th
(G02 / G03, The Old Fire Station)
Present

Professor Maggie Pearson, Chairperson & Pro-Vice Chancellor and Executive
Dean for the College of Health & Social Care

Professor Sunil Vadera, Head of School, School of Computing Science &
Engineering

Celia Hart, Diversity Advisor / Athena SWAN Co-ordinator, Human Resources

Keith Watkinson, Executive Director, Human Resources

Dr Joanne Elizabeth Cresswell, Associate Director, Research & Innovation

Professor Haifa Takruri-Rizk, Associate Head (Engagement), School of Computing
Science & Engineering

Dr Rachel Brenchley, School of Environment & Life Sciences

Dr Kay Hack, Head of School (Acting), School of Health Sciences

Arron Pile, Student and Graduate Diversity Officer, Student Life

Janet Savage, Diversity Assistant (Temporary), Human Resources
Apologies

Dr Elaine Ball, Programme Lead Professional Doctorate, School of Nursing,
Midwifery, Social Work & Social Sciences

Professor Abigail Gregory, Associate Dean Internationalisation, School of Arts and
Media

Professor Nigel Mellors, Pro Vice Chancellor for Research and Enterprise

Dr Sarah Norgate, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, School of Health Sciences

Professor Tony Warne, Head of School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work and
Social Sciences

Professor Judith Smith, Dean of Science & Technology and Head of School of
Environment & Life Sciences
1. Introductions and Welcome
Professor Maggie Pearson (MP) welcomed everyone to the meeting.
2. Note of the Last Meeting
The note of the last meeting was agreed as a correct record.
1

The following updates on actions agreed and noted in the minutes of the last meeting were provided:
5c CH reported that presentations on Athena SWAN to management teams had taken place with Built Environment on 13 th April, Health Sciences on 15 th
April and Nursing and Midwifery on 15 th June. Arts and Media will take place on 17 June. Computing and Engineering, Business School and Salford
Languages were still TBA.
5d A series of lectures are planned on a range of gender equality topics. The first proposed lecture will be by Dame Carol Black on 14 th September 2015.
MP will liaise with Dame Carol Black about topic and timings.
Members of SAT also suggested that Professor Sue Hill, Chief Scientific
Officer for NHS England ( http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/network/sue-hill/ ) and
Professor Dame Ann Dowling, Chair of the Royal Academy of Engineering
( http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/news-releases/2014/september/royalacademy-of-engineering-celebrates-its-first ) as potential future speakers.
CH suggested inviting Jenny-Anne Bishop MBE to deliver a lecture to raise awareness of Gender Identity, Gender Reassignment and Transgender.
The ‘Re-engineering Gender Bias’ Conference is set to take place on 23 rd
June, the National Women in Engineering Day (NWED) at Media City, and that many of the 50 places had already been filled. It was suggested that
Chris Larkin, Internal Communications was contacted to assist with promoting the event. The promotional material has also been circulated to the Athena SWAN Network and
Women’s Network for Greater Manchester
(Engineering / Scientists). The event was registered on the NWED website.
6d CH reported on progress organising the planned four focus groups to engage academic staff. A session is to be organised for each of the SET schools and two further “open” focus groups to look at the data and engage academics in action planning for the Athena SWAN submission. http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/about-athena-swan/
6h Gender perceptions survey now live and circulated – please promote.
Action: a) Haifa Takruri (HT) requested that the data from HR needs to be more detailed to support future school specific submissions. For example, the number of applications and corresponding number of appointments in context. CH will request the data from Rob Bulman
(RB) who will carry out the analysis.
A note of the workshop with the School of Environment and Life Sciences
(ELS) was produced (see attached)
2

3
Keith Watkinson (KW) suggested reviewing of the criteria of Senior Lecturer to make a clear pathway for teaching & learning towards Professorship.
Rob Bullman (RB) confirmed that only 3 graphs were school specific and requested that more school level data should be made available. The school level data will be mapped out further by CH after data gaps have been identified.
CH will be working on the actual submission documentation. The documentation will be reviewed at each successive meeting of SAT. It was agreed that the application does not need to be approved by the University
Council. However, it will forwarded to VCET for their meeting on 14 th
September so actions arising from the submission can be included in their forward plan.
CH confirmed that the Minutes and Agendas are now available from the revised web pages, in addition a shared Blackboard site has been created to share the latest version of the documents and that this method will help maintain version control. UCL guidance notes will also be made available on
Bb.
Reference was made to feedback from the University’s previous unsuccessful submission. A point of order was around lack of narrative explaining the quantitative data. Richer description was required to better understand the numbers, their meaning and guide subsequent action.
Actions b) JC offered to review the benchmark data available on the Athena
SWAN website http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athenaswan/athena-swan-resources/data/ to inform the November submission. c) The latest version of the draft will be submitted before the next meeting. d) KW suggested that an independent third party should review the
Athena SWAN Proposal. e) MP will contact Dr. Jan Bogg, Senior Lecturer, School of Health
Sciences, University of Liverpool to review the quality and contents aspects of the submission. f) Dr Joanne Cresswell agreed to review the submission from a process perspective. g) It was agreed that an Athena SWAN sub-group would be set up after submission of the application to take forward future events and actions. h) TBA – Chair and members of the Action sub-group.

i) Carer Policy j) KW mentioned that a flexible framework document had been developed in HR. AP highlighted that a Carer’s Policy was being developed with Salford City Council. k) AP to share details of policy and development with KW.
AP suggested that Mx should be available on the staff system as a naming convention choice.
KW asked for clarification about what’s mandatory to complete when submitting data to the University and what’s not. It may be worth amending the SAP system to incl ude “prefer not to say” this would show the difference between a refusal to provide the information and someone who has simply neglected to complete the equality monitoring forms.
3. University of Salford Equality Updates
3.1 The Equality Forum comprising Chairs of the Staff Networks and other relevant members of staff is to be resurrected (CH).
CH is to attend the SSWAN AGM to talk about Athena SWAN. 3.2
3.3 Professor Abigail Gregory (AG) (Absent) had suggested that there should a North /
North West Network for Female Professors, to identify barriers to achieving professorial status. This was discussed by the group and JC suggested that this group might consider including those who are aspiring professors.
An outcome of the group could align with identifying new ways of getting promoted at Salford. It was generally agreed that a group enabling access to professorship might be more appropriate rather than a group already at the top of their profession. It was queried whether funding for this could be made available.
Action
CH to speak to AG
4. Any Other Business a) HT advised the group that it is ‘Manchester Science Festival’ commencing on
20 th October 2015, and advised of the need for an Events subgroup to potentially organise workshop(s) / lecture(s).
[ http://www.manchestersciencefestival.com/information/about/aboutmsf ]
5. Arrangements for Future Meetings
The SAT will meet monthly as set out in the project plan.

20 July

17 August

14 September
4

1. Data Requirements
We are required to show these data from the past 3 years:
Student data
(i) Numbers of males and females on access or foundation courses.
(ii) Undergraduate male and female numbers
– full and part-time.
(iii) Postgraduate male and female numbers completing taught courses – full and part-time.
(iv) Postgraduate male and female numbers on research degrees
– full and parttime.
(v) Ratio of course applications to offers and acceptances by gender for undergraduate, postgraduate taught and postgraduate research degrees.
(vi) Degree classification by gender.
Staff data
(vii) Female:male ratio of academic staff and research staff
– researcher, lecturer, senior lecturer, reader, professor (or equivalent).
(viii) Turnover by grade and gender.
Organisation and Culture
(ix) Male and female representation on committees.
(x) Female:male ratio of academic and research staff on fixed-term contracts and open-ended (permanent) contracts.
Flexibility and managing career breaks
(xi) Maternity return rate.
(xii) Paternity, adoption and parental leave uptake.
(xiii) Numbers of applications and success rates for flexible working by gender and grade.
2. Data Issues

Difficulties in breaking historic HR data down by school following move from college structure
5


School has some data of its own accurate HR data will enable a more accurate analysis to take place

Raw HR data to be requested from HR so that ELS can check individual entries. If there are data protection issues can we have post numbers rather than names – we are committed to working in accordance with data protection constraints to achieve accurate data. ( CH to action request for spreadsheet from HR)

When reviewing appointments data it is important that we also have applications data so that we can compare gender of those who applied with those who were appointed

Student data requested

Currently we do not collect destination of PhD leavers
– rather than collect this for everyone it may be beneficial to gather this annually across a cohort of PhD leavers. This may help “track” gender equality outcomes.

When looking at data on Hourly Paid Lecturers we must separate out
Demonstrators.

There are difficulties in ensuring data integrity when numbers are so small
– it is very important when quoting percentages that the numbers and an explanation are also presented to provide context.

Data (by each school) on the number of requests for flexible working should be included along with details of those that were successful. The flexible working policy covers both academic and non-academic staff
3. Data Analysis

Despite data challenges analysis shows that fewer women than men successfully pass from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer
– further investigation into the underlying causes of this difference in carer pipeline is required.

Data report provided is not purely focussed on ELS - analysis will be improved if the raw data is provided to ELS to analyse.

Wherever possible we should include narrative to explain the changes in data for a particular period.
4. Equality Issues Identified

Post graduate progression
– although there is support at the UoS for post graduate progression this is on a voluntary basis
– further consideration should be given to making this compulsory
– at around ten days a year. This would allow a more structured approach to progression which could be tailored to support individuals and their future career aspirations.

Further consideration to be given as to how post graduates are made aware of opportunities and the support available.

There are very few female only post doctorate fellowships. It is possible to register with Research Professional to receive updates – we can promote this opportunity widely.
6

5. Policy / Procedural Issues

Many systems relating to HR cover both academic and non-academic staff.
In some cases it was felt that this “one size fits all” approach, for example to recruitment and selection, failed to take into account the differences in the way academic staff are assessed and appointed.

Data analysis is limited because not everyone completes the HR equality monitoring form upon application. Request to HR that this becomes mandatory
– including prefer not to say options so that people can opt out of providing information they do not wish to share, but at least encouraging people to engage in the process. ( CH to action request to HR to make this mandatory part of on-line application system)

Promotion
–there is currently no formal system for promotion and this is often done on an informal basis so it is very difficult to track or monitor equality and fairness in the process. It is strongly recommended that the University returns to a more formalised annual round of promotion for academics to provide a framework for career structure for academics and promote fairness. It is felt that this lack of structure increases the risk of unwitting gender bias. Is this something that should be better connected to the emerging People Strategy?
( CH to Action and raise with the HR director)

PDR – the process should be better developed to support academics to plan their careers and to support succession planning and identify opportunities to progress.

Recruitment and Selection
– (as above) – the system for on-line applications does not work well with additional elements required of academics applying for positions. The process is seen as outdated, repetitive and slow and may put people off. (CH to action and pass on comments to HR
– and to add to next SAT agenda)

Athena SWAN logo or at least a statement about equality should be visible on every job advert. Job adverts / person specification etc. should all be checked for bias.
 Equality and Diversity information is limited and “hidden” on the website (hard to find) and there is a need to promote this more to academics and job applicants. We can do more to promote gender equality beyond Athena
SWAN. In addition the pages do not link with key relevant HR policies and procedures such as promotion, family friendly / flexible working etc. The equality statement is weak and this area of the website requires updating so that it is user friendly and better directs people to relevant policies and information.
7