Crossing the Rubicon: an exploration of the use of positive action provisions in Higher Education Institutions in the UK Dr Chantal Davies and Professor Muriel Robison (University of Chester)

Presentation Objectives 2 Background and theoretical context Methodology Emerging themes from the data Future Implications

UK HE Staff Population Gender pay gap in UK HEIs (JNCHES, 2015); 45% of academic staff are female in the UK (HESA 2013/14); Only 17% of Vice-Chancellors in UK are women (Manfredi et al, 2014); Only 22% of Professors in UK are women and 33% of other senior academic staff (HESA 2013/14).

Reasons for disparity? 5 Teaching (Broadbent, 2010; Poole et al, 2007; Terosky et al, 2008; UCU, 2013) Caring responsibilities (Ledwith & Manfredi, 2000; Barrett & Barrett, 2011; Pezzoni, Sterzi & Lissoni, 2012; Savigny, 2014) Capacity (Dever & Morrison, 2009; UCU, 2013) Confidence (Asmar, 1999; Saunderson, 2002; Fletcher, Boden, Kent, & Tinson, 2007; ECU, 2014)

UK Drivers for Gender Equality in Higher Education ATHENA SWAN (Equality Challenge Unit); AURORA PROGRAMME (Leadership Foundation for Higher Education); Section 149 Equality Act 2010 (Public Sector Equality Duty); Sections 158 and 159 Equality Act 2010 (Positive Action Provisions).

The UK Legislative Framework (1) Special measures for protected groups Which are a proportionate means of meeting the aim of Enabling or encouraging persons to overcome or minimise disadvantage Meeting the different needs of protected groups Enabling or encouraging persons to participate in an activity section 158 Equality Act 2010

The UK Legislative Framework (2) Employers can take account of protected characteristics where: One candidate is “as qualified as” the other Where employer “reasonably thinks” the protected group is under- represented So long as it is a proportionate means of achieving the aim of overcoming the disadvantage and it is not an automatic policy Each case considered on own merits Call by ECU, 2014 for use of positive action in UK HEI’s Section 159 Equality Act

The Limits of Positive Action The intention is to permit all action which is permitted by European law; Thus must “remain within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the aim in view”; But despite intention not to deter those contemplating positive action; There is still of risk of challenge; And there is no obligation to do it.

Methodology Stage 1: Small-scale qualitative scoping study; Questionnaire distributed to HR Managers and Employers across a range of sectors; Twenty-four responses from across the public and private sector; 46% of these from UK HEI’s.

Early Findings Limited study; Small scoping sample; Awareness and cognizance of legal provision: 82% aware of the positive action provisions; Awareness via third party organisations (Equality Challenge Unit, Higher Education Statistics Agency, Equality and Human Rights Commission); Practice and usage: 40% had previously used positive action; Inclination and alacrity: 30% could anticipate using in the future; Subjective positioning/versus institutional commitment (73% commitment to benefit of legislative provison); Reticence to use (risk of legal liability, fear of creating segregation, discrediting merit etc)

Future Implications Need for further exploration; Sectoral drilling down into HE sector in UK; Broad-based questionnaire; Series of semi-structured interviews; Gender perspectives of research activity Symposium 2016.

Forum for Research into Equality and Diversity esearchintoequalityanddiversi ty

Bibliography Asmar, C. (1999). Is there a gendered agenda in academia? The research experience of female and male PhD graduates in Australian Universities. Higher Education, 38(3), Barrett, L., & Barrett, P. (2008). The management of academic workloads: Improving practice in the sector. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. Barrett, L., & Barrett, P. (2011). Women and academic workloads: career slow lane or Cul-de-sac? Journal of Higher Education,61, Broadbent, J. (2010). The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Performance Measurement and Resource Allocation. Australian Accounting Review, 52(20), Dever, M., & Morrison, Z. (2009). Women, research performance and work context. Tertiary Education and Management, 15(1), Fletcher, C., Boden, R., Kent, J., & Tinson, J. (2007). Performing women: The gendered dimensions of the UK new research economy, 14(5). Gender work and organisation, Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2014). Statistical report 2013/14. London: Higher Education Statistics Agency. Ledwith, S., & Manfredi, S. (2000). Balancing gender in higher education. The European Journal of Women's Studies, 7(1), 7-33.

Manfredi, S., Grissoni, L., & Handley, K. (2014). Researching the Careers of Top Management Programme Alumni. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education Pezzoni, M., Sterzi, V., & Lissoni, F. (2012). Career progress in centralized academic systems: social capital and institutions in France and Italy. Research Policy 41, Poole, M., Bornholt, L., & Summers, F. (1997). An international study of the gendered nature of academic work: Some cross cultural explorations. Higher Education, 34(3), Saunderson, W. (2002). Women, academia and identity: Constructions of equal opportunities in the 'new managerialism' - a cade of lipstick on the gorilla. Higher Education Quarterly, 56(4), Savigny, H. (2014). Women, know your limits: cultural sexism in academia. Gender and Education, 26(7), Terosky, A., Phifer, T., & Neuman, A. (2008). Shattering Plexiglass: Continuing challenges for women professors in research in research universities. In J. Glazer- Raymo(Ed.), Unfinished agendas: New and continuing gender challenges in higher education. Baltimore : John Hopkins University Press. UCU. (2013). The Research Excellence Framework (REF) UCU Survey Report. University and College Union.

Contact details Chantal Davies (Director Forum for Research into Equality and Diversity);