Women in University Science Departments

Promoting physics, supporting physicists

Women in University Science Departments

Peter MainDirector, Education and Science, IOP Gender Equality EventUCL18th March 2008

[email protected], www.iop.org


Plan of Talk

Diversity Programme

Site Visit Scheme

JUNO Code of Practice

Working with other organisations


Diversity Programme


Diversity Programme

1.5 FTE staff Katharine Hollinshead: Programme Leader Saher Ahmed: Programme Coordinator

Examples of Activities Career breaks guidance Women in university physics departments report Diversity in HE (with the RSC) Best practice guide on Disability


Physics nationally

13.6

9.5

16.8

19.0

8.1

4.7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

All grades Lecturer andabove

Researchers Lecturers Senior Lecturers Professors

% fe

ma

le s

taff


Site Visit Scheme


Background

Wrote to each department in the UK and Ireland (copied to the VC)

Visits by invitation only and there was no charge

Visited 17 (out of 46) physics departments in all.


The Visit

Paperwork (sent beforehand) included admissions statistics, gender disaggregated student numbers, pass rates, staff handbook etc.

Meeting with departmental management , admissions tutor, director of teaching, HR representative etc

Meetings with: Female academic staff (where none, women staff

from cognate subjects) Male academic staff Female RAs and PGs Male RAs and PGs


The Visit

Lunch with female UGs. No staff were present

Laboratory tour

Informal feedback at the end from the chair of the panel to the HoD

Confidential written report is sent to HoD with recommendations.


Observations

Women underrepresented in seminars and colloquia

Most departments were not monitoring statistics

Departments without women suffer in many ways (eg admissions, role models). Male staff are usually aware of this but are very reluctant to do anything about it.

The fact that the visit took place meant that gender issues were discussed, perhaps for the first time.

Situation on the ground is often very different from what management believe.


The “Best” Departments Sympathetic Head of Department (they were all

male). In some cases, it was clear that former HoDs had been very biased.

Male participation in family-friendly policies. If they did not, women felt they were perceived as “letting the side down” by, for example, taking maternity leave or fitting their hours around the nursery.

A high fraction of young staff. Young fathers appreciate the problems but younger men are generally more sensitive to gender issues.


The “Best” Departments

Women involved in senior management. But women were often disinclined to get involved because they found the prevailing attitudes so unpleasant.

Strong, informal social networks for women. (In some places found that men had unconsciously created an uncomfortable atmosphere by being so friendly among themselves).


Important Issues

Formal, transparent procedures at all levels.

Recruitment (no secret discussions, women on interview panels)

Promotion (major issue)

Appraisal (particularly for RAs)

Workload allocation

Women on “serious” committees

Career breaks


Important Issues

Even successful female RAs and PGs did not want an academic career:

Not consistent with starting a family Average age of academic appointment is ~ 35. Effect of multiple short term contacts Lack of a well-defined career structure Lack of good careers advice Lack of role models Long hours culture


Important Issues

Childcare facilities were usually thought to be inadequate and, where they were good, did not have enough places. The best matched their hours to those of the university.

Harassment. Although almost every place had a procedure for dealing with harassment, the panels were told of several cases, almost none of which had been dealt with in a satisfactory manner.


General Report

General report highlighting the issues and disseminating good practice has been published

Created a lot of interest amongst other learned societies


JUNO Code of Practice


JUNO Code of Practice: Principles

A robust organisational framework to deliver equality of opportunity and reward.

Appointment, promotion and selection processes and procedures that encourage men and women to apply for academic posts at all levels.

Departmental structures and systems which support and encourage the career progression of all staff and enable men and women to progress and continue in their careers.


JUNO Code of Practice: Principles

A departmental organisation, structure, management arrangements and culture that are open, inclusive and transparent and encourage the participation of all staff.

Flexible approaches and provisions that encompass, the working day, the working year and a working life in SET and enable individuals, at all career and life stages, to maximise their contribution to SET, their department and institution.


Two levels of engagement

Supporter:Physics department endorsing the 5 principles set out in the Code of Practice

Champion: Physics departments confirmed as meeting the 5 principles set out in the Code of Practice

Launched: June 14th 2007


Working with other organisations


SPIDER

STEM Professional Institutions: Diversity and Equality Resources

Core members: IOP, RSC, RAEng & RCUK (sec)

Four strands: HE and research institutes Business: private and public sector Professional bodies: internal organisation Public engagement


SPIDER: HE and Research Institutes

Athena Partnership: IOP, RSC and UKRC

Promoting resources and activities Benchmarking and checklists Using good practice guides ( e.g. RCUK Research staff

concordat) Department site visits ASSET Survey JUNO SWAN awards Enabling other professional societies to get involved


Virtuous cycle

Where are we now?

How does that compare with

others?

What could we do to improve?

Knowledge base

What are we going to do?

Action plan

Benchmarking

DO

Evidence

Business caseCommunicateBe inclusive

Celebrate successGet recognition



Documents

Women in University Science Departments