Athena SWAN departmental applications November 2017 Sarah Fink – Athena SWAN Programme Manager (Ireland)

Aims of this presentation Background and purpose Award criteria Approaching the application SMART action planning Q&A

Background 15 minutes chat, 20 minutes regroup

Charter Recognition scheme of excellence in women’s employment in STEMM Runs in the UK, Ireland and Australia 2005: 10 members 2017: over 140 members STEMM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths, Medicine

Athena SWAN: expansion Recognition scheme of commitment to gender equality more broadly Expanded to take in AHSSBL and professional and support staff Transition period starting from November 2017 and all using expanded forms from November 2020 AHSSBL = Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Business, Law STEMM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths, Medicine

Athena SWAN awards 710 award holders in total across UK and Ireland Bronze 87 Bronze universities 13 Bronze research institutes 385 Bronze departments Silver 12 Silver universities 3 Silver research institutes 172 Silver departments Gold 8 Gold departments Institutional criteria released in July 2015 First Bronze submission success rate ≈ 50%

Understanding Award Criteria 15 minutes chat, 20 minutes regroup

How does it work? Athena SWAN provides a framework for approaching gender equality through an application process Awards recognise steps along the way It is necessary for the whole department to pull together to deliver sustainable change Submissions are assessed by peer-review panels

Athena SWAN: what is it all about? Commitment to removing barriers that contribute to underrepresentation Taking a targeted approach to issues that may be of internal or external origin Producing reports and recommendations Vagueness or platitudes Operating a deficit model: trying to “fix the women”

Athena SWAN principles Recognise talents of all Advance gender equality Recognise disciplinary differences Tackle the gender pay gap Remove obstacles Address short-term contracts Tackle discrimination against trans people Demonstrate senior commitment Make structural and cultural changes Consider intersectionality

● Award criteria Bronze Silver Gold A thorough self-assessment using qualitative and quantitative analysis ● Identify key issues Actions in place to address key issues and carry the department forward Demonstrates the impact of previous activity Serves as a beacon in the discipline, sector and beyond

Why does Athena SWAN work? Athena SWAN framework requires you to: 1. Collect data (quantitative and qualitative) 2. Critically analyse data 3. Identify reasons for exclusion and under-representation 4. Develop a 3 (or 4) year action plan to address these 5. Show progress over time individualised approach; not a box-ticking exercise Data → Analysis → Action

Approaching the application

Characteristics of Bronze departments Identify why they are applying and what they want to achieve Candid, thorough, and specific identification of the issues Understand what they do well and why Development of targeted actions with a clear rationale Allocate adequate resources to make changes

Across the entire application Have clear gender equality priorities When you are directly asked for data, provide 3 years Include specific data from staff and student consultation, disaggregated by gender Link each issue to action(s) directly related to why that issue exists Don’t just describe institutional activity – consider how the department supports or experiences policies and practices

Letter of endorsement Demonstrate commitment of the HoD, discuss how Athena SWAN is valued (time, money, recognition) Discuss specific challenges and actions for the future Link to strategy of department Be candid and honest Mention if you chair the SAT or are responsible for any actions

The self-assessment process Include specific details from staff and student consultation (who, what, when, response rates by gender) Detail role on the SAT to show how work is shared ECU’s updated SAT guidance: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SAT-Guidance-July-2017-PDF.pdf

“think like a panellist” Provide this “think like a panellist” To raise awareness and build capacity for the initiative internally, prior to putting a formal self-assessment team together: All-staff emails were sent from the departmental SAT lead to raise awareness of, and signal senior commitment to, Athena SWAN Workload allocations (64 hours) were made for three Athena SWAN Champions to visit an award holding department attend and observe a panel assessment Athena SWAN introductory seminar was held and included a town hall with the departmental SAT lead during core hours (28 attendees, 68% women)

A picture of the department Benchmark externally with your discipline (or similar) for student data and staff pipeline Identify leaks in the pipeline, reflect on why they exist and link to actions Disaggregate by course/specialism where appropriate

Key career transition points and career development Ensure you are reflecting on staff awareness of, take-up (even of mandatory activity and feedback on particular initiatives (by gender) – this will help ensure your application is analytical rather than descriptive

Flexible working and managing career breaks Reflect on both informal and formal supports Ensure you are reflecting on staff awareness of, take-up and feedback on particular initiatives (by gender) If you are applying on the expanded process, present PSS separately

“think like a panellist” Instead of this “think like a panellist” Our high maternity return rate shows that leavers are well supported in the department.

“think like a panellist” Provide this “think like a panellist” Following feedback from the Parents’ Network, we ran a targeted survey in 2014 (60 responses) looking at the quality of service received by staff going on maternity leave. 33% reported no support prior to maternity leave; 75% reported no support during maternity leave; and 30% reported no support on their return.

Organisation and culture Provide 3 years of committee data Use feedback from consultation to provide a picture of departmental culture Include PSS staff if applying on the expanded form This is a common section where panellists look for proactive actions rather than further research

Using data to tell a story Successful applications: Give a clear description of methods Present data clearly Demonstrate an in-depth analysis Show honesty & self-reflection Unsuccessful applications: Omit data Mask issues Describe, rather than reflect Lack relevant, gender-specific analysis

Developing SMART actions

Forming an action plan Is the action specific? Could someone from another department read it and know what you are talking about? Does it have a clear rationale tied to an issue/data in the application? Who is responsible for implementing the action? Accountable for making sure it happens? Are there clear start and end dates, and milestones? How do you know it’s worth doing? (It isn’t just about completing actions!)

Women are less likely to apply for promotion Identifying issues Women are less likely to apply for promotion Some women have not been encouraged to apply – is this widespread? Research is the primary driver of success – is this built into the criteria, i.e. is this a perception, or a process problem? Appraisal is rated less helpful by women – could they be encouraged to apply for promotion? Women are less likely to agree that the full breadth of their role is recognised – is this keeping them from applying?

Women are less likely to be successful for promotion Identifying issues Women are less likely to be successful for promotion Research is the primary driver of success – are women being supported to undertake research? Appraisal is rated less helpful by women – is planning for career progression discussed? Women are less likely to agree that the full breadth of their role is recognised – is this keeping them from being successful? Teaching is praised and encouraged – is it being recognised at promotion?

SMART action: appraisal Rationale Timescale Responsible Success Measure Introduce an appraisal checklist, mandating discussion of career development and actively encouraging promotion applications Appraisal is rated as less helpful by female staff [baseline%] Some staff have not been encouraged to apply for promotion Women are less likely to apply for promotion [baseline%] Checklist approved by HoD – April 2018 Checklist circulated to line managers and published in staff handbook – May 2018 Checklist used in all appraisal meetings from May 2018 Julia D. to draft checklist HoD to approve checklist Line managers to use checklist – HoD to be accountable for this Appraisal is rated as helpful by >90% of staff, regardless of gender Increase in the proportion of women applying for promotion from X% to >Y%

SMART action: promotion Rationale Timescale Responsible Success Measure Clarify promotions criteria re teaching and knowledge exchange pathways Review staff handbook and make criteria clearer Publish case studies of staff who have been promoted, showcasing different pathways Run promotions workshop Women are less likely to agree that the full breadth of their role is recognised [baseline%] Research is seen as the primary driver for success Women are less likely to apply for promotion [baseline%] Women are less likely to be successful for promotion [baseline%] Handbook reviewed and updated – Feb 2018 Updated handbook circulated to all staff – March 2018 Case studies published – March 2018 Promotions workshop run in April 2018 and every spring term annually thereafter Mark T. to review handbook in collaboration with HR Shivani B. to commission case studies from previous applicants and upload to departmental website HoD to deliver promotion workshop >90% of staff, regardless of gender, agree that the full breadth of their role is recognised Increase in the proportion of women applying for promotion from X% to >Y% Increase in the proportion of women successful at promotion from X% to >Y%

Progress vs Impact It’s not about having done your action, but about the effect that your activity has had on gender equality and the culture of your department: You run an annual promotions workshop, which after a year has 100% staff attendance →Progress As a result of these workshops, promotion success rate for women has increased →Impact Progress = Bronze renewal Impact = Silver

Measuring your progress Staff/student numbers Representation and influence Survey data (or qualitative data) Know and understand your baselines Consult with staff and students from the beginning Be clear from the start what you are trying to achieve Check-in regularly

Athena SWAN: Defining action Successful applications: Assign responsibility Reflect accountability Consider gender specific data Set KPIs Unsuccessful applications: Copy other generic Action Plans Are passive Present broad actions as one large activity Shy away from setting targets

Top tips Good applications: Are honest Depend on data reporting Link data, analysis and action Target support Don’t make it a ‘women’s problem’ Always ask ‘So what?’ Include a SMART action plan SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound

Next Steps

Why do it? “I know that some are unhappy with its focus – some are men worried about unfairness, and some are women who sense they might become victims of tokenism. But most of the changes proposed by departments – such as holding key meetings during core hours, or promoting flexible working – end up benefitting both sexes, especially those who are parents and caregivers, making the profession a little bit more friendly.” Jenny Rohn, UCL

Get involved Read our resources: www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/ Email the team: AthenaSWAN@ecu.ac.uk or sarah.fink@ecu.ec.uk Become a panel observer: www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/observe-an-athena-swan-panel/ Sign up to our JISCMail list: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/athenaswan Follow us on Twitter: @Athena_SWAN

Any questions?