensure actions span the full 3 years – not all clustered in the first year.
When applying for a Silver (or Gold) award, it is helpful to include an additional
‘progress to date’ column to help identify activities and impact so far.
Responsibilities must be well distributed to avoid individuals being overburdened.

Case Studies: Case studies to show a breadth of good practice and impact – not all
focused on instances of maternity leave.
Panels welcome case studies written in the first person

Good practice examples:
o
Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences: Approaching funders about issues
relating to maternity leave and fellowship schemes.
o
The Cancer Institute: Re-organise the senior executive board to achieve
50% female representation
8
Harriet Jones, Policy Adviser for Athena SWAN
Ext: 58860
Email: harriet.jones@ucl.ac.uk