1. Jessica Kitsell Equality Charters Adviser jessica.Kitsell@ecu.ac.uk
Moving from the Pre- to Post-May 2015 Athena SWAN framework
26 March 2018
Jessica Kitsell Equality Charters Adviser

2. Athena SWAN: award holders
Assume some level of understanding so I won’t go through the history
And 16 research institute awards which are 13 Bronze, 2 Silver, 1 Gold.

3. 31 Research Institute members 15 Research institute awards*
1 Gold research institute
significant record of activity and impact
beacons for gender equality, Athena SWAN & good practice
2 Silver research institutes
ongoing activity
evidence of impact
13 Bronze research institutes
identified challenges through self-assessment
SMART action plan to address
*two are post-May awards
Whether you are applying using the pre-may or post may application, the overall criteria for an award remains the same. We will talk through the criteria and what the panel expects to see for each portion of the application in more detail shortly.
There are currently (as of the April 2017 awards rounds) 13 Bronze RIs in the UK. This means that these departments have identified both the challenges and opportunities with regards to gender equality in their departments, and have put actions in place to address them.
There are 2 silver RIs. A silver award is conferred to those who have demonstrated ongoing activity and progress towards address gender issues in their department – and crucially can demonstrate and evidence the impact of their actions.
And finally, we have 1 gold RI – gold departments have showed a significant record of activity and impact – they are for gender equality, for the Athena SWAN Charter – and are sharing their good practice with the RI community and beyond.

4. Athena SWAN: post-May 2015 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
Themes:
We need to utilise the talents of everyone
There are systemic structural, cultural and everyday barriers that perpetuate inequalities
Commitment and action from everyone is needed, especially leaders
Individuals must be rewarded fairly, with due regard given to factors that have restricted earlier opportunity
People are not all the same
It is really a a list of commitments that you should keep in mind when carrying out the self-assessment – and all of your efforts should align with these principles.
For departmental applications you won’t be asked explicitly about the gender pay gap, support for trans folks, and intersectionality in your departmental applications. These are things asked for in institutional level submissions, but you should think about these issues within your departments, 5

5. Award criteria remain the same
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
Even though the requirements have expanded, the criteria on which they are assessed have stayed the same.

6. Spotlight on the new requirements:
Professional and support staff
ECU now requires applications to include data and analysis for professional and technical support staff. Data should correspond to the application form section headings and should cover the three years preceding the submission, or five years for Gold awards. If data are unavailable, an explanation should be given, and in most cases a relevant action planned to address this.

7. Professional and support staff
As soon as we allow one group of people to be treated differently than another then it becomes OK to treat any group differently than another, whether that be based on race, gender, sexuality… Clearly, it is not.
Professor Tom Welton Dean of Faculty of Natural Sciences, Imperial College London

8. Some challenges Data Engagement Promotion / progression
How are they categorised (e.g. job family, seniority)? Could aggregation of data be concealing gender trends?
Data:
Mapping exercise of PSS services: formal (e.g. line-management) and informal (e.g. cultural/discipline links)
Assessment of data systems: identify any gaps (consider qual too
PSS promotion / progression:
“Dead (wo)man’s shoes”: how to address a leaky pipeline with limited mobility/progression?
Training for current role, and investing in PSS development
Challenging the view that flexibility is not suitable for higher-level roles
Understand the current situation: review policies, consult staff on practices and experiences
PSS engagement:
Reluctance to take part if Athena SWAN is not seen as ‘for us’ (“Us vs Them”)

9. Professional and support staff
“The culture in the institute is inclusive and supportive…”
But often the evidence (when provided) contradicts such statements
Our Scientific Women’s Network meets every two months…
We hold an annual staff lunch for research staff…
I feel valued and included by the institute
Agree
Don’t know
Disagree
Academic/Research Female
77%
15% 8%
Professional/Technical/Support Female
48%
21%
31%
Academic/Research Male
86% 6%
Professional/Technical/Support Male
62%
19%
We need of not homogenising all members of staff in the department or institution. For example, consultation may bring out some really positive things, but when the data is broke down there is a clear disconnect between the experiences of academic and PSS.
Our staff away day is scheduled so that all research staff can attend…

10. Spotlight on the new requirements:
Gender equality and trans people

11. Underrepresentation of men?
May be particularly relevant in certain disciplines and stages of the pipeline, eg. Student attainment.
Addressing underrepresentation of women in senior roles does not preclude you from addressing the underrepresentation of men earlier in the pipeline

12. Trans and Transgender Trans and transgender are inclusive umbrella terms for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from the sex (male or female) they were assigned at birth. The term may include, but is not limited to, trans men and women, non-binary people and dual role people. Not all people that can be included in the term will associate with it.
Links to AS principle 7: “We commit to tackling the discriminatory treatment often experienced by trans people.”
Please refer to ECU’s 2016  guidance on ‘improving the experiences of trans staff and students’ for detailed terminology and guidance for institutions. 
Upcoming guidance on gender equality coming.

13. We’re too small an organisation to need to think about that
But there aren’t any trans people here!
I don’t want to say the wrong thing….
How can we monitor impact without identifying individuals?
Data is limited in this area. Based on EHRC research 1% of population experience some degree of gender variance.
Therefore, Organisations can expect that at least 1% of their employees/service users/students.
It is likely that the numbers will be higher for many organisations.

14. Negative impact on staff and students
Individuals:
may feel they cannot be open about their gender identity or trans status
may feel unable to transition
may feel they have to leave
Institution:
may inadvertently discriminate against trans people

15. What to consider
Ensure trans perspectives are included in the analysis of equality information
Provide training and written guidance to staff
Establishing a support network, or connecting with local LGBT or trans support networks
The provision of gender neutral facilities

16. Spotlight on the new criteria:
Intersectionality

17. Intersectionality
“Intersectionality, as originally advanced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, speaks to an understanding of the complex and multiple ways in which various systems of subordination can come together at the same time (Crenshaw, 1998). Adopting an intersectional framework allows for the exploration of differences within and between the same groups taking account of issues such as historical and socio-political context while still maintaining awareness of racial inequalities.”
(Rollock and Gillborn, emphasis added)
Intersectionality is a framework for thinking about how various forms of inequalities are interconnected for minority women and other under-represented groups. This includes issues of sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism (thinking of the world solely from the perspective of able-bodied experiences) and class discrimination, amongst others.

18. Women are not a homogenous group
Pregnant women
LGB women
Older women
Asian women
Disabled women
Women carers
Single women
Women are not a homogenous group
Married women
Academic women
Black women
Trans women
Younger women
Religious women
Professional services women

19. Professional services men
Gay, bi and queer men
Older men
Married men
Asian men
Disabled men
Men who are carers
Single men
And neither are men!
Academic men
Black men
Trans men
Younger men
Religious men
Professional services men

20. Potential challenges No data collection Small numbers of BME staff
Staff don’t declare their ethnicity
Leaky pipeline for ethnicity
BME staff not progressing

21. Post-May 2015 / expanded criteria in a nutshell
Criteria remain unchanged
Looking at gender equality more broadly
Includes ALL staff
Considers intersectionality (gender/race)
Includes trans staff and students
So in a nutshell, the expanded charter. 4

22. Exercise: spotlight on new requirements
These examples are given to promote discussion, and NOT because they are ‘perfect’ or should be copied.
With this in mind, let’s look at some examples of how you might write about these new requirements in an application.
Let’s split into groups of three or four, and have

23. What makes a strong application?
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
A good application is one that provides the evidence panellists are looked for. It uses the framework to define a clear path to delivery of equality
The panel is looking for an honest assessment. At Bronze, a proven track record is not needed. But you do need to have honestly and thoroughly analysed data and planned actions that will address issues. The same applies at Silver: you cannot use things you have done to provide a gloss if there are major issues that are unrecognised.
You need to gather, monitor and benchmark data. Better data = better understanding of staff and students. This includes qualitative data.
Data, analysis and action must be linked – keep this in mind throughout the application. All actions’ rationales should be based on the data.
Target support- not all initiatives will suit everyone. Consult to find out people’s needs. There can be a tendency for certain good practice to become fashionable. If you are going to be doing a mentoring scheme or unconscious bias training, do these things because they address a specific issue you’ve identified and are anticipated to have a positive impact, and target them to specific groups.
Ensure good practice is championed by senior staff and men as well as women. The self-assessment process itself should not be exempt from scrutiny, otherwise it may perpetuate inequalities. The gender balance of SATs should be representative, and work should be recognised in workload and promotions.
You need to be SMART
SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound

24. Further information Contact your account manager
website:
Awards booklets:
Good practice:
Become a panellist:
Observe a panel: 16

25. Guidance materials
Fifth data briefing on Monitoring and evaluating impact (22/3/18)
Guidance on compliance of the GDPR (22/3/18)
Improving uptake of shared parental leave (19/3/18)
SAT guidance and workbook
Gender equality and using a gender lens