The University of Sheffield is committed to building inclusive teams, maximising the benefits of difference and drawing on the skills and potential of the widest possible range of colleagues. We recognise the importance of ensuring the University has a motivated and diverse community where staff and students work together to maximise the rewards of difference and where a culture exists of inclusivity at all levels and in every system and process.
In order to meet our strategic priorities of promoting and developing a culture of excellence, and creating a University culture that is inclusive at all levels, the University is committed to assessing the impact of proposed and existing policies, decisions and services on different groups of people.
Scope
During the REF period, the University committed to drawing up an equality profile of academic staff who were eligible for submission to the REF and those academic staff who were submitted to the
REF 2014, which included the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender, ethnicity, working commitment and contractual status.
An Equality Impact Assessment was carried out July 2012 and was shared with key decision makers and the trades unions. An interim assessment was undertaken following the first set of data on recommended inclusions from Research and Innovation Services in June 2013. This Impact
Assessment includes the final census data of staff recommended for inclusion.
Throughout our REF 2014 Code of Practice, equality and inclusion have been emphasised as underpinning principles in the selection of staff, with clear guidance as to the legislative context within which we are working, and the individual circumstances that will be taken into account when making selections.
In line with HEFCE guidance, only those staff who are on a contract that specifies teaching and research or research only, and staff who are employed by other organisations but based at the
University for research purposes, will be eligible for inclusion. Teaching only staff will be ineligible.
Rates of inclusion
Table 1 shows the pool of eligible staff at each of the three stages. The largest difference in eligible pools is for those employed on a contract less than 100% which has increased from a proportion of 8% to 10.7%. The next largest shift is for gender, with an increase in proportion of eligible females from
32% to 33.9%. There has been a small decrease in proportions for eligible MEO and disabled staff and staff aged above 45. Overall, the actual numbers of staff in the eligible pool have increased in each category.
1

TABLE 1
Female
Male
MEO (known)
Disabled
(declared)
Fixed term
Less than 100%
FTE
July 2012
32% (410)
68% (870)
9% (115)
2% (25)
8% (98)
8% (102)
June 2013
33.6% (479)
66.4% (948)
8.6% (123)
2.2% (32)
8.7% (124)
10.0% (143)
October 2013
33.9% (495)
66.1% (966)
8.1% (119)
1.8% (26)
9.0% (131)
10.7% (156)
Difference
+1.9%
-1.9%
-0.9%
-0.2%
+1.0%
+2.7%
Age: 25-44 47% (600) 48.0% (685) 47.4% (693) +0.4%
Age: 45+ 53% (680) 52.0% (742) 52.6% (768) -0.4%
Table 2 shows the final inclusion rates of eligible staff against the pool, by protected characteristic.
As demonstrated by the figures, staff are being recommended for inclusion broadly in line with their eligible pools, with the largest gap for females of -2.4%.
TABLE 2
% of total eligible pool % of included pool Difference
(census date) (census date)
Female
Male
MEO (known)
Disability
(declared)
Contract (Fixedterm)
33.9% (495)
66.1% (966)
8.1% (119)
1.8% (26)
9.0% (131)
31.5% (342)
68.5% (745)
7.3% (79)
1.6% (17)
8.46% (92)
-2.4% (153)
+2.4% (221)
0.8% (40)
0.2% (9)
0.54% (39)
FTE (Below 100%) 10.7% (156)
Age 25-44 47.4% (693)
9.6% (104)
48.9% (531)
-1.1% (52)
+1.5% (162)
Age 45+ 52.6% (768) 51.1% (556) -1.5% (212)
Table 3 illustrates that the University recommended rate of inclusion is 74.4% of the total eligible pool.
Compared to the overall institutional figure, the data appears to show an imbalance in the return rate for MEO staff (8% difference), disabled staff (9.1% difference) and staff with an FTE less than
100% (7.8% difference). The proportion of inclusions when compared to the overall inclusion rate is lowest for disabled staff. However, this is based on small numbers, and Table 2 shows only a small difference of 0.2% between the eligible and included pool for disabled staff.
In line with HEFCE guidance, the data was considered at the level of Unit of Assessment. We considered there to be a potential imbalance where there was over a 5% difference between the eligible and returned pool, and where that figure equalled over 5 people.
There we no prima facie imbalances found at Unit of Assessment level in relation to MEO, disabled staff or staff with an FTE less than 100%. There were potential imbalances found in seven UoAs on gender, age and contract type (fixed term) and, although the numbers are small, this will be examined further with the relevant UoAs (see action 1).
2

TABLE 3
Total staff
Male
Female
Disability (declared)
MEO (known)
Contract type (Fixed-term)
FTE (less than 100%)
Age 25-44
Age 45+
Included
74.4% (1087)
77.1% (745)
69.1%(342)
65.3% (17)
66.4% (79)
70.2% (92)
66.6% (104)
76.6% (531)
72.4% (556)
Equality Advisory Panel
The University convened an Equality Advisory Panel (EAP) with responsibility for considering cases for a reduction in outputs due to complex circumstances. This panel received a written briefing, with Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) case studies, prior to its first meeting, and were also verbally briefed at the beginning of the first meeting by the HR Manager for Equality and Diversity, who checked their understanding of the legislative and REF framework with regards equality, and their understanding of their role and responsibilities as a member of the EAP. This briefing paid particular attention to the meaning of disability under the Equality Act and the necessity of strict confidentiality in relation to personal data. The panel was chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for
Internationalisation, and included senior academic staff, an Assistant Director of Human Resources and the Head of Operations for Research and Innovation Services. The panel was supported throughout by the HR Manager for Equality and Diversity.
Eligible staff were invited to provide details of their case for a reduction on a proforma which was then used to make an assessment of their case. Staff were also encouraged to agree to being contacted by HR as a follow up to their case being considered, to gain advice and support.
Following an initial low number of cases being put forward (4), actions were included in the July
2012 impact assessment to amend the individual circumstances form to encourage greater detail about circumstances, to write to Heads of Department asking them to circulate details of the process, to remind HR Managers about the process and ask them to raise it with their Faculty
Boards, and to update relevant committees about the process. All eligible staff were written to again, including those who were absent from the University due to family leave, study leave or sickness absence. As a result of these actions, the number of cases increased, resulting in a total of
39 cases being considered from across all five faculties.
Individual feedback from staff asking for their circumstances to be considered has been very positive, both in terms of the process and the supportive manner in which their cases were dealt with. Two cases were dealt with promptly outwith the original deadlines. A report detailing the lessons learned from this process will be written and shared as appropriate (see action 3).
3

Training
Specific online training was made available for REF UoA managers, and for HR staff; the ECU case studies were disseminated to all decision makers and made available via the University’s REF pages; and short guidance to support managers in having difficult conversations was developed. In addition, the EAP received legislative briefings, which was also available to the Appeals Panel.
University Appeals Panel
The Appeals Panel comprised senior members of academic staff, and the Deputy Director of
Human Resources.
The criteria for appeals were included in the University REF 2014 Code of Practice, and is included below:

The individual can evidence that they have not received appropriate guidance on their own publication and other research priorities;

The UoA has not adhered to the procedures detailed in the Code of Practice or to its own additional guidance;

The REF Equality Advisory Panel rejects a case for the consideration of individual circumstances relating to an individual’s ability to produce the required volume of high quality outputs.
Only one appeal was raised within a department of the Faculty of Arts & Humanities, on the grounds of procedural inconsistencies, discrimination and insufficient guidance and feedback.
These points were considered by the University Appeals Panel, and the appeal was not upheld.
1.
Discuss apparent imbalances with relevant UoAs, to reflect on the process and identify potential future actions.
2.
Share this analysis with the Equality and Diversity Board, trades unions, and faculties.
3.
Share the lessons learned report from the EAP with appropriate groups, including HR
Management Team, and ask HR Managers to consider ways to encourage process improvements around the reporting of sickness absence.
4.
Encourage the use of case studies in future diversity training.
Julie Campbell, HR Manager (E&D)
Sarah Woodhead, HR Assistant (E&D)
February 2014
4

Annex 1: Summary by equality group
Exclude
Include
Total
Exclude
Include
Total
Exclude
Include
Total
F
153
342
495
With A
Declared
Disability
9
17
26
MEO
40
79
119
Exclude
Include
Total
Fixed-term
39
92
131
M
221
745
966
Without A
Declared
Disability
284
789
1073
NON-MEO
267
774
1041
Total
374
1087
1461
Total Disability
Status Known
293
806
1099
Total Ethnicity
Status Known
307
853
1160
% F
40.9%
31.5%
33.9%
% With
Declared
Disability
3.1%
2.1%
2.4%
% MEO
13.0%
9.3%
10.3%
Open-Ended
335
995
1330
Total
374
1087
1461
% Fixed-term
10.4%
8.5%
9.0%
Exclude
Include
Total
<100%
52
104
156
100%
322
983
1305
Total
374
1087
1461
% <100
13.9%
9.6%
10.7%
5

Age
Exclude
Include
Total
25-44
162
531
693
45+
212
556
768
Total
374
1087
1461
% 25-44
43.3%
48.9%
47.4%
% 45+
56.7%
51.1%
52.6%
6