Athena SWAN Bronze and Silver Department award
renewal application
Name of institution: University of Nottingham
Date of application: 30th April 2012
Department: School of Psychology
Contact for application: Tony Stevens
Email:Tony.Stevens@nottingham.ac.uk
Telephone: 0115 951 5295
Departmental website address: www.nottingham.ac.uk/psychology
Date of previous award: 2008
Date of university Bronze and/or Silver SWAN award: 2009
Level of award applied for: Silver (renewal)
At the end of each section state the number of words used.
Click here for additional guidance on completing this template.
1. Letter of endorsement from the Head of Department – maximum 500
words.
Dear Committee,
Since becoming Head of School (HoS), I've had to accommodate many new
university commitments. Consequently, I’ve have had to restrict the number of
School Committees I serve on to only the most important. I currently Chair the
School Management Group (SMG), the Learning Community Forum (LCF)
and I sit on the Athena Self Assessment Committee (ASAC). This puts in
context the value I place on the activities of ASAC and sends an important
signal to all members of the School that gender-equality is a key issue. In
support, Athena activities are now a standing item on the agenda of staff
meetings, ensuring they receive the attention they deserve. I strongly believe
that since our initial award we have made significant progress and remain
committed to a working environment where the aspirations of our team
flourish.
In 2011, the School hosted an important national networking event focused on
career progression of women working in Psychology. The aim of this event
was to provide a forum for women psychologists to discuss their experiences
and to hear from four influential female academics about career paths they
1
had taken in Psychology, the problems they encountered and the strategies
they employed to overcome career obstacles. The event was given national
prominence by the British Psychological Society and was very well received
by all who attended from around the UK.
Women in Psychology face problems at two specific career points:
transitioning from post-doctoral researchers to lectureships and moving from
senior lecturer to professor. We have been proactive in both of these areas.
First, we have supported the applications of a number of young women
scientists for early career awards designed to foster academic independence,
such as the Anne McLaren Fellowship Scheme, the Nottingham Advance
Fellowships and the Leverhulme Trust Early Career Awards. Second, we host
an early-career researcher forum to discuss particular difficulties faced by
contract research staff. Both myself and the Director of Research have met
with this group to offer our advice. Finally, we have been proactive in terms of
promotion. As well as issuing a general invitation each year to staff to come
and discuss promotion, I now approach female staff who I feel should be
thinking about promotion in the near future. Since I have been HoS, the
promotion committee (and all appointment committees) have included a
member of ASAC. As a School, we have supported applications from women
for promotion to lecturer, senior-lecturer and professor.
We celebrate the achievements of our staff by announcing significant awards
at staff meetings, posting information on the School’s website and in our staffstudent newsletter. I have nominated several members of staff for awards that
celebrate women’s career’s (Drs Moran and Hamilton - WINSET; Dr Cragg –
Vice Chancellor’s achievement award).
In conclusion, I would like to restate my personal commitment to developing a
culture of fairness, flexibility, opportunity and respect in the School. I look
forward to continuing to assist in the advancement of our new action plan.
494 words
2. The self-assessment process – maximum 1000 words
[a] Description of self-assessment team
Nadja Heym is a Graduate Teaching Associate, who completed her
undergraduate studies followed by a PhD here at Nottingham. She worked as
a research coordinator on a European Framework 7 project for three years
within the department, and is now contracted as GTA teaching social and
developmental psychology to our undergraduate students. Nadja’s research
focuses on individual differences in emotions, cognitions and behaviour. She
is a member of the Ethics committee.
Paula Moran chairs the committee and is an Associate Professor and
Reader. Her research group investigates the biological basis of schizophrenia
and she teaches biological psychology. She is Non-clinical External affairs
secretary for the British Association for Psychopharmacology [BAP] and sits
on the scientific advisory panel for the European Collegium
Neuropharmacologium [ECNP]. She is committed to mentoring young
2
scientists and has set up a national mentoring scheme for early career
scientists through BAP. She is married to an equally busy academic and has
two teenage children.
Antonia Hamilton is Associate Professor (promoted 2012) and leads a
research group examining the brain and cognitive basis of nonverbal social
interaction. She has two children under 5 and works full time.
Paul McGraw is the Allen Standen Professor of Visual Neuroscience and is
currently Head of School. He teaches in the area of sensory perception and
his research is focused on understanding visual cortical plasticity and the
mechanisms that underpin human spatial vision. Paul is actively committed to
improving the working environment for all members of staff in the School. Paul
is married with one child.
Danielle Ropar is an Associate Professor in the department studying
perceptual and social cognition in individuals with and without Autism. She is
Associate Editor of the Journal Infant and Child Development.
Her
administrative duties have included leading the undergraduate admissions
team and her research group currently consists of 4 PhD students. Danielle
works full-time, has two children, and returned from her most recent maternity
leave in 2009.
Victor Cipko is School manager (since 2001) with responsibility for the
financial affairs of the school and is line manager for the schools
administration and support staff team. Victor is married with a daughter
studying medicine at University.
Alexa Spence is a full time post doctoral research fellow. She is the
Research Only Staff Group representative for Psychology, helping to ensure
that research staff needs are met by the university and that staff have good
access to potential further career and training opportunities. Currently she is
on maternity leave with her first child.
Jonathan Stirk is a lecturer and the Director of Teaching for the School. He is
responsible for the allocation of teaching and administrative loads within the
School and is the Chair of the Teaching & Learning Committee. His research
interests include attention, emotion & the psychology of faces.
Claire O’Malley is Professor of Learning Science (promoted in 2004) and
works full-time. She was Dean of the Graduate School at Nottingham 20082011. As the only female Professor in the School, she is passionate about
supporting the career development of women, especially into senior roles.
507 words
[b] An account of the self-assessment process, with reference to year-on-year
activities since the original Department award application, details of the self
assessment team meetings including any consultation with staff or individuals
inside or outside of the university and how these have fed into the submission.
3
A permanent Athena SWAN Assessment Committee (ASAC) group was
formed in 2007. The committee was designed to include key decision makers
of the School in ex-officio roles (Head of School, Head of Teaching) and now
includes the Psychology representative of the University WINSET group and
the University WINSET officer. We have maintained this composition and
found it highly effective for decision making and implementation of policy
changes. We have had two changes of Head of School since our silver
submission in 2008 and each incumbent Head of School was briefed explicitly
by the chair of the ASAC about Athena and how they would be expected to
support its aims.. As one of the few Psychology Silver award holders we have
been consulted by schools from within and outside the University. In the 2008
submission our workload model was commended by Athena, and we have
presented this to other University Departments and have fed it into a
University-wide workload model. Items from our ASAC agenda also are fed to
University WINSET committee - a recent example is that one of our members
raised the issue of parking payment during Keeping in Touch days: women no
longer have to pay. We have also raised the longer term issue of the
University’s maternity pay and benefits - currently under consideration by
Human Resources and University management. All schools in the University
are undergoing long term strategic reviews and ASAC is actively involved.
239 words
[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 are pleased with the composition of the ASAC as it has been effective.
We now include more early career researchers than in 2008. We intend to
expand numbers of PhD students and for the first time include
undergraduates on the committee. We intend to have open and closed
sections of the agenda to overcome potential problems with discussion of
sensitive staff issues such as promotions etc. We have also invited two
additional male members of staff to sit on ASAC who have agreed. The role of
chair of the ASAC is officially counted into the School workload model and it
Athena issues are a standing item on our staff meeting agenda [the first
formal change to the format of this meeting in the past seven years]. Staff
meeting minutes are reported through to University management so
represents the most direct and highest level reporting route available for the
University. We have formal meetings twice a year with additional work done in
school committees and general issues brought to WINSET meetings held
every semester. There is in addition considerable informal consultation by
school members with members of the committee (in particular the chair) about
a range of issues related to gender equality such that much of the ASAC work
in now conducted outside formal meetings and embedded in the School
structure.
221 words
4
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 changes since the
original award.
b) Provide data and a short analysis for at least the last three years for
Bronze or the last five years for Silver (where possible with clearly
labelled graphical illustrations) on the following, commenting on
changes and progress made against the original action plan and
application, and initiatives intended for the action plan going forward.
[a] The School of Psychology at the University of Nottingham is one of the
most popular in the country amongst undergraduate students, ranked 5 th
amongst all Psychology departments and 2nd amongst the Russell group
Psychology departments in terms of applications (HESA 2010/11). It is
unique amongst UK Psychology departments in having a presence at the
University of Nottingham Malaysia campus, where students study the same
syllabus as their UK counterparts and receive University of Nottingham
degrees. It is a medium-sized department, with around 45 academic staff, 28
research associates and fellows, and 46 PhD students conducting research
across a broad range of topics, including cognition and cognitive
neuroscience, behavioural neuroscience, social and developmental
psychology. The School also has strengths in applied psychology, including
both teaching and research in health, forensic and educational psychology. In
addition to the PhD programme, a further 37 students are enrolled on the
research Doctorate in Applied Educational Psychology. The School was
ranked 17th in terms of research quality in RAE 2008 (11th in terms of research
power) and 18th in the UK in the National Student Survey (in terms of overall
satisfaction).
We have a very low turnover, which is mostly accounted for by short term
contract research staff. Most staff are at Associate Professor level (19),
similar numbers at lecturer level (18), and relatively few at Professorial level
(8). Although the number of staff at Professorial level is small, it is similar to
numbers in comparable Russell Group Psychology departments. Overall the
School has nearly twice as many male staff as female, with the largest ratio
being at Professorial level. Encouragingly, the ratio of males to females at
Associate Professor level is much more favourable, nearly 50%. This means
that the School needs to be particularly proactive in supporting the promotion
of women to the most senior level.
Student data
(i) Numbers of males & females on access or foundation courses
None
5
(ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers and degree classifications – full
and part time
The female:male ratio in our undergraduate body is high (83% female) but
consistent with the national picture for Psychology (~81% female) and hasn’t
changed between 2007/8 and 2011/12.
600
500
400
Females
300
Males
200
100
0
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Figure 1. Undergraduate male and female numbers – full and part-time.
In terms of undergraduate degree classifications, there has been some
fluctuation over the period 2007-2011, but on average 20% of females
achieve a first and 69% a 2.1, compared with 15% males achieving a first and
61% a 2.1.
80
70
60
50
2007/8
40
2008/9
2009/10
30
2010/11
20
10
0
Female - 1
Female - 2.1
Female - 2.2
Female - 3
Figure 2. Undergraduate degree classification by gender – females.
6
80
70
60
50
2007/8
40
2008/9
2009/10
30
2010/11
20
10
0
Male - 1
Male - 2.1
Male - 2.2
Male - 3
Figure 3. Undergraduate degree classification by gender – males.
(iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers on and completing taught
courses – full and part time
The female:male ratio on postgraduate taught courses is similar, with an
average of 76% female over the years 2007/8 to 2011/12, in line with the
national picture (~78% female). There have been minor fluctuations year on
year over this period, ranging from 64% to 82% female. The most significant
change has been a 50% drop in females between 2010/11 and 2011/12. The
vast majority of both full and part-time students have completed their studies
successfully.
40
35
30
25
20
Females
15
Males
10
5
0
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Figure 4. Postgraduate male and female numbers on taught courses – full
and part time
(iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees and
completion times – full and part time
7
The female:male ratio on research degree programmes is similar, with an
average of 70% female over the years 2007/8 to 2011/12, in line with the
national picture (~73% female). There have been minor fluctuations year on
year over this period, ranging from 67% to 74% female. Almost all PhD
students complete within 4 years (around 93%), irrespective of gender.
80
70
60
50
40
Females
30
Males
20
10
0
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Figure 5. Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees – full
and part time
We have completed a survey of the destinations of PhD students who have
left (from 2007-2012). Of a total of 74 PhD graduates in this time period, 62%
were female (28 males and 46 females). Following their PhD, 67% of males
became postdoctoral researchers or university lecturers, which is comparable
to 63% of females entering these fields. In addition, 13% of females (but no
males) are employed within psychology or opted for further study. A further
14% of males and 6% of females work within other employment.
8
Percentage of PhD graduates
Figure 6. Destinations of male and female PhD graduates (2007-2012)
(v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for
undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees
The ratio of female:male applications for undergraduate degrees reflects the
proportion of overall undergraduate numbers enrolled (80:20). The ratio for
acceptances is similar (82:18). The conversion rate for applications to offers
and for offers to acceptances is around 50% for females and males.
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
2009/10
800
2010/11
600
2011/12
400
200
0
Female
Male
Applications
Female
Male
Offers
Female
Male
Acceptances
Figure 7. Undergraduate admissions by gender
9
The ratio of female :male applications for postgraduate taught courses is also
similar to the proportion of overall postgraduate taught numbers enrolled
(between 73% and 80%). The conversion rate for applications to offers and
for offers to acceptances is around 50% for females and males.
140
120
100
80
2009/10
2010/11
60
2011/12
40
20
0
Female
Male
Applications
Female
Offers
Male
Female
Male
Acceptances
Figure 8. Postgraduate taught course admissions by gender
The ratio of female:male applications for postgraduate research degrees
(including the Doctorate in Applied Educational Psychology) is also similar to
the proportion of overall postgraduate research numbers enrolled. Conversion
rates for applications to offers is again around 50% for both genders.
However, the conversion rate for offers to acceptances is lower for
postgraduate research courses compared with undergraduate and
postgraduate taught courses (around 45%).
10
80
70
60
50
2009/10
40
2010/11
30
2011/12
20
10
0
Female
Male
Applications
Female
Male
Offers
Female
Male
Acceptances
Figure 9. Postgraduate research course admissions by gender
Staff data
(vi) Number of male and female staff (academic and research) at each grade
Research staff
25
20
15
2008/9
2009/10
10
2010/11
5
0
Female Female Female Female Male
Male
Male
Male
Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7
Figure 10. Numbers of Research staff at each level by gender
11
The proportion of female to male research staff at each grade fluctuates a
little by year. Over the past 3 years the average female to male ratio across
all levels of research staff has gone from 51% to 32%. This is lower than the
national average for Psychology (around 69%).
12
10
8
2008/9
6
2009/10
4
2010/11
2
0
Female
Level 4
Female
Level 5
Female
Level 6
Female
Level 7
Male
Level 4
Male
Level 5
Male
Level 6
Male
Level 7
Figure 11. Numbers of Research & Teaching (academic) staff at each level
by gender
In terms of academic staff (Research and Teaching grades), around 36%44% of staff at levels 5 (lecturer) and 6 (Associate Professor) are female,
which has not changed significantly over the past 3 years. The proportion of
female Professors has remained low (1 out of 8) for the past 3 years.
In order to provide comparable data, we have tried to benchmark against
Russell Group Psychology Departments – however, these are based on
figures obtained from public websites, where available, so they may well be
inaccurate.
There are large variations in the female:male ratios of academic staff in the
benchmarked Psychology Departments, but overall Nottingham appears to be
“average”, with a female to male ratio of 36:64.
12
70
60
50
40
30
Series1
20
Series2
10
0
Figure 12. Raw numbers of female:male staff in selected RG Psychology
Departments (Series 1= Male; Series 2 = Female)
Around 37% of staff at lecturer level are female, compared with an average
across benchmarked departments of 43%.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Series1
30
Series2
20
10
0
Figure 13. Ratio of female:male staff at Level 5 (lecturer) in selected RG
Psychology Departments (Series 1= Male; Series 2 = Female)
Around 44% of staff at Associate Professor level are female, compared with
an average across benchmarked departments of 40%.
13
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Series1
30
Series2
20
10
0
Figure 14. Ratio of female:male staff at Level 6 (Associate Professor) in
selected RG Psychology Departments (Series 1= Male; Series 2 = Female)
Around 14% of staff at Professor level are female, compared with an average
across benchmarked departments of 26%.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Series1
30
Series2
20
10
0
Figure 15. Ratio of female:male staff at Level 7 (Professor) in selected RG
Psychology Departments (Series 1= Male; Series 2 = Female)
Whilst the figure for proportions of academic staff at levels 5
with comparable Psychology departments nationally,
Psychology at Nottingham has some way to go in terms
female:male ratio at the most senior level. We are doing
improve this situation, as outlined in later sections.
and 6 are in line
the School of
of improving its
what we can to
(vii) Turnover by grade and gender
14
We have a very low turnover rate. Proportions fluctuate in terms of
females:males during 2007-10, between 2%-10% for females and 2%-13% for
males.
(1379 words)
Supporting and advancing women’s careers – maximum 5000 words
Please provide a report covering the following sections 4 – 7. Within each
section provide data and a short analysis for at least the last three years
(including clearly labelled graphical illustrations where possible) on the data
sets listed, commenting on changes and progress made since the original
application, and including details of successes and where actions have not
worked and planned initiatives going forward.
Please also attach the action plan from your last application with an additional
column indicating the level of progress achieved (e.g. zero, limited, excellent,
completed).
4. Key career transition points
(i)
Job application and success rates by gender and grade
Only lectureship appointments at level 5 were advertised during 2009-2011.
There were a slightly higher number of male applicants in 2009 and 2011 but
a slightly higher number of females in 2010. While numbers of jobs are low
there is no clear evidence for a marked gender imbalance in numbers of
women interviewed or appointed. The low number of 2010 applications was a
Malaysia campus based post hence the lower number of applications. The
school has a very low staff turnover which coupled with a tightened economic
15
climate this meant that period had a lower number of posts and at a lower
level than in our pre-2009 assessment period.
Applications for promotion and success rates by gender and grade
Level
Male
applicants
Males
promoted
Female
applicants
Females
promoted
2008/2009
4
5
6
7
2009/2010
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
1
7
0
0
0
0
2010/2011
Applications for promotions were low in the 2009-2011 period for both males
and females. However the success rate for applications to promotions is good
at levels 5 and 6 for both males and females. At level 7 (to Professor) two
females were put forward by the school in 2009 but did not result in
promotion. Although these submissions did not result in promotion applicants
were given immediate feedback and experienced how the promotions process
worked. Thus while school and University support is still strong, this is still not
translating into promotion at University level. At levels 5 and 6 we have
maintained our broadly equal applications and success rates between males
and females from our previous submission but with the acknowledgement that
numbers are low.
Impact of activities to support the recruitment of staff – 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.
Since 2009 the School ensures a representative from ASAC has sat on
interview panels. We are confident that Athena silver award has attracted the
healthy female interest in these positions. A quote from one of our new female
lecturer appointments in response to our most recent survey on mentoring
“Before coming to work at Nottingham I was encouraged to see that there was
an existing Athena program and this was an important factor in deciding to
apply”. The Athena award is mentioned prominently on the School website
and included in advertising literature for posts since 2008.
16
Impact of activities to support staff at key career transition points –
interventions, programmes and activities that support women at the crucial
stages, such as personal development training, opportunities for networking,
mentoring programmes and leadership training.
We identified two key transition points at which gender ratios begin to change
unfavourably. These are post-graduate to lecturer level and Associate
Professor to Professor level.
Post-graduate to post-doctoral through to lecturer level
Five members of staff (compared to zero in 2008) have now participated in
University-led professional and personal development networks and schemes
such as Academic/administrators professional and personal leadership
experience (APPLE) professional and personal excellence for administrative
roles (PEAR) and women’s advanced network and development (WAND)
networks.
Early career
Postgraduates often benefit from the mentoring skills of their PhD supervisors.
They have 10 formal meetings and a number of informal meetings year to
discuss progression research and career development. We asked PhD
students to tell us about their experience a case study “ I joined the
department in 2009 as a research assistant for Dr XXX. At the end of a year
working in this capacity, I was encouraged to apply for a PhD with her. I was
keen to embark upon a research career based on this very positive and
supported experience and was delighted when I was awarded a fully funded
studentship from the School of Psychology. I am currently in the second year
of my PhD and I feel confident that I will complete my PhD on time and to an
excellent standard, thanks to the encouragement and support from both my
first and second supervisors. In addition to the role that my supervisors play in
supporting my academic research, they are also constantly looking out for
opportunities that will advance my career and improve my CV. For instance,
whilst conducting my MSc research I was encouraged to visit a lab at one of
the prestigious Max Planck Institutes in Leipzig for three months. Here I was
able to collaborate with some of the world leading researchers in the field as
well as learning new research techniques. Without the contacts that my
supervisor set up for me, this visit would not have been possible.
In addition to this experience, I have also been encouraged to attend several
prestigious international conferences, summer schools and workshops. In
each case I have been awarded competitive funding for the visit from external
sources that I was directed to by my supervisor.
Where possible, I strive to take on leadership roles and get involved with
departmental outreach programs as I have learnt that these roles provide
excellent training for an academic career. Again, I believe that my supervisors
are responsible for bringing out this proactive approach in me, through
encouragement and recommendations.
17
Throughout my time at Nottingham, I have been inspired by the two women
that have supervised me. Both are managing to successfully juggle an
academic career and raising a family without compromise. I hope to follow in
their footsteps and believe that this should be entirely possible in such a
supportive department”.
The university women in science engineering and technology (WINSET)
group have held women in science career networking events in 2010 and
2011 at which we nominated psychology representatives who showcased
their work and attended lectures from senior academic women in the field and
careers service and information stalls from Resource Centre for women UK
(RCUK) were available to participants.
Since 2008 the University graduate School has developed and co-ordinated a
range of centralised support for early career researchers, these have been
based around the concordat framework and correspondingly cover relevant
aspects of career development and networking as well as local issues about
the University. In order to ensure connection with and disseminate information
about this support we appointed an ASAC member to act as psychology
representative on the University research only staff group committee. In
addition, the same ASAC member was tasked with re-establishment of a
school-specific early career researcher forum, the minutes of which are sent
around to the school by e-mail and reported on at the staff meeting. This
forum covers issues such as fellowship/funding opportunities and university
and national networking events and directly reports Athena activities, the aim
being to ensure that Athena activities are getting through to the early career
researcher. Importantly Head of School attends these meetings and updates
on what is happening in the school so that information is two way. Contrary to
our prediction the group did not feel they needed support in the sense of
having a voice as they reported that they felt very satisfied with the mentoring
and professional and personal support from their line mangers within the
school. Interestingly though attendance at the last ECR was 75% female.
Several of our research staff have also accessed the University Centre for
Advanced Studies(CAS) which offers a broad range of support for Early
Career Researchers. One-to-one support to help individuals identify research
opportunities and offer support as required through to the submission of a
research application. This includes costing the proposal through their Funding
Office and help with bid writing.
All staff levels
The school funded a national seminar “Women’s career progression in
Psychology-top tips for success” held at Nottingham University in October
2011. The idea for this came from a staff member in the school and ASAC
supported and assisted in the organisation of this. This was a national event
and involved four key women psychologists representing different routes to
success e.g. some teaching some research only, speaking about their
experiences and importantly giving practical tips to younger female
psychologists. Speakers included our only female Psychology Professor at
18
Nottingham. We had 50 registered from around the UK mainly early career
researchers but also some mid-career attendees. The day was attended by a
reporter from the British Psychological Society (BPS) and reported nationally
in the Psychologist
http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/blog/blogpost.cfm?catid=48&threadid=2152. We
are exploring suggestions made on the day of making this an annual event
rotated nationally and funded externally, BPS have offered to participate in
this roll out. This is a good example of Athena in action, the person who
suggested the seminar said previously she would never have “put her head
above the parapet” previously, but with Athena support felt enabled to suggest
it. This has given us a real sense that our initiatives are having impact within
the School.
Mentoring: new lecturers
Each new member of staff is appointed both a research mentor and a
teaching mentor. The role of the teaching mentor is to answer questions about
daily teaching matters. The research mentor, provides guidance or advice
about career progression. Research mentors are generally more senior
members of staff.
In order to assess the current mentoring system, 5 of the most recently
appointed lecturers (4 years or less) were surveyed. In general, all reported
being very satisfied with the current arrangement, however there seems to be
substantial differences in the frequency of meetings and the involvement of
the research mentors.
One lecturer mentioned how her research mentor had left a couple of years
after her appointment. However, she said she had already established good
relationships with other senior staff members in her research group and thus
did not feel the need to be assigned a new research mentor. This is
testament to the generally supportive environment many external seminar
speakers have commented on, however it is possible that not all individuals
may find replacement mentors so easily.
Another lecturer who just started in September 2011 said that she was happy
with the system and had met with her teaching mentor frequently. Another
individual said she found it extremely beneficial to have her research mentor
comment on research proposals or drafts of papers she had written.
Finally, another individual said they felt very supported by both their teaching
and research mentors, however they would have liked to have more specific
feedback about what they were doing well and what goals they should be
aiming for over the next few years. Others found it very helpful “I thought the
mentoring scheme was useful, particularly for someone who has just landed
his first faculty position and who's new to the British system like myself.
Especially the support I've been given for research was immensely useful in
learning the intricacies of applying for funding in the UK (e.g.,
research councils' priorities, formatting grant proposals, feedback on project
ideas etc).”
19
“My teaching mentor has been excellent and although we haven’t had a
formal mentoring meeting she has been on hand to talk me through issues
and give guidance.”
Each staff member has a yearly research review where they meet with a
panel from the research committee to assess their progress and set specific
research goals for the coming year. Any research support issues are openly
discussed with everyone at these meetings which acts in a research
mentoring capacity.
We have a new formal policy of teaching observation. All staff are allocated a
teaching partner (randomly assigned by algorithm) and each observe the
others teaching and provide a report before and after about teaching aims and
feedback on good practice and any improvements than could be made.
Each staff member’s performance at all levels is appraised yearly in the
[obligatory]“activity review” process which is a confidential yearly face-to-face
meeting at which goals are set in all domains of professional service. A signed
report is produced agreeing goals and commenting on performance both by
the reviewee and reviewer. The activity review training and guidance includes
the proviso that reviewers can be consulted throughout the year about
progress. This provides an additional support mechanism. The University is
currently revising this process to include professional development goals as
well as performance and the process will become linked to the promotion
process as it is currently a separate process. The school has now recruited
non-professorial staff to act as reviewers unlike many schools which confine
reviewers to Professorial staff only. This has the two-way benefit of adding
senior females to the reviewing roles and reviewees now have the opportunity
to be reviewed by female as well as male staff.
5. Career development
(i)
Impact of activities to support promotion and career development –
appraisal, career development process, promotion criteria.
The “activity review” process,which is a confidential yearly face-to-face
meeting at which goals are set in all domains of professional service. The
school recruits non-professorial staff to act as reviewers unlike many schools
which confine reviewers to Professorial staff only. This has the two-way
benefit of adding senior females to the reviewing roles and reviewees now
have the opportunity to be reviewed by female as well as male staff.
All staff are invited annually by e-mail to discuss promotion with the Head of
School with frequent reminders of deadlines. In addition the School reviews
staff profiles and approaches those at the appropriate level. This policy has
maintained our good gender balance at levels 5 & 6 but still has had little
impact at level 7. However the school did put forward two female candidates
(unsuccessful) for level 7 in 2009. In addition the school has invited these
20
applicants to discuss how best to support their re-applications. One factor it is
felt outside of the school’s control is that the economic climate has changed
since the 2008 submission. This makes level 7 a more difficult hurdle for both
males and females. We have equally had no male applications for level 7
posts either since 2008.
Promotion applications are evaluated by a promotions committee consisting of
head of School, director of teaching, director of research and our only female
professor. This panel also calls in individuals to give proactive advice to
candidates they consider may be ready to apply for forthcoming rounds.
Two of our associate Professor females have attended promotions workshops
as part of the WAND scheme run by the University and two further are signed
up participate this year.
Our promotions to level 5 and 6 have been stable for women and maintained
despite the overall reduction in numbers of promotions overall.
(ii)
Impact of activities to support induction and training – support
provided to new staff at all levels, and any gender equality training.
Our recent survey (2012) of new staff suggest that staff feel very well
supported by current systems in place. Our mentoring schemes continue to
work well and fulfil their function despite not having been appreciably
formalised. All staff surveyed in 2011 showed a significant general level of
satisfaction.
We have in addition to our School induction day for new staff and University
induction days we maintain a staff handbook on the web with all the relevant
information about the school and how it operates. Maintenance of this
handbook is a formal school administration role now, ensuring it is up to date
and maintains relevance.
The university will be implementing from next year staff development goals as
part of the appraisal system. It is anticipated that this will increase
participation in university provided staff development initiatives. These are
currently advertised by e-mail and cover a range of topics from work-life
balance to time management but are not very widely attended.
(iii)
Impact of activities that support female students – 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.
Good practice has had demonstrable impact on transition to academic career.
One of our female PhD students who was co-opted to take over a lecturer’s
role while she was on maternity leave in 2008 was subsequently hired as a
21
lecturer by the University’s Malaysia campus and has just recently been
promoted to Associate Professor (see case study 2).
Seminars are obligatory for postgraduate students and we have introduced a
system of signing in, thus ensuring attendance at a full range of seminars
covering a range of areas in Psychology.
Our workload model takes formal account of the requirement to complete a
post graduate certificate in higher education (PGCHE). New lecturers are
consequently given a lighter teaching and administration load for the first two
years to attend the series of courses lectures and workshops to achieve this
qualification.
We have a social space in the School where undergraduates, postgraduates
and staff come together for coffee. There is a set staff time for coffee once a
week with e-mailed reminders so that a large number of staff are present if
students want to drop by for informal chats. A number of new social events
have facilitated greater interaction between staff and students.
We have now instigated an open door policy for our undergraduate students
which allows them to drop by and consult staff about their studies any time.
They were e-mailed about this policy change and do avail of it readily. We feel
this allows all students to feel more enabled to drop by for informal queries
than our previous system of specific appointment times.
Our undergraduate students have the opportunity to request a female
personal tutor. We pride ourselves on the quality of our personal tutoring
support and two of our female staff have received student “Oscars” for best
personal tutor (2011) and best dissertation supervisor (2012), nominated by
the students themselves in a University-wide survey.
(912 words)
6. Organisation and culture
6i) Representation on committees.
The following table shows the number of female academic staff on each
committee, relative to the total number of committee members. Between
2011 and 2012, a university-led review of the school resulted in a major
change in committee structures. Space and resources committee was
abolished and other committees were slimmed down. In the new committees,
female staff comprise just over 25% of the members of decision making
committees (starred in the table).
Because of the reorganisation of
committees between 2010 and 2012, only data for the last two years are
available.
Committee
2010/2011
*Senior
1/9 (10)
Management Group
*
Space
and 0/3 (3)
2011/2012
0/5 (5)
-
22
resources
committee
*Research & REF
committee
*Teaching
and
Learning committee
*Post
graduate
committee
Ethics committee
Computer
committee
MSc course
Admissions
2/7 (9)
2/4 (6)
1/6 (7)
1/3 (4)
1/6 (7)
3/3 (6)
1/4 (5)
2/3 (5)
0/2 (2)
0/2 (2)
2/0 (2)
4/4 (8)
* indicates important decision making committees.
All numbers are
female/male (total)
6ii) Academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and permanent
contracts
The following table shows the number of academic staff on fixed term and
permanent contracts.
Job type
2009
2010
2011
Fixed-Term
20 / 18 (38)
12 / 20 (32)
7 / 16 (21)
Permanent
15 / 29 (44)
16 / 29 (45)
16 / 27 (43)
Data are shown as female/male (total). Staff on UoN Malaysia campus are
included.The staff on fixed term contracts are almost all at research assistant
or postdoctoral level. The proportion of female staff has fallen from 52% to
33%, as grants held by individual groups have come to an end. Staff on
permanent contracts almost all have research and teaching positions, and the
proportion of women here has increased slightly from 34% to 37% over three
years. This is close to the average for psychology departments at Russell
Group universities. The year on year decrease in female contract research
staff has been discussed, we feel it is mostly attributed to transition to
lectureship and fellowship positions.
Representation on decision making committees
The Table in section 6i highlights important decision making committees with
a *. Women make up 38% of members of mid-level decision making
committees (Research committee, teaching and learning committee and postgraduate committee), which is commensurate with the 40% of women at
associate professor grade. Women are best represented on postgraduate
committee, which is responsible for the admissions of PhD candidates and
thus is in control of a substantial studentship budget. This committee has 3
women out of 6 members. In parallel with the small numbers of female
professors, there is only one woman on the Senior Management committee
[on sabbatical 2011/2012].
Workload model
The school continues its monitored teaching and admin workloads to maintain
parity across staff. The mean numbers of lecturing hours This was a fairly
informal system for which each individual reported their teaching contact
23
hours and student supervision work, which was collated in a spreadsheet.
The University of Nottingham is in the process of introducing a more formal
and structured workload model, which will more precisely assess the time
commitment required for different activities. Thus, steps to modify the school
workload model are on hold pending the full university model.
Timing of meetings and gatherings
Department internal seminars are held on Thursday lunchtimes. External
seminars are held on Wednesdays from 4-5pm, with tea before and drinks
after. This means that even academics who have to leave work at 5pm are
able to attend and to socialise before the talk. A vote was held to assess
support for changing the seminar time, but the majority of respondents (20/34)
supported the current time slot. Core hours for meetings are 10-3pm. We are
obliged now to hold tele-conferences with the Malaysia campus staff at 9am
due to time differences, which are pre-booked well in advance. Only one
research group (Behavioural Neuroscience) organises regular events outside
these hours. Other research groups meet at lunchtimes. In previous years,
the annual school away day involved staying at a conference centre for two
days, which was limiting for those with caring duties. The awayday is now
held on campus with a lunch and meetings during the regular work day.
Culture
The culture of the department is generally parent friendly with clear
awareness of gender issues. Many of the staff (both male and female) have
young families and understand the needs of babies and children. On several
occasions, female staff who were transitioning back to work from maternity
leave have bought babies to departmental meetings or talks (even chairing a
symposium with baby in arms) without difficulty. Examining past seminar
programs reveals that 20 external speakers were invited to the 2010/11
seminar series, of whom 6 were female. 20 external speakers presented in
the 2011/12 seminar series of whom 5 are female. Further efforts to
encourage faculty to put forward female names among invited speakers are in
place. The School is supportive of achievement by female staff, nominating
two staff members for a university WINSET award and supporting staff who
want to complete career development courses at the university level. Our
School web pages now contain lists of news and notable staff achievements.
These include things such as publication in top journals, grants, editorships,
media attention to research too. We did consider a females only list of awards
and honours but felt it would fairer to have a single forum for all staff. Since
2008 we have established a school newsletter, which gives details about
activities and achievements at all levels around the school; this has had the
effect of showcasing female activities and had added impact as it includes
photographs.
Outreach activities
Outreach activities are strongly encouraged by the school. Participation in
outreach is recorded and is valued as part of promotion. Over the 2010-2012
period, records show 23 outreach activities contributed by 8 male and 7
female staff, with the remaining 6 events involving more than one person. For
example, summer scientists week is one of our largest outreach activities,
allowing over 200 primary school children to visit the university during a week
in August. This is jointly organised by one female and one male academic,
24
and the important contribution this event makes to the university was
recognised as part of the recent promotion of the female organiser. The event
has been running successfully at the University of Nottingham since 2007.
During a three-hour session the children explore fundamental psychological
principles as well as cutting-edge research through fun, interactive
experiments and our unique psychology funfair. Families are further engaged
with posters and newsletters about our research. Evaluations have shown that
participants enjoy the event and also learn about psychology. Summer
Scientist Week was recently entered into EngageU, a European competition
for public engagement, and is now part of their online repository for best
practices in outreach and public engagement.
The School of Psychology also organises tours for secondary school pupils as
part of Brain Awareness Week. In 2012, this involved talks from 4 female and
4 male academics, and lab tours run by 6 male and 9 female PhD students.
This provides secondary school age children with a gender-balanced picture
of researchers in psychology, and is not too onerous for the academics
involved in organising the event.
7. Flexibility and managing career breaks
(i)
Maternity return rate
We have had three maternity leavers 2009-2011; one in each year and
all have returned to work full-time. One person is currently on leave.
(ii)
Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake
We have had 1 paternity (adoption) leaver in 2010, two in 2011 all
three have returned to work full-time. This is in contrast to no
applications in the preceding period.
(iii)
Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by
gender and grade
The School has had no applications for flexible working in the period. In
fact there has been only one application as far as we can record ever
which is for one female administration role. This we feel is because the
school is notably flexible in terms of hours and working from home
outside of term time, allowing parents the flexibility to manage
workloads without the necessity to reduce working hours. Most staff
members feel enabled to discuss workload changes in relation to
personal/professional requirements.
(iv)
Flexible working –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.
25
We don’t formally raise awareness of the options available because of
the nature of the discipline of Psychology flexible working is usually
possible. The head of school has recently circulated e-mails to all staff
to indicate that home working of more than one day per week during
term time is notified to the school, outside of term time it is flexible. We
feel that this system works well and staff feel enabled to be flexible, this
contributes to our high return rate from maternity but has the effect of a
low uptake of formal flexible working.
(v)
Cover for maternity and adoption leave and support on return –
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.
We surveyed maternity leavers and all have had support in the form of
reduced teaching and marking loads on return, however the
consistency of the support between returners was variable. We have
had new financial constraints since our award in 2008 which has meant
our teaching replacement practice was no longer possible in all cases.
The provisos in our previous submission have been extremely useful in
enabling reduced workload for returners. The chair of the committee
was consulted by several returning male and female staff and by the
head of school, and our Athena submission was used by a male
colleague in negotiations about adoption leave. We feel overall that
Athena has raised awareness of the issues faced by returners, one
returner was supported by a male colleague in negotiations with the
school for workload reduction on return. To ensure consistency of
support we have now agreed with the Director of teaching that a formal
meeting take place as early as possible with those about to go on
maternity leave with an ASAC member present and the same on
return. A male staff member who benefitted from paternity leave
convenes our final year research project now invites anyone who feels
they might benefit from a reduced supervision/load to contact him prior
to allocation of students or marking, this is done by e-mail to the entire
school. We see this as progress but with some work to be done on
standardising the experience for all against the backdrop of
organisational challenges.
8. Any other comments – maximum 500 words
We have noted a decrease in CRS female staff. This we feel is because
we have increased our directed support for female staff at this level into
lecturer and fellowship positions.
We operate an informal flexible working policy and this is appreciated and
works well.
26
We have supported the ASSET survey at school level , the head of school
and the chair of ASAC school met with the ASSET survey representative
for a morning to give feedback on our experience of having the award.
One ASAC member has set up a national mentoring scheme through her
learned society- this provides mentoring support for early career scientists
and mentees have been majority female though not exclusively. Mentors
are formally trained and the scheme is funded by the learned society
http://www.bap.org.uk/mentoring.php. What has been learned from the
external mentoring scheme has been fed into school systems and viceversa.
Our female staff hold very high offices of esteem on many national and
international editorial boards, grant reviewing bodies and consultancies.
While in agreement with ASSET 2010 we do see a trend for more women
to have roles in learned societies. We have conducted a survey of these
and are currently discussing methods to publicise these data more widely.
We have very explicitly tried to progress our action points from the 2008
application. We feel that overall we have achieved many but not all of our
aims, but are now firmly embedded within the culture of the school and
have a voice within the school, the University and beginning to have
impact nationally too. The award has firmly put equality on the table and
Athena has been used actively as a bargaining tool for fairness.
Our formal committee room in which PhD vivas, interviews and committee
meetings are held has one full wall occupied by large portraits of our
former Heads of School which are exclusively male. We have requested
that the portraits be relocated and have been supported on this by the
School.
We are anticipating that the gender balance at Professorial level will
change in the next period based on the groundwork from this period
(2009-2011). If this happens then we would like to consider application for
a gold award.
9. Action plan
Action Plan is attached as appendix to the application.
For Silver Department awards only
10. Case study: impacting on individuals – maximum 1000 words
Danielle Ropar, Associate Professor, Member of self-assessment team
I joined the department in 1998 in the final year of my PhD after moving with
my supervisor from the University of Birmingham. After a 2 year post-doctoral
position at Nottingham I took up a lectureship in 2001. In 2006 I informed my
line manager (Head of School) that I was pregnant. He was delighted to hear
27
the news and even organised a party prior to my maternity leave which made
me feel an overwhelming sense of support.
In 2007 I went on maternity leave for 6 months with my first child shortly after
being awarded a 2 year research grant by the Leverhulme Trust. As my
maternity leave started 4 months into the grant, I was at risk of losing my
excellent post-doc student during the 6 month period when the grant would be
suspended. The Head of School was very supportive and agreed to employ
my post-doc during the 6 month suspension. This was extremely helpful as I
could have lost valuable time on the grant if I had to recruit and re-train a new
post-doc.
During my maternity leave I was contacted by the Head of School who
encouraged me to put in an application for promotion. My application was
successful and I was promoted to Associate Professor in 2008. I never would
have put myself forward for promotion, especially while I was on maternity
leave. Thus, the support of the Head of School was central in allowing me to
make the next step in my career.
When I returned from maternity leave I had tremendous support from the
department in helping to lighten my teaching load during that first semester.
Two colleagues kindly offered to take my tutorials and essay marking which
helped significantly to ease into life as a working mom.
In 2009 I had a second child and went on maternity leave for another 6
months. I was able to stay involved with my PhD student and our meetings
were arranged at a convenient time and place for me so I could bring along
my baby.
I was offered a reduced final year project load upon my return to the
department. This was very helpful during a period when I was still having
sleepless nights. As I was still Head of the admissions team at the time, my
administration load was quite heavy. The Head of Teaching assigned a new
member of the admissions team to start taking over some of my
responsibilities which helped to reduce my work load further.
Even now that my children are a bit older (3 and 5 years old) balancing work
and family life can still be a challenge. I have benefitted greatly from having
the opportunity to talk to other working moms in department, particularly those
with older children. I have found their advice invaluable and encouraging.
Overall, I have felt incredibly supported by my colleagues and key members
of the management group.
Elizabeth Sheppard, Associate Professor (Malaysia Campus)
I joined the department in 2002 to start my MSc in Psychological Research
Methods. After completing this in 2003 I continued to take my PhD between
2003 and 2006. For the first two years of my studies (MSc and first year of
PhD) I was awarded a School Studentship which included fees and stipend.
28
Without this support, I would not have been able to study at the postgraduate
level. I was also encouraged to apply externally for funding and was
successful in obtaining an ESRC studentship for the remainder of my PhD
studies.
In 2006 I completed my PhD and was offered a post-doctoral position to work
as researcher on a grant that my PhD supervisor had received. I was very
happy to move into a slightly different area of study whilst remaining at
Nottingham. My supervisor (the PI) went on two periods of maternity leave
during the period of this grant. This could have posed big problems for the
project because I would have been left without a supervisor to guide me and
might have caused delays in progress of the research. However, the Head of
School was very supportive and suggested that we suspend the grant during
her first period of maternity leave. The School agreed to employ me during the
6 month suspension as a Post-doctoral Teaching Fellow to cover the teaching
of my supervisor amongst other things. This was a very helpful experience for
me as it gave me my first opportunity to act as a lecturer whilst at the same
time having no negative impact on the research project.
My supervisor’s second period of maternity leave was at the end of the grant
period. It was around this time that I heard about the School setting up
programs at the Malaysia Campus. The Head of School informed me of his
own intention to move to Malaysia as Director of Studies for Psychology and
encouraged me to apply for a lectureship there too. He was very supportive in
terms of reassuring me that I had the necessary level of experience to be a
success as a lecturer, and also assisted in other ways such as arranging a
visit for me to the campus so that I could understand more about the
undertaking before deciding whether to accept the role.
Once I had accepted, the School also assisted by employing me for a further
three months as a Post-doctoral Teaching Fellow, partly to cover teaching of
my supervisor on her second maternity leave and partly to bridge the gap
between the end of the grant and the start of my employment at the Malaysia
Campus. This was very helpful, enabling me to maintain continuous
employment.
Since starting at the Malaysia Campus I have received good support, both
from my Director of Studies here in Malaysia, and from my School at the UK
campus, especially the Head of School. I have been given a number of
important responsibilities which has enabled a lot of personal development: in
the last two years I have acted as Examinations Officer, Deputy Teaching
Coordinator, Postgraduate Coordinator, and am currently Deputy Director of
Studies for Psychology in Malaysia. After two years at UNMC, my Director of
Studies suggested that I should apply for promotion. I had not considered
promotion at this point in time, but my Director of Studies encouraged me go
for it. My application was also supported by the Head of School in the UK, and
on the basis of these recommendations I was promoted to Associate
Professor in January 2012. All in all, I believe I have received excellent
ongoing support from my colleagues at Nottingham, both in the UK and
29
Malaysia, which has enabled my career to progress in better ways than I ever
could have imagined.
30