Researching Gender Equality Charoula Tzanakou, University of Warwick Certifying equality

The context Women still under-represented in specific subject areas and in senior posts (full professors and decision making posts) UK: 17% of full professors were women in 2013 EU: higher growth of women at PhD level ;20% Grade A – full professors in all disciplines(SHE Figures, 2015) Renewed emphasis on addressing gender inequalities in the workplace incl. academia UK: Athena SWAN Charter (ECU)–pilot in other countries: Ireland/Australia EU: Strategic engagement for gender equality 2014-2020 EU level funding of 6.17 billion Euros to address those aims

Athena SWAN Charter Equality Challenge Unit (ECU)/2005 //members growth Critical incident: Chief Executive of NIHR (2011) Silver Athena Award – eligibility criterion for funding Institutional/departmental Bronze/Silver/Gold (level of achievement) STEMM – 2014: Arts/Humanities/Social sciences

PLOTINA “Promoting gender balance and inclusion in research, innovation and training’ Horizon 2020 European project (4y duration) 10 partners, 6 RPOs: diversity Self-assessment, design, implementation and evaluation of gender actions Online library of actions – tools for evaluation Quantitative (data analysis/surveys) +Qualitative (Interviews and focus groups)

Three overall objectives Removing barriers to recruitment, retention and career progression Improving decision making by addressing gender imbalances Integrating the sex/gender dimension in research/teaching

Qualitative research Focus groups with female postdocs and assistant/associate professors and staff responsible for Athena SWAN (6 – 32 individuals) Interviews with senior leadership team, HR, academic staff (8 female, 8 male)

Impact of Athena SWAN Independent evaluation by academic team (ECU commissioned) positive (Munir et al., 2013)- women’s perceptions of improvement in their career development, top level support, positive change in the work environment and culture change No measurable improvement in careers of female employed in UK medical schools (Gregory-Smith, 2015) More research to be done - (Gregory-Smith, 2015) – lack of systematic research

Benefits of the Athena SWAN Data collection – building up the case “we found when we showed academics in particular the statistics they were quite shocked by them’ (Senior administrator, female) Push for data not readily available or publicised Enhanced visibility of women/diversity and gender equality Makes people think about diversity and gender issues Can affects attitudes - challenge behaviour Allowed conversations – work-life, culture New initiatives : summer/Easter schemes/conference fund, academic returners fellowship, networks for support

A critical review -issues Awareness/communication of AS Resources Data Capacities Financial Concerns about sustainability and future of AS

Awareness/communication of AS Academic staff not aware/not clear about Athena SWAN –what it is about not clear what is the impact/effects – no change Tricky issue: how to communicate it (resistance) Those directly involved – mostly affected Despite continuous communication and various initiatives

Resources Data resources (data systems in place and human capacity) Human resources – capacity at departmental level High workload already –time consuming process Not allocating time for involvement Women mostly engaged - burden Financial resources ‘Quick wins; have been replicated by HEIs Funding required to follow up with actions, understand what works, what is the ‘real’ impact

Future of AS Concerns Success rate of AS applications (ECU) Goal posts moving – demotivating “AS threshold becoming relative rather than absolute and that potentially becomes demoralising […]feeling that you missed goalposts because somebody moved them” (Senior leadership team, female) Success rate of AS applications (ECU) 2013: Nov: 71% 2014 : April: 69% - Nov:73% 2015: April :56% - Nov: 70% 2016: April: 66% - Nov :63% ‘Self-serving self perpetuating mechanism’ Diversity fatigue – Box ticking exercise (change agents/institutional catalysts /leadership)

Conclusions AS process has been overall beneficial in allowing conversations and making people to think about – possibly changing behaviors slowly But there is an imperative (due to adoption in other countries) to critically investigate in a systematic way what has the been the impact of AS and the unintended consequences that the process might have on the institutional context Limitations: intersectionality, binary, engagement Binary – range of femininities/masculinities Naïve that AS will solve gender equality issue Deep rooted Bigger issue than a single policy Decisions of the self-assessment team on what is included – on other people’s perception or on what is important

Athena SWAN will not solve a deep rooted issue as gender inequality but how should Athena SWAN be used to contribute towards this??? How can we link our research with the Athena SWAN towards this aim? How do we want Athena SWAN to evolve?

THANK YOU. More info on PLOTINA: http://www. plotina THANK YOU! More info on PLOTINA: http://www.plotina.eu Email: Charikleia.Tzanakou@warwick.ac.uk