Athena SWAN Bronze Institutional Award April 2015 (Ireland)
Institution name:
Level of award applied for:
National University of Ireland, Galway
Bronze
Letter of endorsement from the President
Commended
To Improve
Makes reference to the issues that they have
The panel noted that it might have been beneficial
experienced as an institution.
for the Athena SWAN application to have been
Recognition of the serious issues the institution is
informed by the task force rather than running
facing.
parallel.
Priority given to addressing issues.
The self-assessment process
Commended
To Improve
Explains the background to their engagement with
A more transparent process for selection of SAT
Athena SWAN well.
members.
Self-Assessment Team (SAT) is well balanced in terms More men on the SAT, and more professors.
of representation from different schools.
More clarity as to who was on the sub-groups.
Consultation with University of Ulster.
The panel noted that the discussion in this section is
Began work in October 2014 and have had 9
a bit general in places; how did staff
meetings.
disseminate/create involvement in their schools?
Staff survey (986 people, but no data on what
More information about action 6 and how this will
proportion this is, although this can be worked out in
work.
the next section).
More information about how the Athena SWAN
Champions will be selected.
While the panel commended the use of a dedicated
webpage, they noted that more proactive methods
of communicating and engaging the university
community will be particularly important to address
issues.
A picture of the institution
Commended
To Improve
No staff on zero hours contracts.
Numbers and percentages to be included in all tables
Good retention of women from undergraduate to
and graphs (e.g. tables 5 and 6).
postgraduate levels; however, the application didn’t
More specificity in action 7 about what inequalities,
comment on this.
what disciplines and what kind of outreach.
Scissor plots on page 15 are very clear.
Inclusion of data for postdocs.
Consideration of administrative staff.
Three years of data provided for staff data (table 8).
Disaggregation of clinical staff in table 9.
Breakdown of this data by college/discipline.
Clearer identification of and reflection on the key
transition points.
More specific detail about what action 9 will entail.
More clarity about whether table 10 shows a realistic
career progression for administrative staff, or
whether senior administrative staff come from the
academic pool.
Some tables would benefit from representation of
the numbers as a proportion of total male and
female staff (e.g. tables 11 and 12).
Investigation of the suggestion that men are more
mobile in their careers (page 17).
The number of women leaving seems to have been
rising, but this isn’t commented on; it would have
been useful to present as proportion of the total
population of women/men (figure 4).
More reflection on the high proportion of women
being made redundant, and the general reasons for
resignation.
Haven’t had a recent equal pay review, and there is
no action planned to address this.
Notes
The panel noted that the institution have the required data, but haven’t analysed it in enough
depth.
Supporting and advancing women’s careers
Key career transition points
Commended
To Improve
All assessment board members receive training.
Inclusion of success rates for recruitment (tables 13
Reintroducing a central induction, with the inclusion and 14).
of Athena SWAN on induction checklists.
Consideration of using external interviewers to
Mentoring scheme; however, the panel would have
alleviate the overload of responsibility for women
liked to know what the evaluation showed and what (page 20).
its recommendations were. Additionally, more
Recognition of the issue relating to low application
information about the grade of mentees and the
rates from women, particularly in CoEI and CoS.
gender breakdown of mentors would be useful.
Recognition of, reflection on and stronger action in
High uptake of PMDS. The panel suggested that the
relation to the low application and success rates for
survey relating to PMDS effectiveness be evaluated
women in CoEI.
by gender.
Recording of shortlisting data.
The school of physics has a Juno practitioner award.
Data is currently not collected and feedback not
Review of the senior lecturer promotion scheme,
sought on induction.
allowing an adjustment of the criteria weighting.
More clarity about the difference between
competitive and criterion referenced promotions.
An action to address the fact that survey data reveals
women to take longer to apply for promotion than
men (page 21).
More discussion and actions to address the
promotions criteria ‘perception’ issue and also the
criteria themselves (page 22).
Presentation of success rates in tables 15 and 16.
Presentation of data on the pool of eligible staff for
promotion.
More information about the ‘fast track’ for
promotion.
An action to address the lower success rate of women
in the PP promotion scheme.
Inclusion of historic data for the promotion of
researchers, including gender balance and success
rates (page 24).
An action to address the lack of a promotion outlet
for support services staff.
Career development
Commended
To Improve
Centre for excellence in learning and teaching (CELT). No current support for post-docs is described.
The institution are committed to developing and
Provision of data on uptake and gender breakdown
introducing a research career strategy.
of training (page 25).
Piloting mid-career academic project with the
University of Limerick (page 25); more detail about
this programme would be helpful.
The panel noted that the training programme
appears unstructured.
An action to evaluate the mid-career programme
(page 25), as well as the inclusion of some feedback
from participants in this programme.
Sabbatical leave data as a proportion of the eligible
cohort.
Flexibility and managing career breaks
Commended
To Improve
Candid inclusion of feedback (page 26).
Currently, no support on return from maternity
Plans to establish a fund to help staff re-establish
leave.
their career after maternity leave (action 29);
More information about how research staff are
however this is only on a pilot basis.
supported whose fixed-term contracts expire during
maternity leave.
Parental leave appears quite ad-hoc; more specific
detail is needed in action 30 as to how the institution
will support uptake of parental leave.
Gender breakdown provided where survey results
are used.
Organisation and culture
Commended
To Improve
Have introduced a workload model.
Further suggestions as to how to address the
Awareness of committee overload for senior women. imbalance in senior administrative roles.
Recognition that gender imbalance won’t be
The institution has recognised that it has real issues
addressed solely by unconscious bias training (page
with the proportions of women in senior roles;
28).
however, the panel did not consider the
More information about the rotation policy for senior
institution/SAT to demonstrate that they have a
management committees.
sense of how to address this.
Actions or ideas to address the serious imbalance at
Inclusion of survey results in Culture section, albeit
senior management levels.
negative.
Reflection on and actions to address the
underrepresentation of women on college
committees and school executive committees (page
31).
Action to address the lack of consistent practice
relating to school executive membership. More
information about the eligibility criteria mentioned at
the bottom of page 32.
Further investigation and information about whether
the workload model is working well and
transparently, and if it is consistent across the
institution.
Consideration of actions to support schools in
determining core hours for all staff. Currently, core
hours are only officially for administrative staff.
A more appropriate response to the very negative
survey result on leadership (figure 14); the panel
noted that the issue is with the lack of women in
senior roles, rather than publicity materials.
A prioritised action to address the perception that
procedures and practices for managing complaints of
bullying and harassment are ‘largely ineffective’.
Outreach data to be recorded.
Any other comments
Commended
To Improve
Recognition that there is much to do.
The task force is not mentioned previously, other
University Women’s Network.
than in the cover letter. The application should have
Gender Task Force.
been clearer about how this is working alongside
Governing authority gender balance (evidences on
Athena SWAN and what the cross-linkages are.
page 31).
Notes
The panel noted a drive to improve, but without an awareness of how to do this.
Action plan
Commended
To Improve
Range of responsibilities for delivery is broad.
More proactive action plan; 17 of 37 actions were to
Will appoint champions in each school.
do further self-assessment.
Action 10 – surveying administrative staff on their
More specific actions; actions 7, 9, 16, 29 and 30 are
career development.
particularly vague.
More specific and quantifiable/measurable success
measures.
Prioritisation of actions.
Consideration of a long-term goal for supporting
departmental Athena SWAN applications.
Final Comments
Application:
The panel did not consider the application to meet the criteria for a bronze award. The panel noted that the
application didn’t tell a thorough story. The data, including survey data, could have benefitted from more
thorough analysis. While the SAT have a sense of the institution’s problems, the application hasn’t articulated
any definite plans for the future that convince the panel that anything will change (as one example, pilot
schemes where there is already strong evidence that action is required and will have impact).
The panel commend that the institution know they’ve had a problem in the past and that there’s a will to
change, but there is not a well-articulated commitment to a solution to the problems. The panel commented
that the SAT don’t have a vision of where they want the institution to be in 3 years’ time.
The institution is encouraged to reapply, having pulled together the work of the SAT – including the
evaluations described in the action plan – and of the task force.
Objections:
The panel did not consider the objections to affect their decision. They noted that the institution’s response
was robust, but also did not affect their thinking on the application.
Good practice example: Pilot programme with the University of Limerick for mid-career women academics
and researchers.
Recommended Result
No award.
If unsuccessful at the level applied for, please explain why it failed to meet the criteria
Incomplete self-assessment; many key things are awaiting evaluation or review. As a result, key issues have
not been clearly identified.
Lacking rigorous analysis and reflection.
Action plan is not SMART, nor proactive enough to effect change.