Athena SWAN
Scientific Women’s Academic Network
28th October 2014
Dr. Ita Richardson
Equality Challenge Unit
• Established in 2001
• Promotes equality for staff and students in higher
education in the UK & colleges in Scotland
• Funded by the 4 UK higher education funding Councils,
UniversitiesUK and GuildHE
• Established to advance the representation of women in
science, technology, engineering, medicine and
mathematics (STEMM)
Athena SWAN
STEMM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths and Medicine
Recognition scheme of excellence in women’s employment in
STEMM in Higher Education and Research Institutes
2005:
10 founder members
2014:
114 members
FUNDED BY
• ECU
• Royal Society
• Biochemical Society
• Dept of Health
• Scottish Funding Council
• Dept of Business Innovation and Skills
Athena SWAN Ireland
• January 2014 proposal supported by the HEA,
the IUA HR Directors group and the IUA Vice
Presidents/Deans of Research group
• May 2014 HEA Funding agreed - in line with
Government STEMM & Shared Services
Strategy
• Athena SWAN National Steering Committee
• Formal launch – 5th February 2015
The six principles
• Commitment and action
• Changing cultures and attitudes
• Absence of diversity at top levels
• High loss rate of women in science
• Short-term contracts
• Transitions to sustainable academic careers in science
Benefits of Athena SWAN
• Highlights areas in which to make positive
changes
• Provides a focal point to formalise and
communicate existing informal good practices
• Increases awareness of career progression issues
• Demonstrates good working environment to
potential job applicants
• Encourages increased transparency
• Opportunity for departments to work together
AS Evaluation Report 2014
• Driver for improving gender diversity
• Evidence of sustainable change
• Positive differences between departments who
achieve awards
Athena SWAN awards – University
Bronze Institution Award
• Issues identified
• Solid foundation
• Developing inclusive culture
Athena SWAN Awards
Silver - Institution
• Activities underway
• Evidence of achievement in promoting gender equality
• Addressing challenges across the full range of STEMM
• Requires awards from majority of STEMM departments
• At least one of the award-holding departments must
have a Silver award.
Athena SWAN awards – Department
BRONZE
Identified challenges
Planned activities for the future
SILVER
On-going activity
Evidence of impact
Gold
Significant record of activity and impact
Beacons for gender equality
Champions of Athena SWAN and good practice
Current AS Gold & Silver
• 5 Silver Institution Awards
• 7 Gold Departments
• UU Bronze Institution Award November 2013
Gold departments
Date of award
University of York
Department of Chemistry
Nov 2007 (renewed 2010)
University of Edinburgh
School of Chemistry
April 2012
Queen's University Belfast
School of Biological Sciences
Nov 2012
Imperial College London
Department of Chemistry
April 2013
Queen's University Belfast
School of Psychology
Nov 2013
University of Cambridge
Department of Physics - The Cavendish Laboratory
Nov 2013
University of York
Department of Biology
Nov 2013
Silver Universities
Date of award
Imperial College London
May 2006 (renewed Nov 2012)
Queen's University Belfast
Nov 2007 (renewed Nov 2011)
University of Nottingham
Nov 2012
University of Warwick
April 2013
University of Cambridge
April 2014
PREVIOUS & CURRENT EU GENDER
RELATED FUNDED PROJECTS
• Atlantic Philanthropies and Science Foundation Ireland 20052008 - €500,000 over 3 years.
• SFI (Science Foundation Ireland) 2008 – Gender Audit of S&E
• Equality Authority Mainstreaming Unit – 2011 – LEAD (Living
Equality & Diversity Programme) UL HR Lead Partner
• FP7 FESTA - 2012-2017 €2.5m UL allocation €450,000 over 5
years – UL key partner
• PROGRESS – GEM Project €250,000 – over 2 years (Oct 2014)
– UL HR Lead Partner
Award Criteria
MARIE CONNOLLY
Bronze institutional award
criteria
a solid foundation for eliminating gender bias and evidence of
developing an inclusive culture
an assessment of where the institution is regarding gender
equality, in quantitative (staff data) and qualitative (policies,
practices, systems and arrangements) terms
a plan that builds on the assessment, any activities that are
already in place and what has been learnt from these
an organisational structure to carry proposed actions forward
Overview of institutional
application
• Letter of endorsement from President
• Self-assessment process
• The team, who we are, how we work
• A picture of the institution and its composition
• Description of institution, general data and analysis for staff
• Supporting and advancing women’s careers
• Data and analysis for staff specifically regarding career issues
• Any other comments
• Action plan
• Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound (SMART)
Data requirements
•
Three years’ data or explain why not
•
Key issues for action identified
•
Staff pipeline plotted, identify problematic transition points
•
Benchmark data where possible
•
Dealing with data issues
•
Easy action point: start collecting data going forward
•
Augment data with staff/student surveys and focus groups
•
Pool data between all institutions for a national benchmark – HEA UK HESA data if
appropriate
Types of Data- Sample
• Proportion of all categories of academic staff
by gender
• Leavers by grade and gender
• Proportion of men and women academic and
research staff on fixed-term, open-ended,
zero-hour and permanent contracts – whole
institution compared with STEMM
• Evidence of Equal Pay Audits
Types of Data - Sample
• Gender Profile of UG/PG
• Degree classification
• Academic staff profile by gender, job family, full and part
time, contract type, male ratio etc.
• Promotions by grade, gender and job family
• Profile of new starters
• Maternity, Paternity, Adoptive Leave - Maternity Leave
return rates etc.
Key Transition Points
• Recruitment Processes – comment on job
application, short-listing, offer and acceptance rates
by gender and grade.
• How the institution’s recruitment processes
encourage women to apply?
• Induction
• Personal Development Reviews
• Promotions Processes
• Selection Committees
The judging process
Two submission rounds each year
•
30th April 2015 & 30th September 2015
•
Notice of intention to submit, by 28th November 2014
• Usually grouped by subject area, judged by a panel
• 5 panellists, 1 Chair – academics, E&D/HR, subject specialists
• 1 moderator, 1 note taker – ECU staff
Next Steps