asset 2016: experiences surrounding gender equality in ......2 asse epor 2016 ioscience n edicine...

ASSET 2016: experiences surrounding gender equality in biosciences and medicine, and their intersections with ethnicity and disability

The Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society of Biology and the Academy of Medical Sciences commissioned Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) to design and implement the 2016 version of the Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET).

This report was researched and written by Dr Amanda Aldercotte, Dr Kevin Guyan, Dr Jamie Lawson, Stephanie Neave and Szilvia Altorjai at ECU.

Additional gratitude is extended to Lenna Cumberbatch (previously of The Royal Society), Polly Williams (The Royal Society), Dr Rachel Macdonald (the Academy of Medical Sciences), Bola Fatimilehin (the Royal Academy of Engineering) and Dr Laura Bellingan (the Royal Society of Biology) for their ongoing support and invaluable input into the content, design and analyses of the ASSET 2016 survey.

The ECU team is grateful to the more than 5000 respondents who donated their time to complete the survey and the dedicated staff of the 43 institutions who engaged with the project, without whom this nationally representative sample would not have been possible.

Further information

Dr Amanda Aldercotte [email protected]

Acknowledgements

Contents

© Equality Challenge Unit, October 2017

ASSET 2016

Experiences surrounding gender equality in biosciences and medicine, and their intersections with ethnicity and disability

Executive summary 1

1 Introduction 8

2 Methods 92.1 The survey 92.2 The sample 92.3 Sample weighting 102.4 Data reduction 112.5 Presentation of results 12

3 Perceptions of gender equality 153.1 Perceived gender equality in respondents’ departments 153.2 Perceived gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources 163.3 Perceived gender equality in obtaining senior posts 183.4 The impact of the Athena SWAN Charter 203.5 Beyond the gender gap: how do gender differences in

perceptions of gender equality vary by ethnicity and disability status? 22

4 Recruitment 244.1 How post was obtained 244.2 Interview panels 254.3 Decision to take up current post 264.4 Beyond the gender gap: how do recruitment processes

differ for STEMM academics belonging to more than one underrepresented group? 26

5 Job and career 295.1 Current posts 295.2 Time distribution across different academic duties 305.3 Life in the department 315.4 Factors influencing the average academic career 355.5 Factors influencing respondents’ academic careers 395.6 Beyond the gender gap: how do ethnicity and disability

intersect with gender in relation to the jobs and careers of STEMM academics in biosciences and medicine? 43

6 Caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks 466.1 Maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental or other parental

leave 466.2 Career breaks 526.3 Beyond the gender gap: how do caring responsibilities and

career breaks differ for STEMM academics belonging to more than one underrepresented group? 54

7 Training and leadership 587.1 Training opportunities 587.2 Training barriers 607.3 Beyond the gender gap: how do differences in training

opportunities and barriers differ across other characteristics? 63

8 Promotion and development 688.1 Explicit encouragement or invitation for promotion 688.2 Department’s encouragement of career development 698.3 Plans for future career 738.4 Beyond the gender gap: do individuals belonging to more

than one underrepresented group experience a unique path through the promotion and development process? 76

9 Conclusion 789.1 Key gender differences in biosciences and medicine compared

with STEMM sciences in general 789.2 Summary of intersectional results 809.3 Recommendations 82

10 References 84

Appendix: sample characteristics 851.1 Gender 851.2 Ethnicity 861.3 Disability 87

Index 88

1October 2017

2 Perceptions of gender equality in biosciences and medicine

1 Background to the Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology 2016

Executive summary

The Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) is a national survey of academics working in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM). ASSET 2016 was funded by The Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society of Biology and the Academy of Medical Sciences and was managed by Equality Challenge Unit (ECU).

The ASSET 2016 survey covered six aspects related to STEMM academics’ working life: perceptions of gender equality; recruitment; job and career; caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks; training and leadership; promotion and development.

By focusing on a subsample of respondents from the ASSET 2016 survey, the current report seeks to examine the experiences, expectations and perceptions of gender equality of academics in biosciences and medicine. The current report also includes a novel discussion of how gender differences in these aspects of working life intersect with other protected characteristics, including ethnicity/race and disability.

The final weighted sample size was 2776 respondents in biosciences and medicine (1190 men, 1586 women) of which 364 identified as black or minority ethnic (BME) and 552 reported having disclosed as disabled.

Male respondents rated their department as more committed to gender equality than female respondents, although both genders were generally positive.

Female respondents felt that men in their department had an advantage in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development (eg receipt of mentoring, positive feedback from management, involvement in promotion decisions) and markers of esteem (eg invitations to conferences, recognition of intellectual contributions). In contrast, male respondents did not perceive an advantage for either gender. Regarding the allocation of additional academic duties (eg teaching, administrative tasks), male respondents perceived an advantage for women, while female respondents indicated that men and women were equally likely to be allocated additional academic duties.

2 ASSET report 2016: biosciences and medicine

Executive summary

3.1 Intersectional results

3 Recruitment


Although both genders reporting that it was slightly easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department on average, female respondents reported a significantly stronger advantage for men than male respondents.

Gender and ethnicity: The perceived advantages for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem were amplified among BME female respondents, compared with white female respondents’ perceptions of their department.

Gender and disability: Female respondents felt that men had an advantage in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem, regardless of their disability status.

Although the majority of men and women obtained their current post through an external advertisement (67.8% and 70.5%, respectively), proportionally more men (11.4%) obtained their current post through a formal promotion compared with women (8.6%).

Of those who were interviewed for their current post, more than half of respondents (56.9%) had more men than women on their interview panel. On average, female respondents were more likely to have a higher proportion of female interview panellists than male respondents.

Compared with male respondents, female respondents reported that the quality of life in the department and its commitment to equality were more influential in their decision to take their current post. The commitment to equality item that was rated as the most influential was whether the department or institution had an Athena SWAN award.

Gender and ethnicity: Compared with 35.9% of white female respondents, only 25.6% of BME female respondents had more women on their interview panels. In deciding to take their current post, BME respondents were more likely to take factors reflecting the quality of working life into consideration than white respondents, regardless of gender.

3October 2017

Executive summary

4 Job and career

Gender and disability: Only 5.8% of female respondents who disclosed as disabled had been formally promoted to their current post, compared with 9.9% of male respondents who disclosed as disabled, 11.6% of male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled and 9.3% of female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled.

Female respondents were underrepresented in senior positions (eg head of school/division/department and professor) and overrepresented in early career positions such as those related to teaching (eg lecturer and teaching fellow) and academic research (eg research fellow, researcher research assistant and post-docs).

Although male and female respondents did not significantly differ in how much time they reported spending on teaching or public engagement, male respondents reported spending more time on research-related tasks and clinical duties than female respondents.

Both genders were relatively positive in their ratings of life in their department; however, male respondents viewed their departments as (i) more supportive, (ii) transparent and fair, and (iii) placing greater value on teaching, than female respondents.

Male and female respondents felt that the most beneficial factors for academic career progression were (i) being involved in well-regarded projects, (ii) successfully applying for grants, and (iii) having substantive research output. Both genders felt a heavy teaching load, a heavy administrative workload and taking a career break impeded academic career progression.

Female respondents rated the impact of having a family/children, protected characteristics and administrative duties on the average academic career more negatively than male respondents. With regard to their own career progression, female respondents were more negative about the impact of their sex, gender identity, age and caring responsibilities than male respondents.


Executive summary

5 Caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks

More female respondents (38.7%) had taken parental leave (ie maternity, paternity, additional paternity, adoptive, shared parental or unpaid parental leave) compared with male respondents (27.0%).

Compared with male respondents, female respondents who had taken parental leave were less likely to say that they (i) could relocate if necessary, (ii) feel supported by their family/partner, (iii) feel involved in the social life of their department, or (iv) have their work successes celebrated in their department.

Female respondents who had taken parental leave found that flexible working hours and keeping-in-touch (KIT) days were the most helpful options available in their department in preparing them to return to work. However, in general, female respondents felt less prepared to return from parental leave compared with male respondents.

More female respondents indicated that they were a carer for another adult (7.6%) compared with the proportion of male respondents in this role (3.7%).

Proportionally more women (10.6%) had taken career breaks than men (7.7%). Although the majority of respondents’ career breaks lasted less than 12 months (44.2%), respondents who had taken longer career breaks found it more difficult to return to work and were more negative in their ratings of how the break had impacted their career progression.

Gender and ethnicity: Only 0.5% of BME female respondents were the head of their school, division or department, compared with 3.5% of white female respondents, 10.9% of BME male respondents and 7.8 % of white male respondents. Additionally, BME female respondents reported spending more time on teaching than any other group, but were also the least likely to say that their department valued teaching.

Gender and disability: Female respondents who disclosed as disabled had the most negative ratings of the impact of sex, disability status, caring responsibilities and age on their own career compared with all other groups.


5October 2017

Executive summary


6 Training and leadership


Of the ten training areas listed, it was only in teaching that male respondents did not have more experience than female respondents.

Compared with male respondents, a larger proportion of female respondents reported that contextual barriers to training, such as those related to time, money, availability, relevance, eligibility, caring responsibilities and an obstructive line manager, had prevented them from accessing training that they needed or wanted in the last 12 months.

Gender and ethnicity: Proportionally more white female respondents (32.2%) had received leadership training than BME female respondents (24.9%). Regarding training barriers, the proportion of BME male respondents reporting that their religion or belief, gender identity, accent or language or sex had blocked their access to training in the last 12 months was larger than any other group.

Gender and disability: Compared with all other groups, male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled were the most likely to have obtained leadership training and the least likely to report that time constraints had blocked their access to training in the last 12 months.

Gender and ethnicity: The proportion of white female respondents who had access to KIT days and flexible working hours was significantly larger than the proportion of BME female respondents with access to these two options.

Gender and disability: Proportionally more male respondents who disclosed as disabled (11.4%) had taken a career break than male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (7.0%). Additionally, of those who had taken a career break, the career breaks of men who disclosed as disabled tended to be longer than those of men who had not disclosed as disabled.


Executive summary


7 Promotion and development

The proportion of male respondents (60.2%) who were encouraged or invited to apply for a promotion or post at a higher grade was significantly larger than the proportion of female respondents (48.3%) who reported this experience.

Compared with their female colleagues, male respondents were more likely to enjoy opportunities to serve on important departmental committees, feeling that their department values their research, feeling that their department values their external professional activities and access to senior departmental staff.

There were no significant differences in the proportions of male and female respondents who did not want to continue their careers in STEMM (3.5% and 4.1%, respectively). However, proportionally more female respondents (7.0%) than male respondents (4.4%) reported that they would like to continue their career in STEMM but outside of higher education.

Gender and ethnicity: Compared with BME male, white male and white female respondents, BME women were the least likely to enjoy opportunities to serve on important departmental committees, feeling that their department values their research, feeling that their department values their external professional activities, having sufficient administrative experience, access to senior departmental staff, having a supportive line manager and feeling that their appraisal was useful or valuable.

Gender and disability: The proportions of male and female respondents who disclosed as disabled (7.5% and 7.1%, respectively) who did not want to continue a career in STEMM were more than twice as large as the proportions of men and women who had not disclosed as disabled (2.6% and 3.4%, respectively).

7October 2017

Executive summary

8 Recommendations The following recommendations are driven by respondents’ reported experiences of gender equality and reinforced by their description of these experiences in the open-ended questions of the ASSET 2016 survey. While these recommendations are phrased in terms of alleviating discrepancies between men and women’s experiences in general, many could be adapted or used as a starting point for addressing the imbalances specific to the physical sciences or other imbalances, such as those related to the intersections between gender and ethnicity and gender and disability status.

= Develop mentoring or sponsorship programmes to increase the visibility of staff in early career posts (eg by increasing exposure to senior staff, clarifying promotion processes and providing opportunities to serve on departmental committees) (ECU 2012).

= Ensure academic contracts accommodate flexible working policies.

= Establish a set budget (time and money) for training programmes.

= Establish transparent workload allocation models that promote balance in the distribution of research, teaching and administrative duties among staff.

= Promote the development of supportive and career progressing networks (examples of good practice available in an ECU 2017 report for HEFCE).

= Ensure all staff have opportunities to engage with senior departmental staff.

= Explore options to offer analogous leave to staff caring for another adult to that offered to staff caring for children.

= Provide staff returning from parental or carer leave with additional options such as a low initial teaching or administrative workloads.

= Expand promotion criteria to include performance in other professional skills such as teaching and administrative experience.

Reduce variability in the amount and type of support provided by line managers by ensuring that (i) line management duties are evenly distributed, (ii) line managers have the opportunity to develop their management skills (eg through management training programmes or unconscious bias training), and (iii) motivating line managers to prioritise these duties by increasing their accountability and adding incentives for being a good line manager.


1 Introduction

The most recent iteration of the national Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) sought to examine the experiences, expectations and perceptions of gender equality of academics working in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM). ASSET 2016 was funded by The Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Royal Society of Biology and the Academy of Medical Sciences and was managed by Equality Challenge Unit (ECU).

Published in April 2017, the full ASSET 2016 report showed that, from recruitment to promotion, female STEMM academics were more likely to perceive, experience or be exposed to some form of disadvantage compared with their male colleagues (ECU 2017).

The current report explores the experiences and perceptions of gender equality of academics working in biosciences and medicine across six aspects of working life:

= perceptions of gender equality = recruitment = job and career = caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks = training and leadership = promotion and development

To provide additional insight into the gender experiences of academics in biosciences and medicine, the current report also examines how gender differences in the above aspects of working life vary across individual sub-disciplines, including:

= biosciences = psychology and behavioural sciences = clinical medicine and dentistry = nursing and allied professions

This approach and the addition of qualitative data allow ASSET 2016 to paint a more detailed picture of current perceptions of gender equality in biosciences and medicine.

Finally, while the main focus of the current report is to identify and describe gender differences in the perceptions and experiences of academics in biosciences and medicine, ASSET 2016 incorporates a novel exploration of the intersections between (i) gender and ethnicity/race, and (ii) gender and disability status.

9October 2017

2.2 The sample

2.1 The survey

2 Methods

Details on the development of the ASSET 2016 survey and the sampling method employed are available in the full report (ECU 2017). In sum, the survey underwent extensive piloting prior to being distributed to a cluster sample of 52 eligible higher education institutions (HEIs) that took into account the different locations (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England and London) and mission groups (University Alliance, Million+, GuildHE and Russell Group) of UK institutions. Over the course of four recruitment waves, 43 HEIs agreed to take part. Response rates were monitored and participating institutions were updated at regular intervals to encourage further engagement. The survey ran from March 2016 to June 2016.

ASSET 2016 contained six distinct sections relating to various aspects of experience within UK STEMM departments and a final monitoring section, which gathered equality and personal data on respondents.

The sections were:

= perceptions of gender equality = recruitment = job and career = caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks = training and leadership = promotion and development

The survey contained 89 questions in total, but the number of questions answered varied from respondent to respondent, since individuals were routed through the survey according to their own characteristics. For example, a respondent who had never taken maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental or other parental leave did not complete the section on the options and resources surrounding parental leave.

Full details on the ASSET 2016 sample and the data cleaning processes employed to remove empty cases are available in the full report (ECU 2017).

The final unweighted subsample of academics in biosciences and medicine contained 2718 respondents from 43 institutions, of which 912 were male and 1806 were female. The following analyses are


2 Methods

2.3 Sample weighting

limited to respondents who identified as ‘male’ or ‘female’. Gender differences are discussed in terms of ‘male respondents’ and ‘female respondents’ as well as ‘men’ and ‘women’, which ECU appreciates are not necessarily synonymous with the labels of male and female disclosed in the survey.

In order to ensure sample representativeness (UK STEMM academics), non-response weights were calculated using the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) 2013/14 staff record (ECU 2015). Weights were based on gender (male or female), ethnicity (black or minority ethnic [BME] or white) and field of study (HESA cost centres). The full ASSET 2016 report describes how non-response weights were calculated and applied (ECU 2017).

The final weighted biosciences and medicine subsample consisted of 2776 respondents (1190 men, 1586 women). These numbers differ from those reported for the unweighted sample in the previous section because the weights applied were designed to obtain a more balanced gender distribution. However, as the weighting procedure also included ethnicity and field of study, applying the sample weights had a similar impact on the apparent size of these subsamples. This has been taken into account in the analysis which follows. Table 2.3.1 presents the distribution of male and female respondents across the individual academic sub-disciplines encompassed under biosciences and medicine.

11October 2017

2 Methods

2.4 Data reduction

Table 2.3.1 Individual sub-disciplines by gender

All statistics reported from this point forward have been obtained from the weighted biosciences and medicine subsample (see Appendix 1 of the full ASSET 2016 report for characteristics of the full ASSET 2016 weighted sample) (ECU 2017).

Sub-discipline Female Male Total

No. % % No. % % No. %

Anatomy, physiology and pathology 53 3.3 51.5 50 4.2 48.5 103 3.7

Biosciences 429 27.0 53.5 373 31.3 46.5 802 28.9

Clinical dentistry 45 2.8 58.4 32 2.7 41.6 77 2.8

Clinical medicine 387 24.4 48.3 415 34.9 51.7 802 28.9

Nursing and allied professions 385 24.3 73.3 140 11.8 26.7 525 18.9

Pharmacy, pharmacology and toxicology

49 3.1 51.0 47 3.9 49.0 96 3.5

Psychology and behavioural sciences 211 13.3 63.7 120 10.1 36.3 331 11.9

Veterinary science 27 1.7 67.5 13 1.1 32.5 40 1.4

Total 1586 100.0 57.1 1190 100.0 42.9 2776 100.0

In consideration of the large number of survey questions in ASSET 2016, items relating to a similar topic were averaged into summary scores. Details regarding the principal components analyses used to determine whether closely related items captured a common concept are available in Appendix 2 of the full ASSET 2016 report (ECU 2017).

Average ratings on individual items and summary scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher scores typically reflecting a more positive view (unless otherwise specified). For example, if respondents were asked to rate the impact of being a woman, a rating of 1.00 would reflect an extremely negative effect while 7.00 would indicate an extremely positive effect. Average ratings on individual items and summary scores ranging from 3.95 to 4.05 were considered ‘neutral’, or in this example, as having no effect.


2 Methods

2.5.3 Results related to individual sub-disciplines

2.5.2 Qualitative analyses

2.5 Presentation of results 2.5.1 Quantitative analyses

The quantitative results are presented in six separate sections. Use of the term ‘significant’ herein refers only to statistically significant differences (at the p < .05 level).

Except for analyses in which proportions of total men and women were compared, all analyses controlled for respondents’ current age (and, where applicable, also respondents’ current posts) in order to determine whether gender differences were specifically related to respondents’ declared gender.

Visual representations of gender differences presented in this report are based on average ratings, summary scores or the proportion of respondents within each gender. Where possible, visual representations are accompanied by 95% confidence intervals around average ratings and summary scores, to facilitate identifying which differences are statistically significant. If two statistics have non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals, they are necessarily significantly different. However, there are instances where two statistics may have overlapping 95% confidence intervals but are still significantly different, so interpretation of these confidence intervals should be completed alongside the results reported in the text.

Within each section of the ASSET 2016 survey, respondents were given the opportunity to expand and reflect upon the content of that section in a free text response. The qualitative data were coded inductively and emerging themes were used to inform the case studies included in vignettes throughout this report. Relevant quotations from these open responses were selected to provide additional insight into the mechanisms underlying respondents’ perceptions and experiences

Within each section, comparisons of how respondents’ perceptions and experiences differ across four main sub-disciplines are presented:

= biosciences = psychology and behavioural sciences = clinical medicine and dentistry = nursing and allied professions

13October 2017

2 Methods

Table 2.5.4.1 Sample sizes by gender and protected characteristic of interest

2.5.4 Intersectionality This report explores the intersection between gender and two protected characteristics (ethnicity/race and disability status), which are presented at the end of each section. To summarise these intersections succinctly, these subsections only describe statistically significant findings; areas in which no difference between groups was found are not discussed.

Ethnicity/race and disability status were selected because the number of respondents possessing such characteristics in the subsample of respondents in biosciences and medicine was sufficient for quantitative analyses (see Table 2.5.4.1).

Protected characteristic Female Male Total

No. % No. % No.

Ethnicity

BME 206 56.6 158 43.4 364

White 1380 57.2 1032 42.8 2412

Disability status

Had not disclosed as disabled 1297 56.8 988 43.2 2285

Had disclosed as disabled 288 58.8 202 41.2 490

To explore the intersection between gender and ethnicity, the following minority groups were aggregated into a single BME group (based on the 2011 census classification system):

= Asian – Asian Indian, Asian Pakistani, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian British and Asian other

= black – black Caribbean, black African, black British and black other = Chinese = mixed = other ethnic background

While this definition of BME status is widely recognised and used to identify patterns of marginalisation and segregation caused by attitudes towards an individual’s ethnicity, ECU recognises its limitations, particularly the erroneous assumption that minority ethnic individuals are a homogeneous group.


2 Methods

The phrase ‘respondents who disclosed as disabled’, or equivalent, is used throughout the report to refer to those who indicated that they had: a specific learning disability; a general learning disability; a social/communication impairment; a long-standing illness or long-term health condition; a mental health condition; a physical impairment or mobility issues; deafness or serious hearing impairment; blindness or a serious visual impairment. The phrase ‘respondents who had not disclosed as disabled’ was used for respondents who did not report a disability and did not specify that they did not wish to disclose this information (ie individuals who indicated that they would ‘prefer not to say’ were excluded from these analyses).

15October 2017

Table 3.1.1 Ratings of department’s commitment to gender equality

3.1 Perceived gender equality in respondents’ departments

3 Perceptions of gender equality

Compared with women, men agreed more strongly with items relating to their department’s commitment to gender equality (see Table 3.1.1).

Female Male

Department’s commitment to gender equality summary score 5.49 4.76

In general, men and women are equally well represented (in numbers) in my department 4.46 3.91

In general, men and women are treated equally in my department 5.80 4.85

My department is committed to promoting gender equality in STEMM 5.82 5.16

If I had concerns about gender equality in my dept, I would know who to approach 5.60 4.85

My department is (or would be) responsive to concerns about gender equality 5.76 5.01

The first section of the ASSET 2016 survey explored respondents’ perceptions of gender equality, focusing on (i) their department’s commitment to gender equality, (ii) how resources are allocated in their department, and (iii) the ease with which senior posts are obtained. This section also included questions regarding the perceived impact of Athena SWAN initiatives.

However, it is worth noting that while male respondents’ ratings were higher than female respondents’ on average, both genders were positive about their department’s commitment to gender equality in general.

Although the majority of respondents felt that there were roughly equal numbers of men and women in their department, the proportions of those who estimated that there were more men or more women were also substantial (see Figure 3.1.1). The proportion of women (39.1%) who felt that there were more women than men in their department was significantly smaller than the proportion of men (33.6%) with this perception.

36.7%

37.9%

25.3% More women than men

Roughly equal numbers of women and men

More men than women



3.2 Perceived gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources

Respondents were asked to rate whether they perceived an advantage towards women or an advantage towards men across 18 items describing the allocation of tasks and resources in their department. These items were averaged into three summary scores reflecting the allocation of tasks and resources related to (i) professional development (eg receipt of mentoring, attention from senior management), (ii) markers of esteem (eg distribution of laboratory space or equipment, invitations to conferences), and (iii) additional academic duties (eg allocation of teaching, administrative or pastoral tasks) (ECU 2017).

Female respondents were more likely to perceive an advantage towards men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development than male respondents (see Figure 3.2.1). A similar perceived advantage for men was reported by female respondents in the allocation of markers of esteem, while male respondents were more likely to say that there was no advantage for either gender. In contrast, with regard to the allocation of additional academic duties, male respondents perceived an advantage for women, while female respondents indicated that men and women were equally likely to be allocated additional academic duties.

It is worth noting however that while these differences are statistically significant, they are relatively small in size (eg average summary scores were out of 7.00 and these were 4.02 for men and 3.92 for women regarding the allocation of additional academic duties).

Figure 3.1.1 Ratings of department gender distribution by gender

3.93

4.44

4.03

4.31

3.92

4.02

NeutralAdvantage

for men

4.00 4.20 4.40Professional developmentFemale

Male

Markers of esteemFemale

Male

Additional academic dutiesFemale

Male

17October 2017


Figure 3.2.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender

Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals.

Closer look: allocation of tasks

Respondents commented on what they perceived as the unfair allocation of tasks between men and women. This was sometimes the result of female staff lacking the confidence to put themselves forward for a task or an unwillingness to say ‘no’, unlike some male staff:

‘Women are more likely to be landed with tasks that male colleagues turn down.’

Female, biosciences

‘I have also been held back and instructed to perform pointless tasks or endless repeated data collection in projects to prevent my discovering problems in projects that the PI is trying to cover up and does not want to admit to me or himself. These problems all stem from imbalances of power and control and this is amplified by gender, where women are not seen as authority figures and not taken seriously. Confidence in yourself is also a major factor.’

Female, biosciences



3.3 Perceived gender equality in obtaining senior posts

‘The situation has improved much in the past years. As an older female, who has held senior positions, I can state that it is now much fairer and transparent in the allocation of duties and in promotion. However, men still seem to be heard more than women.’

Female, biosciences

This respondent believed that this came from historical associations of men and women with certain tasks:

‘There have been genuine efforts to address recruitment differences (women don’t put themselves forward as much as men; selection itself seems to be fair), but reluctance to recognise all the informal ways in which women are seen as ‘natural’ choices for administrative and pastoral roles, and men for more prestigious ones.’

Female, psychology and behavioural sciences

For those who intend to apply for a promoted position, the unfair allocation of tasks could create problems when some tasks were not considered as part of the promotions process:

‘Women routinely appointed to administrative/managerial roles that carry significant responsibility but do not contribute at all to career development or promotion prospects.’

Male, pharmacy, pharmacology and toxicology

‘Women in my department are more often required / expected / asked to perform teaching and administrative roles in addition to their research, when compared to men. However these roles are not recognised in assessment for promotion.’

Female, veterinary science

Despite both genders reporting that it was slightly easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department on average, female respondents reported a significantly stronger advantage for men than male respondents. As seen in Figure 3.3.1, the proportion of female respondents reporting that it was ‘much easier for a man’ to obtain a senior post was almost six times the proportion of male respondents endorsing this option; the majority of male respondents rated this item neutrally.

1.7

0.3

3.1

0.2

5.9

0.9

45.4

23.7

25.0

25.6

16.1

31.5

2.7

17.8

Much easier for a womanFemale

Male

Easier for a womanFemale

Male

Slightly easier for a womanFemale

Male

The same for women and menFemale

Male

Slightly easier for a manFemale

Male

Easier for a manFemale

Male

Much easier for a manFemale

Male

10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

19October 2017


Figure 3.3.1 Proportion of respondents’ ratings of ease in obtaining senior post by gender



Case study: Athena SWAN according to clinicians and nursing and allied health professionals

There was considerable variability in the proportions of respondents who had not previously heard of Athena SWAN initiatives across the sub-disciplines. For instance, the proportion of respondents in nursing and allied health professions that had never heard of Athena SWAN initiatives (22.7%) was almost seven times the proportion of respondents in clinical medicine and dentistry reporting this (3.3%). Notably, men in clinical medicine and dentistry were significantly more positive about the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their department than male respondents in nursing and allied health professions. In contrast, there was no such difference in the average ratings of female respondents in either of these two sub-disciplines.

3.4 The impact of the Athena SWAN Charter

Overall, 8.3% of respondents had not heard of the Athena SWAN Charter in their department and an additional 1.2% of respondents reported that Athena SWAN initiatives were not run in their departments.

Among respondents who were aware of Athena SWAN, both genders tended to agree that these initiatives had a positive impact on the work environment in their department and institution as whole. There were no differences in how men and women rated the impact of Athena SWAN in their department or institution.

21October 2017


Closer look: attitudes towards gender equality initiatives

Among respondents who discussed gender equality initiatives, such as Athena SWAN, the values and purposes of these initiatives were understood in different ways:

‘Gender equality is now right at the top of the agenda where it was ignored in the past. Change in gender balance has started at junior academic levels, but it will take a long time to work through to more senior levels as the only way to change the gender balance is to grow the careers of women to fill those roles in future (no suitable candidates at present).’

Male, clinical medicine

‘It is true that at a senior level with the department, there are more men, but I think this is the result of historic gender bias and will change over time as these people retire and are replaced by younger academics.’

Female, biosciences

For some respondents, gender equality initiatives had tipped the balance in favour of female staff. However, this belief was not necessarily a problem and could help remedy historical imbalances:

‘I think in general the gender bias at the moment is slightly in favour of women. However, this is just to rectify the imbalance of previous years and thus only a measure to create more equality.’

Male, biosciences

‘There is a historical preponderance of males in senior positions. Now I think there is far more scrutiny of gender balance in senior positions and so there is probably a small natural bias towards female promotion given equally meritous candidates.’

Male, biosciences

For others, gender equality initiatives did little more than lip service:

‘Athena SWAN seems to largely pay lip service to gender equality. Easy and cheap things are done. Things that cost money (such as funding maternity leave replacements appropriately so PIs are not covertly encouraged to discriminate against potential mothers) are not.’

Male, biosciences

4.67

4.41

3.77

3.96

4.49

4.28

3.95

4.04

NeutralAdvantage

for menAdvantagefor women

3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60Professional developmentBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Markers of esteemBME female

White female

BME male

White male



Figure 3.5.1.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender and ethnicity

3.5 Beyond the gender gap: how do gender differences in perceptions of gender equality vary by ethnicity and disability status?

3.5.1 Gender and BME

Looking at the intersection between gender and BME status revealed that the perceived advantages for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem were amplified among BME women, compared with white women’s perceptions of their department (see Figure 3.5.1.1). In contrast, this difference in perceptions was not present among BME and white men.


However, there were significant differences between BME and white men’s perceptions of Athena SWAN: BME men rated the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their departments and institutions more positively than white men.

23October 2017


3.5.2 Gender and disability status

Although respondents who disclosed as disabled rated their departments as less committed to gender equality than respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, there were no significant differences in how these groups perceived the allocation of tasks and resources in their department. In contrast, the advantages for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem reported by women in section 3.2 remained, regardless of whether respondents had or had not disclosed as disabled. Finally, respondents who disclosed as disabled rated the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their department and institution less positively than respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, although both groups were positive overall.

2.5

2.8

11.4

8.6

13.5

11.5

67.8

70.5

4.7

6.7

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Ad hoc promotionFemale

Male

Formal promotion roundFemale

Male

Invitation/nominationFemale

Male

Application for advertised postFemale

Male

Other (eg fellowship/grant)Female

Male


Figure 4.1.1 Recruitment method by gender

4.1 How post was obtained

4 Recruitment

The majority of men and women had obtained their current post through an external advertisement (see Figure 4.1.1). However, proportionally more men (11.4%) had obtained their current post through a formal promotion compared with women (8.6%).

Respondents were asked how they had obtained their current post and the factors that influenced their decision to take the position. If respondents had been interviewed for their post, they were asked to provide details about the number of men and women on their interview panel(s).

25October 2017

4 Recruitment

4.2 Interview panels To calculate the average proportion of women on respondents’ interview panels, the total number of women on the interview panel was divided by the total number of panellists. These scores ranged from 0 (ie no women on the interview panel) to 1 (ie only women on the interview panel).

Overall, 17.0% of respondents’ recalled having an equal number of men and women on their interview panels and an additional 26.1% indicated that there had been more women than men on their interview panel. This means that more than half of respondents (46.9%) recalled having more men than women on their interview panel. On average, female respondents were more likely to remember having a higher proportion of female interview panellists than male respondents: for example, 34.6% of female respondents recalled having more women than men on their interview panels compared with 24.7% of male respondents.

Case study: having more women in the department does not mean more women on the interview panel

The majority of respondents in nursing and allied health professions (66.5%) had more women than men on their interview panels. This may be because 73.3% of the respondents in this sub-discipline were women. However, although there were also proportionally more women in biosciences (53.5%) and psychology and behavioural sciences (63.7%), the proportions of respondents in these sub-disciplines with more women than men on their interview panels were considerably smaller (12.4% and 24.1%, respectively). Notably, 17.3% of respondents in clinical medicine and dentistry had more women than men on their interview panels, with only 49.1% of respondents in this field being women.


4 Recruitment

4.4 Beyond the gender gap: how do recruitment processes differ for STEMM academics belonging to more than one underrepresented group?

Table 4.3.1 Breakdown of summary scores and average ratings across items related to respondents’ decision to take their current post

4.3 Decision to take up current post

The ASSET 2016 survey included seven items regarding why respondents decided to accept their post. These were averaged into two summary scores reflecting (i) the quality of working life in that department and (ii) the department’s commitment to equality (see Table 4.3.1).

Summary scores Female Male

Quality of working life 2.77 2.51

Flexibility of working hoursWork/life balance offeredDiverse and inclusive working environmentReputation for training or career development

2.76 2.58 2.66 3.11

2.44 2.30 2.46 2.84

Commitment to equality 1.38 1.23

Childcare facilities availableAn Athena SWAN awarded to the departmentStaff networks (eg LGBTQ group)

1.281.45 1.32

1.17 1.251.22

On average, female respondents reported that the quality of life in the department and its commitment to equality were more influential in their decision than male respondents. Although indices of the quality of working life were considered more influential by both genders in general, the commitment to equality index that was rated as the most influential was whether the department or institution had an Athena SWAN award.


Although there was a significant difference between the proportions of white male and white female respondents who had been formally promoted to their current post (10.1% and 7.2%), this gender difference was not present among BME men (19.2%) and BME women (18.1%).

Of those who interviewed for their current post, BME and white women reported significantly different recruitment experiences. Compared with 35.9% of white women, only 25.6% of BME women had more women on their interview panels.

3.00

2.74

2.95

2.45

1.55

1.36

1.49

1.19

Quality of working lifeBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Department’s equality commitment BME female

White female

BME male

White male

Neutral In�uentialNot at allin�uential

2.00 2.40 2.80 3.201.601.20

27October 2017

4 Recruitment


Figure 4.4.1.1 Influence of the quality of working life and commitment to equality in taking up post by gender and ethnicity


The difference between BME men and BME women’s ratings of the importance of the quality of working life when deciding to take their current post was not significant and, on average, higher than those reported by white men and women. However, among white respondents, women rated these items as more influential than men (see Figure 4.4.1.1).

Only 5.8% of women who disclosed as disabled had been formally promoted to their current post, compared with 9.9% of men who disclosed as disabled, 9.3% of women who had not disclosed as disabled and 11.6% of men who had not disclosed as disabled. Additionally, the gender differences in how respondents were recruited and the factors that contributed to deciding to take their current post remained, regardless of disability status (see Figure 4.4.2.1).

2.72

2.78

2.36

2.55

1.36

1.39

1.25

1.23

Quality of working lifeBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Department’s equality commitment BME female

White female

BME male

White male

Neutral In�uentialNot at allin�uential

2.00 2.40 2.80 3.201.601.20


4 Recruitment

Figure 4.4.2.1 Influence of the quality working life and commitment to equality in taking up post by gender and disability status


29October 2017

Table 5.1.1 Current posts by gender

5.1 Current posts

5 Job and career

To compare whether there were gender differences in the current posts held by respondents, we looked at the overall proportions of men and women within each position and whether these proportions were significantly different from one another.

As seen in Table 5.1.1, women were underrepresented in senior positions and overrepresented in early career positions such as those related to teaching (eg lecturer and teaching fellow) and academic research (eg research fellow, researcher, research assistant and post-docs). This gender difference between male and female respondents’ current posts remained when respondents’ age and contract type (eg teaching only, combined research and teaching) were taken into account.

Current post Female Male TotalNo. % % No. % % No. %

Head/director of major academic area 28 1.8 37.8 46 3.9 62.2 74 2.7

Head of school/division/department 49 3.1 33.6 97 8.2 66.4 146 5.3

Centre director 25 1.6 56.8 19 1.6 43.2 44 1.6

Senior function head 9 0.6 37.5 15 1.3 62.5 24 0.9

Professor 142 9.0 38.7 225 19.0 61.3 367 13.3

Associate professor 34 2.1 77.3 10 0.8 22.7 44 1.6

Function head 5 0.3 27.8 13 1.1 72.2 18 0.7

Senior/principal lecturer (pre-1992 university) 119 7.5 56.4 92 7.8 43.6 211 7.6

Reader, principal research fellow 84 5.3 48.0 91 7.7 52.0 175 6.3

Clinical scientist fellow 14 0.9 32.6 29 2.5 67.4 43 1.6

Senior lecturer (post-1992 university) 247 15.6 60.5 161 13.6 39.5 408 14.8

Lecturer 214 13.5 62.9 126 10.7 37.1 340 12.3

Clinical lecturer 61 3.9 61.6 38 3.2 38.4 99 3.6

Teaching fellow 58 3.7 75.3 19 1.6 24.7 77 2.8

Researcher, research fellow, senior research assistant

199 12.6 70.3 84 7.1 29.7 283 10.2

Post-doc, post-doc research assistant 147 9.3 67.7 70 5.9 32.3 217 7.9

Research assistant 55 3.5 82.1 12 1.0 17.9 67 2.4

Teaching assistant 2 0.1 33.3 4 0.3 66.7 6 0.2

Technical staff 17 1.1 58.6 12 1.0 41.4 29 1.0

Other 73 4.6 79.3 19 1.6 20.7 92 3.3

Total 1582 100.0 57.2 1182 100.0 42.8 2764 100.0

68.0

60.0

73.2

73.2

73.3

69.2

55.0

66.6

40.6

54.3

32.0

40.0

26.8

26.8

26.7

30.8

45.0

33.4

59.4

45.7

20% 40% 60% 80%

Less than £17,500

£17,500–£22,439

£22,440–£27,374

£27,375–£32,314

£32,315–£37,249

£37,250–£42,189

£42,190–£47,124

£47,125–£52,064

£52,064–£57,000

More than £57,000

Female Male


5 Job and career

5.2 Time distribution across different academic duties

Figure 5.1.1 Salary band by gender

Similarly, a larger proportion of female respondents held part-time positions (22.5%), posts that were teaching-only (47.3%) and fixed-term contracts (33.8%), compared with male respondents (11.2%, 28.7% and 28.3%, respectively). In addition, male respondents earned a higher salary than female respondents on average (see Figure 5.1.1).

The ASSET 2016 survey included 19 items regarding how respondents distributed their time across their various tasks. These items were grouped to reflect how much time respondents spent on:

= teaching (eg course development, undergraduate lectures, academic advising)

= research (eg running research projects, writing papers, applying for grants)

= public engagement = clinical duties

The summary scores on these four duties ranged from 1 (‘none of my time’) to 5 (‘all or almost all of my time’).

Although men and women did not significantly differ in how much time they reported spending on teaching, men reported spending significantly more time on research-related tasks and clinical duties than women (see Figure 5.2.1). In contrast, there were no significant gender differences in the time spent on public engagement.

2.33

2.36

1.85

2.08

1.85

1.85

1.50

1.63

TeachingFemale

Male

ResearchFemale

Male

Public engagement Female

Male

Clinical dutiesFemale

Male

Signi�cant portion

of my timeNone ofmy time

1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20

31October 2017

5 Job and career

5.3 Life in the department

Figure 5.2.1 Time spent on academic duties by gender


The ASSET 2016 survey included 14 items that described respondents’ academic environment which were subsequently grouped into four categories describing whether respondents felt that their department was:

= a supportive environment = characterised by fairness and transparency in its allocation of overall

workload and resources (eg office space, budget) = likely to place value on teaching = demanding of their time and effort

Although both genders were relatively positive in their ratings of life in their department, men viewed their departments as (i) more supportive, (ii) transparent and fair, and (iii) placing greater value on teaching than women (see Figure 5.3.1).

In contrast, men and women had similar ratings of how demanding their department was of their time and effort, with both genders expressing a relatively positive view regarding these demands.

5.24

5.34

4.04

4.40

4.55

4.99

3.63

3.58

Supportive environmentFemale

Male

Fairness and transparencyFemale

Male

Value teachingFemale

Male

Demands on time and e�ortFemale

Male

NeutralSlightlyagree

3.803.60 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00 5.20


5 Job and career

Figure 5.3.1 Ratings of life in their department by gender


Case study: contrasts between how respondents spend their time and their experiences within their departments

The gender differences in how respondents distributed their time across teaching duties, research-related tasks, public engagement and clinical duties identified for the full sample were not present among respondents in the sub-disciplines of clinical medicine and dentistry or nursing and allied professions. In other words, within both of these medical sub-disciplines, men and women reported distributing their time across the different academic duties in a similar manner (see Figure 5.3.2).

2.15

2.76

2.25

2.77

1.97

1.55

2.16

1.62

1.82

1.89

1.88

1.82

2.18

1.49

2.30

1.58

Time spent on:Teaching Female, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

ResearchFemale, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

Public engagementFemale, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

Clinical dutiesFemale, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

1.20 1.60 2.00 2.40 2.80

Signi�cant portion

of my timeNone ofmy time

33October 2017

5 Job and career

Figure 5.3.2 Time spent on academic duties by gender and sub-discipline

Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals. C = clinical medicine and dentistry N = nursing and allied professions

Among respondents in nursing and allied professions, these similarities in how men and women distributed their time were associated with similarities in their experiences of life in their department. Specifically, men and women in nursing and allied professions did not differ in their ratings of department support, fairness and transparency, or value of teaching.

5.28

5.35

5.61

5.23

4.00

4.06

4.65

4.21

4.32

5.25

5.21

5.55

3.67

3.52

3.59

3.74

Supportive environmentFemale, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

Fairness and transparencyFemale, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

Value teachingFemale, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

Demands on time and e�ort Female, C

Female, N

Male, C

Male, N

Neutral Agree

4.003.60 4.40 4.80 5.20 5.60


5 Job and career

However, this continuity between how respondents distributed their time and their experiences was not present among clinicians: men in clinical medicine and dentistry rated their departments as being more supportive, transparent and fair and placing greater value on teaching than women in clinical medicine and dentistry.

Figure 5.3.3 Ratings of life in their department by gender and sub-discipline

Note. Error bars are based on 95% confidence intervals. C = clinical medicine and dentistry N = nursing and allied professions

35October 2017

5 Job and career

Table 5.4.1.1 Average ratings of all factors impacting the average academic career by gender

* A significant difference between average ratings from male and female respondents

† Three factors with the most positive ratings

‡ Three factors with the most negative ratings

5.4 Factors influencing the average academic career

5.4.1 Top factors of influence in the average academic career

Respondents were asked to rate the impact of a number of protected characteristics and academic qualities on the average academic career. Scores ranged from 1 (indicating a strong negative impact) to 7 (indicating a strong positive impact), with a rating of 4 being considered neutral.

Both men and women agreed that (i) being involved in well-regarded projects, (ii) successfully applying for grants, and (iii) having substantive research output were the three most positive factors in progressing the average academic career (see Table 5.4.1.1).

Factors Female Male

Being a woman* 3.29 3.95

Being married, civil-partnered or cohabiting 4.18 4.15

Having a supportive family and/or partner* 5.98 5.82

Being older than average in the field* 3.57 3.65

Being younger than average* 4.06 4.26

Having a non-heterosexual sexual orientation 3.93 3.94

Having a non-white ethnic identity* 3.76 3.87

Having a particular set of religious beliefs (including atheism)

3.92 3.91

Having a trans gender identity* 3.63 3.69

Having disclosed a disability to an employer* 3.72 3.82

Requiring reasonable adjustments to be made to the working environment*

3.64 3.92

Not having children or other caring responsibilities*

5.30 4.83

Taking maternity, paternity, shared parental, adoption, or any other form of parental leave*

3.07 3.47

Extensive administrative experience* 4.20 4.42

Extensive experience of public engagement* 5.10 4.95

Extensive teaching experience 4.72 4.73


5 Job and career

5.4.2 Gender differences in perceived areas of impact

Having good references from a previous post* 5.52 5.40

Having teacher training (eg the PGCAP)* 4.87 4.70

Possessing an award in recognition of teaching skill*

5.02 4.88

Being able to easily move geographical location*

5.73 5.56

Being able to work long hours* 5.70 5.54

Recruiting multiple PhD students 5.33 5.27

Involved in well-regarded projects† 6.32 6.25

Successfully applying for grants† 6.41 6.43

Having substantive research output† 6.42 6.43

Flexible working hours 4.70 4.61

Receiving formal and regular mentoring* 5.47 5.26

Receiving support or encouragement from senior colleagues*

5.99 5.70

Receiving support/encouragement* 5.79 5.63

Having visible role models* 5.55 5.24

Having a heavy administrative load*‡ 2.30 2.57

Having a heavy teaching load*‡ 2.64 2.90

Taking a career break*‡ 2.83 3.17

Being lucky 5.20 5.27

Male and female respondents also agreed that (i) having a heavy administrative load, (ii) having a heavy teaching load, and (iii) taking a career break would have the most negative impact on the average academic career. However, female respondents saw workload and career breaks as more detrimental to the average academic career than men.

These individual items were combined into categories to explore gender differences across six areas of impact:

= an esteemed reputation = family/children

2.75

5.75

6.39

3.70

4.88

3.47

2.88

5.50

6.38

3.87

4.76

3.64

Family/childrenFemale

Male

Sources of supportFemale

Male

Esteemed reputationFemale

Male

Protected characteristicsFemale

Male

Teaching experienceFemale

Male

Administrative dutiesFemale

Male

NeutralSlightlypositive

Slightlynegative

3.00 4.00 5.00

Positive

6.00

37October 2017

5 Job and career

Figure 5.4.2.1 Areas of perceived impact on the average academic career by gender

= sources of support = protected characteristics = teaching experience = administrative duties

On average, women rated the impact of having a family/children, protected characteristics and administrative duties on the average academic career more negatively than men. In contrast, women were more positive than men about the impact of having sources of support (see Figure 5.4.2.1). However, it is worth noting that, while statistically significant, these gender differences were relatively small. Finally, men and women did not differ in how they rated the impact of having an esteemed reputation or teaching experience on the average academic career.



5 Job and career

Closer look: acting masculine

These female respondents commented on their use of ‘masculine’ characteristics to get ahead in their career:

‘I personally don’t believe I have been held back by being a woman by a committed bunch of men who do their best to hold women back - I don’t see that happening at all - it’s not a conspiracy, it’s the subtle, ingrained things that are the problem. But I am a very straightforward speaking and sometimes perceived as ‘aggressive’ type of woman. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve been called ‘feisty’ for saying the same thing a man would say without comment. I watch myself and try to make sure I don’t intimidate my colleagues into saying things like that but sometimes I wonder whether this is the correct approach.’

Female, clinical medicine

‘The pressures of getting grants and pushing to be a PI and the first author can be difficult if a person is collaborative by nature and this is not helped by terms that praise the former and undermine the latter. By and large this approach favours ‘masculine’ traits over ‘feminine’ traits, without acknowledging the need for both to advance science as well as knowledge.’


‘Unless I can be a strong, tough, independent woman, I’m probably not going to make it in top academic science.’

Female, biosciences

Others commented on their experience of other women acting in a ‘masculine’ manner, which did little to advance ideas of gender equality:

‘Often women who succeed adopt male type very assertive behaviour which misses the point of gender balance where we should be bringing the best of gender attributes. Some of the most extreme misogynist behaviour that I have experience is from other women favouring male colleagues and trying to adopt male leadership styles. In people selection we need to see through the old norm of male behaviour style being the most desirable - men frequently oversell what they can do and women frequently undersell, if we know this can we build this into our selection?’

Female, biosciences

39October 2017

5 Job and career

5.5 Factors influencing respondents’ academic careers

This respondent explained that the need to act assertively emerged from a climate where some men patronised women:

‘The way women are spoken to, or the opportunity they are given to speak and finish what they are saying. I spoke at a meeting just recently and was approached later and patronised by a male who was surprised at how assertively … I spoke. As a mature and intelligent female, I really do not think that’s appropriate - he would not approach a male colleague and say similarly.’

Female, nursing and allied health professions

Respondents were also asked to rate how they felt possessing certain protected characteristics had impacted their own careers.

On average, women rated the impact of their sex, gender identity, age and caring responsibilities on their own academic career progression more negatively than men (see Figure 5.5.1).

3.84

4.00

3.97

4.01

3.97

3.99

3.52

3.77

3.82

4.06

4.00

4.03

4.08

4.02

3.99

3.92

3.92

4.05

SexFemale

Male

Sexual orientationFemale

Male

EthnicityFemale

Male

Marital/civil statusFemale

Male

Disability statusFemale

Male

Religious beliefsFemale

Male

Caring responsibilitiesFemale

Male

AgeFemale

Male

Gender identityFemale

Male

NeutralSlightly

negative

3.60 3.80 4.00


5 Job and career

Figure 5.5.1 Areas of perceived impact on respondents’ academic careers by gender


41October 2017

5 Job and career

Table 5.5.1.1 Perceived impact of protected characteristics on own versus average academic career by gender

5.5.1 Impact of protected characteristics on the average academic career versus respondents’ own

In contrast, men felt that one’s marital/civil status would have a positive impact on the average academic career, while women rated this item neutrally. Notably, both genders rated the impact of ethnicity, disability status and religious beliefs in a neutral manner.

Finally, we looked at whether there were differences in how respondents rated the impact of the nine protected characteristics on their own versus the average academic career. There were discrepancies between ratings on respondents’ own and the average academic career for both genders (see Table 5.5.1.1).

Protected characteristic

Female Male Overall

Aver-age

Own career

Aver-age

Own career

Aver-age

Own career

Sex 3.29 3.84 3.95 4.05 3.57 3.93

Sexual orientation 3.93 4.00 3.94 4.00 3.93 4.00

Ethnicity 3.76 3.97 3.87 4.03 3.8 4.00

Marital/civil status 4.18 4.01 4.15 4.07 4.17 4.04

Disability status 3.72 3.96 3.82 4.02 3.76 3.99

Religious beliefs 3.92 3.99 3.91 3.98 3.92 3.99

Caring responsibilities 3.07 3.52 3.47 3.92 3.24 3.69

Age 3.82 3.77 3.96 3.92 3.88 3.84

Gender identity 3.63 3.82 3.69 4.05 3.66 3.92

In general, both male and female respondents rated the impact of these characteristics more negatively when judging the average academic career versus their own (Figure 5.5.1.1). For example, women felt that the impact of sex on the average academic career was more negative than the impact sex has had on their own career. In contrast, both genders were more positive about the impact of marital/civil status when rating the average academic career than their own careers.

3.84

4.00

3.97

4.01

3.96

3.99

3.52

3.77

3.82

4.05

4.00

4.03

4.07

4.02

3.98

3.92

3.92

4.05

NeutralSlightly

negative

3.603.403.20 4.203.80 4.00

(own career average )

SexFemale

Male

Sexual orientationFemale

Male

EthnicityFemale

Male

Marital/civil statusFemale

Male

Disability statusFemale

Male

Religious beliefsFemale

Male

Caring responsibilitiesFemale

Male

AgeFemale

Male

Gender identityFemale

Male

3.29

3.93

3.76

4.18

3.72

3.92

3.07

3.82

3.63

3.95

3.94

3.87

4.15

3.82

3.91

3.47

3.96

3.69


5 Job and career

Figure 5.5.1.1 Perceived impact of protected characteristics on own and average academic career by gender


2.41

2.31

2.33

2.36

Time spent on academic teachingBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Some of my time

None of my time

2.402.20

43October 2017

5 Job and career

Figure 5.6.1.1 Time spent on academic teaching duties by gender and ethnicity

5.6 Beyond the gender gap: how do ethnicity and disability intersect with gender in relation to the jobs and careers of STEMM academics in biosciences and medicine?



Examining the intersection between gender and ethnicity revealed that BME women reported a number of cumulative disadvantages regarding their current posts and experiences within their departments and careers. For instance, only 0.5% of BME women were the head of their school, division or department, compared with 3.5% of white women, 10.9% of BME men and 7.8 % of white men.

Additionally, BME women reported spending more time on teaching than any other group (see Figure 5.6.1.1), but were also the least likely to say that their department valued teaching. Female BME academics were also the least positive in their ratings of their department’s provision of support and its fairness and transparency in the allocation of tasks and resources (see Figure 5.6.1.2).

4.99

5.27

5.33

5.34

3.76

4.08

4.70

4.35

4.45

4.56

5.36

4.93

3.67

3.62

3.70

3.56

Supportive environmentBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Fairness and transparencyBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Value teachingBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Demands on time and e�ortBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Neutral Agree

4.003.60 4.80 5.204.40


5 Job and career


Figure 5.6.1.2 Ratings of life in their department by gender and ethnicity


Similarly, BME women were the most negative in their ratings of the impact of protected characteristics on the average academic career compared with BME men, white men and white women. Regarding their own career progression, BME women were more negative about the impact of ethnicity than BME men and more negative about the impact of caring responsibilities than white women.

Women who disclosed as disabled reported compounded disadvantages in their current posts, experiences in their department and career progression. First, only 8.6% of women who disclosed as disabled were professors, compared with 9.1% of women who had not disclosed as disabled, 18.4% of men who disclosed as disabled and 19.2% of men who had not disclosed as disabled. More than half of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (57.1%) were on

3.79

3.85

4.00

4.07

3.69

4.03

3.90

4.05

3.40

3.55

3.79

3.94

3.72

3.78

3.74

3.96

SexDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Disability statusDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Caring responsibilitiesDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

AgeDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

NeutralSlightly

negative impact

4.003.60 3.803.40

45October 2017

5 Job and career

Figure 5.6.2.1 Factors influencing respondents’ academic careers by gender and disability status

teaching-only contracts, compared with 45.2% of male respondents who disclosed as disabled, 44.7% of female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled and 25.2% of male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled. This may be why women who disclosed as disabled declared the lowest salary on average and were the least likely to say that their department was fair and transparent in its allocation of resources.

Following the theme of cumulative effects, female respondents who disclosed as disabled had the most negative ratings of the impact of sex, disability status, caring responsibilities and age on their own career compared with all other groups (see Figure 5.6.2.1). Taken together, these results suggest that being a female academic who has disclosed as disabled is particularly disadvantageous for career progression.



Table 6.1.1.1 Proportions of respondents by type of parental leave and gender

6.1 Maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental or other parental leave


The proportions of respondents in biosciences and medicine who had taken the different types of parental leave, including maternity, paternity, additional paternity, adoptive, shared parental or unpaid parental leave, are presented in Table 6.1.1.1.

Type of leave Female Male Total

No. %* %† No. %* %† No. %†

Maternity 581 95.4 20.9 1 0.3 0.0 582 21.0

Paternity 4 0.7 0.1 297 93.1 10.7 301 10.8

Additional paternity 0 0.0 0.0 5 1.6 0.2 5 0.2

Adoption 9 1.5 0.3 4 1.3 0.1 13 0.5

Shared parental 6 1.0 0.2 5 1.6 0.2 11 0.4

Unpaid parental 9 1.5 0.3 7 2.2 0.3 16 0.6

Total 609 100.0 21.9 319 100.0 11.5 928 33.4

* Within each gender, the percentage of respondents who had taken that form of parental leave. † Within the sample of respondents in engineering (n = 868), the percentage of respondents who had taken that form of parental leave.

Given that very few respondents reported taking additional paternity, adoption, shared parental or unpaid parental leave, these categories were combined with those respondents who reported taking maternity and paternity leave (which will be collectively referred to as ‘parental leave’ hereafter.

Although 43.4% of the overall sample (or 39.8% of female respondents and 48.3% of male respondents) indicated that they were a parent or legal guardian, only 33.4% of the total sample reported that they had previously taken some form of parental leave. Overall, a significantly larger proportion of women (38.7%) had taken parental leave compared with the proportion of men who had taken such leave (27.0%).

47October 2017


6.1.1 Differences in the factors related to career progression

Closer look: carer responsibilities

Respondents were also asked about other forms of caring responsibilities, including whether they care for another adult. The proportion of women (7.6%) who reported that they provide care for another adult was more than twice the proportion of men (3.7%) reporting this responsibility.

One respondent noted how caring for another adult is often overlooked in comparison to caring for children:

‘Caring is mostly defined as caring for young children. My children are old enough to require less care now, but I am being affected by caring for elderly parents and a sister who suffers from mental health.’

Female, pharmacy and pharmacology and toxicology

Others specifically highlighted the impact of caring responsibilities on training opportunities and ability to work away from home:

‘I have curtailed attending international conferences outside the UK because of caring responsibilities but that in part is because I do not want to leave the care of my elderly relative to anyone outside of the family.’

Female, nursing and allied health professions

This also meant that respondents needed to take leave at short notice and adopt a flexible approach to working:

‘As I care for my mum who suffers from Alzheimer’s dementia I have had to take time off at short notice and have a more flexible work pattern which has been put in place quickly and effectively for me.’

Female, biosciences

Regardless of whether respondents had previously taken parental leave, men were more likely than women to say that they:

= could relocate if needed = could count on support from their family/partner = have their work successes celebrated in their department

Among respondents who had taken parental leave, women were less likely than men to say that they are involved in the social life of their department. Not only was this gender difference not present

2.20

3.40

2.86

3.70

5.84

5.86

6.05

5.94

3.97

4.47

4.27

4.41

4.49

4.65

4.85

4.71

Able to relocateFemale has taken parental leave

Female no parental leave

Male has taken parental leave

Male no parental leave

Support from family/partnerFemale has taken parental leave




Involved in department social lifeFemale has taken parental leave




Work success celebratedFemale has taken parental leave




NeutralStrongly

agreeStronglydisagree

4.00 6.002.40 3.20 5.204.402.80 3.60 5.604.80



6.1.2 Departmental preparation for parental leave

Figure 6.1.1.1 Factors related to career progression by gender and parental leave status

among respondents who had not taken parental leave, but men and women who had not taken parental leave were more positive about their involvement in the social life of their department than men and women who had taken parental leave (see Figure 6.1.1.1).


The following analyses on the options available to prepare respondents for parental leave are limited to the subsample of respondents who reported taking parental leave (rather than those who reported having a child or children).

For each of the 11 items listed, proportionally more women had received information from their department before going on parental leave than men, regardless of whether they had explicitly asked for

49October 2017


Table 6.1.2.1 Proportion of respondents who did and did not receive or request information regarding childcare-related policies and options prior to parental leave

information (see Table 6.1.2.1). Notably, roughly one third of male respondents reported they had neither requested nor received information for all 11 options.

Policies and options related to childcare and parental leave

Female Male

Did not receive/request information

Received/requested information

Did not receive/request information

Received/requested information

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Childcare-related policies on payments and benefits

191 23.9 329 41.2 150 18.8 128 16.0

Facilities for continued baby feeding on return to work

395 51.6 111 14.5 226 29.5 34 4.4

Contacts for supporting services (eg human resources, occupational health)

238 30.0 278 35.0 191 24.1 87 11.0

Time off for antenatal appointments 198 25.3 312 39.9 203 26.0 69 8.8

Health and safety assessment 268 34.4 244 31.3 213 27.3 54 6.9

How and when to notify your institution of your intention to return to work

109 13.6 412 51.5 164 20.5 115 14.4

Workplace childcare facilities 330 41.6 189 23.8 180 22.7 95 12.0

Leave cover and handover 321 40.7 194 24.6 188 23.9 85 10.8

Keeping-in-touch days 263 33.6 252 32.2 216 27.6 52 6.6

Options for phased return/workload adjustment

299 37.9 218 27.7 215 27.3 56 7.1

Rest facilities during pregnancy 420 55.3 85 11.2 217 28.6 38 5.0

68.9

63.3

24.2

32.0

21.8

25.3

24.0

17.8

26.0

16.9

31.1

36.7

75.8

68.0

78.2

74.7

76.0

82.2

74.0

34.8 65.2

83.1

20% 40% 60% 80%

KIT days

Flexible hours

Initial part-time build to full-time

Lower initial teaching load

Lower initial administrative load

Lower initial research supervision

Lower initial clinical work load

Parents' network/support group

Additional shared parental leave

Continued baby feeding

Childcare services at workplace

Available Unavailable



Figure 6.1.3.1 Reported availability of options/resources in the department to facilitate return from parental leave

6.1.3 Departmental preparation for return from parental leave

Respondents were also asked to rate how helpful the resources and options available in their department were in facilitating their return to work. Nine of the 11 resources and options listed were not available to more than half of the respondents who had taken some form of parental leave (see Figure 6.1.3.1).

This lack of availability across the different options and resources may be why many of the respondents were not offered and did not ask for information on these prior to their parental leave (noted in the previous section).

Among respondents who had the above options available in their department, both men and women rated flexible working hours as the most helpful option in facilitating their return from parental leave. However, women were more positive than men in their ratings of how helpful this option was in preparing them to return from parental leave (see Table 6.1.3.1), suggesting that being able to adjust working hours outside the standard nine to five format was particularly useful for women with children.

Female respondents also rated the following options as being more helpful than male respondents:

= Keeping-in-Touch (KIT) days = initial part-time build to full-time = lower initial teaching load

51October 2017


6.1.4 Overall, did respondents feel prepared to return from parental leave?

Table 6.1.3.1 Perceived helpfulness of department options and resources by genderr

Department options and resources Female Male

Keeping-in-touch days* 4.93 5.32

Flexible hours* 5.99 6.25

Initial part-time* 4.37 5.47

Initial low teaching load* 4.44 4.91

Initial low admin load* 4.46 4.76

Initial low research supervision 4.33 4.30

Initial low clinical duties 4.26 4.58

Support networks 4.32 4.34

Additional shared parental leave* 4.53 4.30

Baby feeding facilities* 4.25 4.50

Childcare facilities* 4.84 4.80

* Denotes a significant gender difference in average rating.

Despite female respondents’ positive ratings of the options and resources available, they were more likely than male respondents to report feeling less prepared to return to work (on a scale of 1 to 7, see Figure 6.1.4.1). This result can appear counterintuitive as female respondents tended to have more information before going on parental leave and rated departmental resources and options as more useful than male respondents. However, it is worth noting that the average maternity leave is considerably longer than the average paternity leave. Female respondents may therefore have had greater appreciation of the resources and options available in their department than male respondents because they felt less prepared to return to work after a longer period away.

1.2

6.6

1.1

10.7

6.8

17.7

19.5

14.6

15.4

22.0

37.9

22.6

18.2

5.9

10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Extremely underpreparedFemale

Male

UnderpreparedFemale

Male

Somewhat underpreparedFemale

Male

NeutralFemale

Male

Somewhat preparedFemale

Male

PreparedFemale

Male

Extremely preparedFemale

Male



6.2 Career breaks

Figure 6.1.4.1 Ratings of feeling prepared to return from parental leave by gender

The ASSET 2016 survey included a section concerning whether respondents had previously taken a career break, defined as a period of leave following a resignation or unenforced departure at the end of a contract that does not include periods of maternity, paternity, adoption, shared parental, other parental or sick leave.

Just under one tenth of respondents in biosciences and medical sciences reported having taken a career break (9.4%). However, proportionally more women (10.6%) had taken career breaks than men (7.7%).

3.73

4.11

5.18

4.05

Has taken parental leaveFemale

Male

Has not taken parental leaveFemale

Male

Neutral EasierMore di�cult

4.003.603.20 5.20 5.604.40 4.80

53October 2017


Figure 6.2.1 Difficulty returning to work by gender and parental leave status

The majority of respondents’ career breaks lasted less than 12 months (44.2%), but there was a considerable number of respondents who reported breaks of one to two years (30.2%), three to five years (11.6%) or more than five years (14.0%). However, the proportion of women who took career breaks that were more than five years long (17.4%) was more than twice the proportion of men taking a career break of that duration (7.7%). In general, respondents who had taken longer career breaks (ie three or more years) found it more difficult to return to work and were more negative in their ratings of how a career break had impacted their career progression than respondents who had taken shorter career breaks (ie under two years).

However, an interesting contrast was revealed when respondents who had taken a career break were considered separately from respondents who had taken both a career break and some form of parental leave: women who had taken both parental leave and a career break found it more difficult to return to work and were more negative in their ratings of the impact on their career progression than men who had taken both forms of leave, as well as men and women who had only taken a career break (see Figures 6.2.1 and Figure 6.2.2, respectively).


2.76

3.56

4.65

3.55

Has taken parental leaveFemale

Male

Has not taken parental leaveFemale

Male

Neutral EasierMore di�cult

4.003.603.202.80 5.204.40 4.80



6.3 Beyond the gender gap: how do caring responsibilities and career breaks differ for STEMM academics belonging to more than one underrepresented group?

Figure 6.2.2 Impact of a career break on career progression by gender and parental leave status


Case study: career breaks in psychology and behavioural sciences

In contrast to the full sample, similar proportions of men (7.5%) and women (9.0%) in psychology and behavioural sciences reported that they had previously taken a career break. Additionally, men and women in this sub-discipline did not significantly differ in:

= the duration of their career breaks = their ratings of how difficult it was to return to work = their ratings of how taking a career break had impacted their

career progression


Among white and BME respondents alike, the majority of those who had taken parental leave were women (65.8% and 67.7%, respectively). However, the proportion of white female respondents who had access to KIT days and flexible working hours was significantly larger than the proportion of BME female respondents with access to these two options (see Figure 6.3.1.1).

60.9

71.7

59.8

71.4

Keeping-in-touch daysBME female

White female

Flexible hoursBME female

White female

10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

55October 2017


Figure 6.3.1.1 Difference in the percentage of BME and white female respondents with access to KIT days and flexible working hours when returning from parental leave

With regards to the helpfulness of options to facilitate a return from parental leave, there were several options that white female respondents rated more positively than BME female respondents, including flexible working hours, reduced administrative duties upon return from leave, support networks, baby feeding facilities and childcare facilities (see Figure 6.3.1.2). Taken together, these results suggest that BME women may not have the same level of or use for support available to them after parental leave.

5.74

6.29

6.13

5.95

4.19

4.86

4.90

4.32

3.74

4.46

4.76

4.23

3.67

4.65

5.00

4.09

4.14

4.92

5.15

4.77

Flexible working hoursBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Initial low administrative loadBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Support networkBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Baby feeding facilitiesBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Childcare facilitiesBME female

White female

BME male

White male

NeutralStrongly

agree

4.00 6.00 6.40 6.803.20 5.204.403.60 5.604.80



Figure 6.3.1.2 Options and resources to facilitate return from leave by gender and ethnicity


57October 2017



The proportion of respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (33.7%) who had taken parental leave was similar to the proportion of respondents who disclosed as disabled who had taken parental leave (29.3%). However, the majority of respondents taking parental leave were women, regardless of whether they had or had not disclosed as disabled (68.8% and 65.6%, respectively). Notably, there were no additional differences in how men and women who had and had not disclosed as disabled rated the availability and helpfulness of the options and resources intended to facilitate return from parental leave.

Proportionally more male respondents who disclosed as disabled (11.4%) had taken a career break than male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (7.0%). In contrast, there was no difference in the proportion of women who disclosed as disabled (10.8%) and the proportion of women who had not disclosed as disabled (10.5%) who had taken a career break. Additionally, of those who had taken a career break, the career breaks of men who disclosed as disabled tended to be longer than those of men who had not disclosed as disabled. Specifically, the proportion of male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (46.3%) who had taken a career break less than one year long was almost twice that of men who had disclosed as disabled (26.1%). In contrast, the majority of men who disclosed as disabled (52.2%) had taken a career break that was between one to two years long (compared with 38.8% of men who had not disclosed as disabled). Although taking a longer career break was associated with experiencing greater difficulty returning to work in general, men who had and had not disclosed as disabled reported similar experiences of returning to work. Moreover, men who disclosed as disabled and men who had not disclosed as disabled were both slightly negative in their ratings of how taking a career break had impacted their career, regardless of the duration of their career breaks. Taken together, these results suggest that the impact of a career break most likely depends on it lasting more than two years, rather than disability status per se.


7.1 Training opportunities


The ASSET 2016 survey also sought to examine whether the nature of respondents’ previous training opportunities, as well as access to such training opportunities, differed by gender.

Respondents were asked whether or not they had received formal training in ten areas relevant for career development:

= administrative tasks related to management = postgraduate supervision = leadership = professional development = grant application skills = teaching = project/planning/financial management skills = equality and diversity training (student issues) = equality and diversity training (staff issues) = unconscious bias training

Out of these ten areas, the only training opportunity that men and women in medical and biosciences reported having similar experience in was teaching. In all other areas, the proportions of male respondents who reported that they had received training were significantly larger than the proportions of female respondents that had received training (see Figure 7.1.1).

30.6

45.3

51.1

59.2

31.2

39.7

44.9

48.9

29.3

34.7

51.7

50.3

17.3

24.6

47.5

51.9

55.2

68.1

34.5

39.9

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 70%60%Admin related to managementFemale

Male

Postgraduate supervisionFemale

Male

LeadershipFemale

Male

Professional developmentFemale

Male

Grant application skillsFemale

Male

TeachingFemale

Male

Project/�nancial managementFemale

Male

Equality and diversity (students)Female

Male

Equality and diversity (sta�)Female

Male

Unconscious biasFemale

Male

59October 2017


Figure 7.1.1 Training opportunities by gender

58.3

44.6

23.1

16.7

4.7

2.9

15.6

10.0

13.7

8.1

14.1

3.9

7.0

4.1

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%TimeFemale

Male

CostsFemale

Male

IneligibleFemale

Male

Not o�ered by institutionFemale

Male

Not relevant to positionFemale

Male

Caring responsibiltiesFemale

Male

Obstructive line managerFemale

Male



Figure 7.2.1 Training barriers by gender

7.2 Training barriers The ASSET 2016 survey also asked respondents to indicate whether they had experienced any of 18 possible barriers to training in the last 12 months. Compared with men, larger proportions of women reported that the following barriers had blocked their access to training that they needed or wanted in the last 12 months: time, costs, eligibility, availability, relevance caring responsibilities and having an obstructive or unhelpful line manager (see Figure 7.2.1).

There was only one gender difference present across the barriers related to protected characteristics: the proportion of male respondents who reported that their marital or civil partnership

61October 2017


Table 7.2.1 Training barriers related to protected characteristics by gender

status had blocked their access to training that they had needed or wanted in the last 12 months was larger than the proportion of female respondents who experienced this barrier (see Table 7.2.1).

Training barrier Female Male

No. %† No. %†

Accent or language skills 10 0.7 7 0.6

Age 56 3.7 33 3.0

Disability 12 0.8 4 0.4

Dress or appearance 4 0.3 10 0.9

Ethnicity or race 22 1.5 9 0.8

Gender identity 12 0.8 6 0.5

Marital or civil partnership status* 8 0.5 14 1.3

Religion or belief 1 0.1 7 0.6

Sex 4 0.3 4 0.4

Sexual orientation 2 0.1 2 0.2

* A significant difference between average ratings from male and female respondents † Within each gender, the proportion of respondents who experienced that training barrier

Case study: training experiences across individual sub-disciplines

To explore whether male and female respondents’ training experiences differed across sub-disciplines, the total number of opportunities and barriers reported by each respondent were summed into two separate scores, one representing their total training opportunities (range 0 to 10) and another representing their total training barriers (range 0 to 18). Averages of these summed scores were used to compare men and women’s training experiences within the individual sub-disciplines as well as across sub-disciplines.

On average, respondents in clinical medicine and dentistry and nursing and allied professions had received more training than respondents in biosciences and psychology and behavioural sciences, even when respondents’ age and current post were

3.10

3.58

3.18

3.40

3.41

4.55

3.80

3.60

BiosciencesFemale

Male

Psychology and behavioural Female

Male

Clinical medicine and dentistryFemale

Male

Nursing and allied professionsFemale

Male

Average number of training opportunities

4.0 5.03.02.01.0



taken into account. However, the only significant gender difference in respondents’ training opportunities was limited to respondents in clinical medicine and dentistry (see Figure 7.1.2). In other words, the total training opportunities of male and female respondents were not significantly different if respondents were in the biosciences, psychology and behavioural sciences or nursing and allied professions.

Figure 7.2.2 Training opportunities by gender and sub-discipline


Taking a closer look at the individual training opportunities revealed that, in clinical medicine and dentistry, the only training area in which there was no difference between the proportions of men and women was teaching. Notably, the largest gaps were between the proportions of men and women who had obtained training in the administrative tasks related to management and equality and diversity for staff issues. In contrast, gender differences in training opportunities in the other sub-disciplines tended to be limited to one or two areas (out of ten in total). Finally, it is worth noting that across the ten training areas listed, men and women tended to have experience in three to four training areas on average.

1.43

1.00

1.42

1.01

1.46

0.85

1.45

1.10

BiosciencesFemale

Male

Psychology and behavioural Female

Male

Clinical medicine and dentistryFemale

Male

Nursing and allied professionsFemale

Male

Average total of training barriers

4.0 5.03.02.01.0

63October 2017


7.3 Beyond the gender gap: how do differences in training opportunities and barriers differ across other characteristics?

In contrast to respondents’ total training opportunities, there were significant gender differences in respondents’ total training barriers across all four sub-discipline (see Figure 7.2.3). Notably, in taking a look at the individual training barriers experienced by men and women within each sub-discipline, the only barriers that were consistently reported by more women than men were related to availability of training in their institution and caring responsibilities. In other words, proportionally more women than men were unable to access training that they needed or wanted because it was not available in their institution, regardless of their discipline. The same was true for caring responsibilities; this barrier was reported by significantly more women than men within each of the four sub-disciplines.

Figure 7.2.3 Training barriers by gender and sub-discipline


The proportions of BME men who had received grant application and unconscious bias training were significantly larger than the proportions of BME women, white women and white men who had received these types of training (see Figure 7.3.1.1). In addition, the proportion of BME women who had obtained training in

32.7

28.8

47.1

32.9

38.5

33.9

56.2

37.5

63.4

49.2

58.2

59.3

55.6

46.3

48.4

52.4

24.9

32.2

44.4

39.0

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Grant application skillsBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Unconscious biasBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Postgraduate supervisionBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Equality and diversity (students)BME female

White female

BME male

White male

LeadershipBME female

White female

BME male

White male



Figure 7.3.1.1 Training opportunities by gender and ethnicity

postgraduate supervision and equality and diversity (student issues) was larger than the proportion of white women who had received these types of training. In contrast, compared with BME women, proportionally more white women had received leadership training. Notably however, both BME men and white men declared they had received more leadership training than women, regardless of ethnicity.

65October 2017



Many of the gender differences in the training barriers experienced by men and women were limited to white respondents, including those related to:

= cost constraints = training not being offered at their institution = training not being relevant

Conversely, the gender differences in the above training barriers were not present among BME men and women.

Many of the gender differences in the proportions of men and women who had received training in the 10 areas listed were limited to respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, including:

= postgraduate supervision = grant applications = project/financial management = equality and diversity (students) = equality and diversity (staff)

Notably, while 57.7% of the men who disclosed as disabled had obtained teacher training, only 48.8% of the men who had not disclosed as disabled had obtained this form of training. In contrast, the proportion of men who had not disclosed as disabled (41.6%) who reported that they had received leadership training was significantly larger than the proportion of men who disclosed as disabled (30.3%), women who disclosed as disabled (29.2%) and women who had not disclosed as disabled (31.7%). Lastly, proportionally more women who disclosed as disabled (39.6%) had received unconscious bias training compared with the proportion of women who had not disclosed as disabled (33.4%).

Regarding barriers to training, the difference between the proportions of men (2.1%) and women (4.4%) who disclosed as disabled who reported that their disability had blocked their access to training was not significant.

As seen in Figure 7.3.2.1, the proportion of women who disclosed as disabled who reported that training not being offered at their institution had blocked their access to training was larger than the proportion of women who had not disclosed as disabled. Similarly, compared with women who had not disclosed as disabled,



proportionally more women who disclosed as disabled said that their age had blocked their access to training in the last 12 months.

The proportion of men who had not disclosed as disabled who reported that they could not obtain training needed or wanted because of time constraints was significantly smaller than the proportion of men who had disclosed as disabled, women who had disclosed as disabled and women who had not disclosed as disabled. Men who had not disclosed as disabled were also the least likely to report that an obstructive or unhelpful line manager had blocked their access to training compared with all other groups.

60.5

57.8

54.0

42.6

28.7

21.9

23.0

15.4

3.7

4.8

4.7

2.4

7.3

3.0

4.8

2.5

20.4

14.5

13.1

9.3

19.6

12.4

12.4

7.2

12.6

14.5

2.4

4.2

8.8

6.6

8.4

3.2

TimeDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

CostsDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

IneligibleDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

AgeDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

Not o�ered by institutionDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

Not relevant to positionDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

Caring responsibiltiesDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

Obstructive line managerDisabled femaleNon-disabled femaleDisabled maleNon-disabled male

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

67October 2017


Figure 7.3.2.1 Training barriers by gender and disability status


8.1 Explicit encouragement or invitation for promotion


The final section of the ASSET 2016 survey asked respondents to describe how their current department encourages them to develop their careers and their intentions for the future of their careers.

Similar to the results surrounding recruitment methods in section 4, the proportion of male respondents (60.2%) who reported that they had been encouraged or invited to apply for a promotion or post at a higher grade was significantly larger than the proportion of female respondents (48.3%) who reported this experience.

Closer look: lack of women at the top

A number of respondents noted that men were more likely to possess characteristics associated with promotion, such as having the confidence to apply:

‘I think there is gender bias in senior positions because the process of promotion and progression suits men more than women (men are more likely to put themselves forward) rather than active discrimination.’


Others commented on the impact of generational change:

‘Junior or early career researchers seem to be more women. More men in senior roles. Perhaps a reflection of changing times (more equality now than in past so now more women, so will see more women in senior posts in future), or perhaps a reflection of women dropping out before furthering their career due to family commitments?’


With gender equality initiatives, women may now find it easier to get promotion than men:

69October 2017


8.2 Department’s encouragement of career development

‘Historically men dominated most of the leadership positions and were more represented at the top academic ranks. Now with the Athena Swan, it is much easier for women to be promoted than men. As if different standards apply for the promotion of men and women which gave women an advantage. It is reasonable to give women more opportunity to balance gender representation at the top of the hierarchy. However, applying explicitly different standards/ requirements for promotion of men and women impacts on the morale of everyone.’

Male, clinical dentistry

Each of the analyses exploring gender differences in departmental encouragement for career development took into account whether respondents had previously been invited to apply for promotion.

In general, men and women felt similarly encouraged by their department to undertake activities that contribute to their career development (see Figure 8.2.1). Nonetheless, compared with their female colleagues, male respondents were more likely to enjoy:

= opportunities to serve on important departmental committees = feeling that their department values their research = feeling that their department values their external professional

activities = access to senior departmental staff

4.97

4.85

2.94

2.95

5.06

4.51

5.27

4.89

5.01

4.99

4.85

4.52

5.39

4.95

5.46

5.35

4.20

4.14

Encouraged to develop careerFemale

Male

Formally assigned mentorFemale

Male

Served on important committeesFemale

Male

Research is valuedFemale

Male

Su�cient adminstrative experienceFemale

Male

External activities are valuedFemale

Male

Accessible senior sta�Female

Male

Supportive line managerFemale

Male

Useful and valued appraisalFemale

Male

NeutralSomewhat

agreeSomewhat

disagree

4.003.202.80 5.20 5.604.403.60 4.80



Figure 8.2.1 Ratings of departmental support for career development by gender


71October 2017


Differences between men’s and women’s ratings of the remaining career development items presented in Figure 8.2.1 were not statistically significant. However, on average, it appears that both men and women in medical and biosciences tended to report that they did not have a formally assigned mentor.

Closer look: influence of informal masculine networks

Respondents described the ongoing influences of informal, masculine networks on department decision-making. These networks were also associated with a macho culture that did not support women from advancing:

‘I feel that I am in a department that supports female academics well, in a school where macho behaviour and aggressiveness towards members of my department have dissuaded capable female colleagues from seeking leadership positions.’

Male, psychology and behavioural sciences

However, membership of informal networks was not necessarily open to all men:

‘I think more than a problem with sexual differences, the real problem is the pre-existing old boy network. The problem is generational, people in established roles (45+) tend to be male, white and likely attended public school. This is a legacy of more sexual, racial and class based unequal times. The problem is this is never taken into consideration when statistics are produced to look at equality. It is equally hard for an 18-40 year old male to get a job as an 18-40 year old female. In some cases it is harder due to positive discrimination.’

Male, biosciences

As this respondent noted, she believed that her identity as an LGB female had given her access to networks that normally excluded women:

‘I am a lesbian, and I think this is an asset. I’m more one of the boys because of this. Conversely, I think it would be detrimental to be a gay man.’

Female, psychology and behavioural sciences



Case study: gender imbalance in departmental support for career development across sub-disciplines

Among respondents in psychology and behavioural sciences, the difference between the proportions of men (53.7%) and women (45.7%) who had been invited or encouraged to apply for promotion was not significant. This was also true for men and women in nursing and allied professions (55.2% and 53.1%, respectively). In contrast, the proportions of men in clinical medicine and dentistry (70.7%) and biosciences (53.3%) who reported that they had been invited to apply for promotion were significantly larger than the proportions of women reporting this in these sub-disciplines (53.4% and 40.3%, respectively).

When asked about the ways in which their department has previously supports their career development, men in clinical medicine and dentistry were more likely to enjoy:

= feeling encouraged to develop their careers = having a formally assigned mentor that they see saw regularly = opportunities to serve on important committees = feeling that their department values their research = feeling that their department values their external professional

activities = having sufficient administrative experience = access to senior staff = a supportive line manager = feeling that their appraisal was useful and valuable

Conversely, the advantages experienced by men in the other sub-disciplines were limited to one to three areas. Specifically, compared with women in biosciences, men in biosciences were more likely to have opportunities to serve on important departmental committees, access to senior staff and feel that their research was valued. Among respondents in nursing and allied professions, men were more likely to have a formally assigned mentor than women. The opposite was true in psychology and behavioural sciences, with women being more likely to have a formally assigned mentor than men; however, men in psychology and behavioural sciences were more likely to report that their research was valued than women in this sub-discipline.

4.50

4.07

3.81

4.57

Desire to obtain management postFemale

Male

Expect to obtain management postFemale

Male

Neutral AgreeDisagree

4.00 4.40 4.803.603.20

73October 2017


Figure 8.3.1 Ratings of desire to obtain senior management post versus expectations by gender

8.3 Plans for future career Women reported a stronger desire to obtain a senior management post in their institutions than men did (see Figure 8.3.1), even when other factors were taken into account, including respondent’s age, current post and previous invitation to apply for a promotion.


However, the situation surrounding respondents’ own expectations of obtaining a senior post was more complex. Specifically, gender differences in respondents’ expectations varied depending on their current post (see Figure 8.3.2). Male respondents who were currently the senior function head, head of their school/division/department or the head of a major academic area had higher expectations for their careers than female respondents in these roles. In contrast, female respondents who were centre directors or professors had higher expectations for obtaining a senior role in their institution than male respondents in these posts. Finally, there was no difference in the expectations of men and women in early career posts.

4.57

5.44

3.64

4.92

3.31

3.00

3.60

4.09

3.62

4.63

3.48

3.18

3.47

2.55

2.96

2.60

1.89

4.67

2.50

Female Male

Head/director of academic area

Head of school/department

Centre director

Senior function head

Professor

Associate professor

Function head

Senior lecturer (pre-1992)

Reader, principal research fellow

Clinical scientist fellow

Senior lecturer (post-1992)

Lecturer

Clinical lecturer

Teaching fellow

Researcher, research fellow

Post-doc, PDRA

Research assistant

Teaching assistant

Technical sta�

Neutral AgreeDisagree

2.00 3.00 5.004.00

3.81

4.76

5.06

3.60

4.13

3.51

3.40

3.42

3.55

3.09

2.93

3.37

3.78

3.23

3.04

2.52

2.29

4.00

2.11



Figure 8.3.2 Expectations to obtain senior management post by gender and current post


75October 2017


The final item in this section asked respondents whether they wanted to continue a career in STEMM (within or outside higher education) or continue in a field outside STEMM. While the difference between the proportions of male (3.5%) and female respondents (4.1%) who indicated that they did not want to continue a career in STEMM was not significant, proportionally more women (7.0%) than men (4.4%) said that they would like to continue their career in STEMM but outside of higher education. Still, the overwhelming majority of both male and female respondents reported that they wanted to remain in STEMM and within higher education (92.1% and 88.9%, respectively).

Case study: gender differences in intentions for future careers vary between sub-disciplines

The gender difference in respondents’ desire to obtain a senior management post was limited to men and women in clinical medicine and dentistry. In other words, men and women in biosciences, psychology and behavioural sciences and nursing and allied disciplines reported similar desires for obtaining a senior post in their institution. Regarding their expectations, however, there were no significant gender differences between men and women’s ratings of how much they expected to obtain a senior post in any of the sub-disciplines.

Similar to the overall sample, larger proportions of women in psychology and behavioural sciences (8.2%) and nursing and allied professions (3.7%) indicated that they would like to continue their career in STEMM outside of higher education compared with men in these sub-disciplines (0.9% and 0.7%, respectively). However this was not the case for men and women in biosciences (8.1% and 10.7%, respectively) or clinical medicine and dentistry (3.0% and 5.6%, respectively). Finally, the proportion of women in nursing and allied professions (6.7%) reporting that they did not want to continue their career in STEMM was also larger than the proportion of men in nursing and allied professions with this intention (1.4%).




8.4 Beyond the gender gap: do individuals belonging to more than one underrepresented group experience a unique path through the promotion and development process?


The proportion of white male respondents (62.4%) that had been encouraged or invited to apply for promotion was considerably larger than the proportion of BME male respondents (45.4%), BME female respondents (47.7%) and white female respondents (48.3%) who had been directly encouraged or invited to apply for promotion.

Regarding respondents’ ratings of their department’s support for career development, the gap between men and women’s experiences was particularly pronounced amongst BME respondents. Specifically, BME women were the least likely to enjoy:


activities = having sufficient administrative experience = access to senior departmental staff = having a supportive line manager = feeling that their appraisal was useful or valuable

Nonetheless, BME women were the most likely to say that they would like to obtain a senior management post (compared with white women, BME men and white men). However, this desire was not reflected in their expectations as there were no significant differences in respondents’ expectations for obtaining a senior post, regardless of ethnicity and gender.

Finally, proportionally more BME men (8.5%), BME women (7.0%) and white women (6.9%) said that they would like to continue their careers in STEMM outside of higher education than white men (3.7%) reporting this intention.

Men were more likely to have been invited or encouraged to apply for promotion than women, regardless of their disability status (see Figure 8.4.2.1).

45.3

49.0

57.8

60.6

Encouraged to apply for promotionDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

20% 40% 60%

77October 2017


Figure 8.4.2.1 Proportion of respondents invited or encouraged to apply for promotion by gender and disability status

Compared with respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, respondents who disclosed as disabled were less likely to enjoy:

= feeling encouraged by their department to undertake activities that contribute to career development

= a formally assigned mentor that they see regularly = opportunities to serve on important departmental committees = feeling that their department values their research = feeling that their department values their external professional

activities = access to senior departmental staff = having a supportive line manager = feeling that their appraisal was useful or valuable

These differences related to disability status were present across both genders and persisted even when respondent’s age and whether or not they had previously been encouraged to apply for promotion were taken into account.

Despite describing their departments as being less supportive of their career development, respondents who disclosed as disabled reported similar desires and expectations to obtain a senior post in their institution as respondents who had not disclosed as disabled. However, the proportions of men and women who disclosed as disabled (7.5% and 7.1%, respectively) who did not want to continue a career in STEMM were more than twice as large as the proportions of men and women who had not disclosed as disabled (2.6% and 3.4%, respectively).


9.1 Key gender differences in biosciences and medicine compared with STEMM sciences in general

9 Conclusion

The current report explored gender differences in the experiences and perceptions of male and female academics in biosciences and medicine. This section begins with a summary of these experiences, as well as a discussion of the instances where the experiences of respondents in biosciences and medicine diverged from those in the full ASSET 2016 sample. Next, an overview of the intersections between gender and ethnicity and gender and disability status are presented. Finally, the section closes with a selection of recommendations that are particularly relevant to the unique experiences of academics in biosciences and medicine.

For the most part, the multiple disadvantages identified by female STEMM academics in the full ASSET 2016 report (ECU 2017) were consistent within the sample of respondents working in the academic disciplines encompassed by biosciences and medicine.

Compared with men, women in biosciences and medicine:

= were underrepresented in senior posts and overrepresented in early career positions

= were more likely to be on fixed-term, part-time or teaching-only contracts

= were more likely to have taken parental leave and less likely to feel prepared to return from parental leave

= were less likely to have obtained their current post through a formal promotion

= rated their department as being less committed to gender equality

= felt that men had an advantage in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem

= considered it easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department

= were less likely to perceive their environment as supportive and their department as transparent and fair in the allocation of resources

= were less likely to spend time on research-related tasks, though they did appreciate that these tasks positively contributed to the average academic career

= rated the impact of having a family/children, protected characteristics

79October 2017

9 Conclusion

and administrative duties on the average academic career more negatively

= felt that their sex, gender identity, age and caring responsibilities had negatively impacted their own career progression

= experienced more contextual barriers (eg time, costs, eligibility) to obtaining training that they needed or wanted in the last 12 months

= were less likely to have been explicitly encouraged or invited to apply for promotion

However, there was a handful of key differences between the full sample and the biosciences and medicine subsample that are worth highlighting.

The first two differences relate to respondents’ opinions surrounding teaching and administrative duties. Across the individual sections, the ASSET 2016 survey included a number of items designed to gauge the importance of teaching and administrative tasks, as well as how much time respondents spent on these tasks, how much they were valued by their department and the impact these tasks were perceived to have on career progression. Within the full sample, female respondents reported significant disadvantages in each section of the survey and many of these disadvantages remained when the subsample of respondents in biosciences and medicine were considered separately. For example, the proportion of female respondents in biosciences and medicine on teaching-only contracts (47.3%) was similar to that reported for the full sample (42.2%). There was a similar parallel between the full sample and respondents in biosciences and medicine regarding the impact of teaching and administrative duties on the average academic career, with women rating the impact of these factors more negatively than men in both cases. However, in contrast to the results reported for the full sample, men and women in biosciences and medicine reported spending similar portions of their time on teaching-related duties. Moreover, the perceived advantage for men in the allocation of additional academic duties (such as those related to teaching, administrative and pastoral tasks) reported by women in the full sample was not present among the subsample of female respondents in biosciences and medicine. It is possible that the demands related to teaching and administrative tasks were not as demanding in these disciplines, as men and women in biosciences and medicine spent less time on these tasks on average and were less negative about their impact on


9 Conclusion

9.2 Summary of intersectional results

the average academic career compared with the full sample.

The next series of contrasts between the results for the full sample and the subsample of respondents in biosciences and medicine pertain to their experiences regarding promotion and development. Specifically, men and women in biosciences and medicine felt similarly encouraged by their department to undertake activities that would contribute to their career development. In particular, men and women were similarly likely to:

= have a formally assigned mentor = feel that they had sufficient administrative experience = have a supportive line manager = consider their appraisal useful and valuable

Aside from the utility of their appraisals, male respondents in the full sample were more likely to agree with each of the above statements than female respondents. However, it is worth noting that despite the greater similarity in how men and women in biosciences and medicine rated their department’s encouragement of their career development, differences between their intentions for their future careers remained.

9.2.1 Gender and ethnicity

There was considerable overlap in the results surrounding the intersection between gender and ethnicity among respondents in biosciences and medicine and those for the full sample. Across each aspect of working life, BME women reported at least one disadvantage compared with white women, BME men and white men. Specifically, BME women:

= were the least likely to have had leadership training = were the least represented as head of their school, division or

department = perceived a greater advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and

resources related to professional development and markers of esteem = tended to have fewer women on their interview panels = rated the impact of protected characteristics on the average

academic career most negatively = felt that their ethnicity had negatively impacted their own career

progression

81October 2017

9 Conclusion


= had less access to KIT days and flexible working hours while on parental leave

In addition to the above, there was a particular divergence in BME women’s experiences surrounding promotion and development compared with their white female, white male and BME male colleagues. BME women were the least likely to enjoy:


activities = having sufficient administrative experience = access to senior departmental staff = having a supportive line manager = feeling that their appraisal was useful or valuable

Taken together, these results suggest that BME female respondents in biosciences and medicine experienced compounded disadvantage across each aspect of working life.

Compared with the compounded disadvantage identified for BME women, the pattern that emerged across the intersection between gender and disability status was less clear. In general, the pattern of results in the sample of respondents in biosciences and medicine was consistent with that identified in the full ASSET 2016 sample: academics who had disclosed as disabled experienced more difficulties and disadvantages than their colleagues who had not disclosed as disabled. For instance, respondents who disclosed as disabled rated their departments as less committed to gender equality than respondents who had not disclosed as disabled and were less positive about the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their departments and institutions. Respondents who disclosed as disabled also had very different promotion experiences in their departments. Compared with respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, respondents who disclosed as disabled:

= felt less encouraged by their department to undertake activities that contribute to career development

= were less likely to have a formally assigned mentor that they saw regularly

= enjoyed fewer opportunities to serve on important departmental committees


9 Conclusion

9.3 Recommendations

= did not feel that their department placed particular value on their research or external professional activities

= had reduced access to senior departmental staff = were more likely to have an unsupportive line manager = were less positive about the utility and value of their appraisals

However, there were a handful of instances where the experience of disadvantages related to disability was limited to women. For example, women who disclosed as disabled were not only the least likely group to have been formally promoted to their current post, but also more likely to be in early career positions, on a part-time or teaching only contract and earning a lower salary on average than men who had disclosed as disabled, women who had not disclosed as disabled and men who had not disclosed as disabled. Beyond their current posts, women who disclosed as disabled were the most negative in their ratings of the impact of sex, disability status, caring responsibilities and age on their own career progression, compared with all other groups. These unique experiences of women who disclosed as disabled highlight how being part of multiple underrepresented groups may compound or exacerbate the experience of gender inequality.

The following recommendations are driven by respondents’ reported experiences of gender equality and reinforced by their description of these experiences in the open-ended questions of the ASSET 2016 survey. While these recommendations are phrased in terms of alleviating discrepancies between men and women’s experiences in general, many could be adapted or used as a starting point for addressing the imbalances specific to the physical sciences or other imbalances, such as those related to the intersections between gender and ethnicity and gender and disability status.

= Develop mentoring or sponsorship programmes to increase the visibility of staff in early career posts (eg by increasing exposure to senior staff, clarifying promotion processes and providing opportunities to serve on departmental committees) (ECU 2012).

= Ensure academic contracts accommodate flexible working policies.

= Establish a set budget (time and money) for training programmes.

= Establish transparent workload allocation models that promote balance in the distribution of research, teaching and administrative duties among staff.

83October 2017

9 Conclusion

= Promote the development of supportive and career progressing networks (examples of good practice available in an ECU 2017 report for HEFCE).

= Ensure all staff have opportunities to engage with senior departmental staff

= Explore options to offer analogous leave to staff caring for another adult to that offered to staff caring for children.

= Provide staff returning from parental or carer leave with additional options such as a low initial teaching or administrative workloads.

= Expand promotion criteria to include performance in other professional skills such as teaching and administrative experience.

= Reduce variability in the amount and type of support provided by line managers by ensuring that (i) line management duties are evenly distributed, (ii) line managers have the opportunity to develop their management skills (eg through management training programmes or unconscious bias training), and (iii) motivating line managers to prioritise these duties by increasing their accountability and adding incentives for being a good line manager.


10 References

ECU (2012) Mentoring: progressing women’s careers in higher education. Equality Challenge Unit, London. www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/mentoring-progressing-womens-careers-in-higher-education

ECU (2015) Equality in higher education: statistical report 2015: part 1: staff. Equality Challenge Unit, London. www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-higher-education-statistical-report-2015

ECU (2016) Equality in higher education: staff statistical report 2016. Equality Challenge Unit, London. www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-in-higher-education-statistical-report-2016

ECU (2017) ASSET 2016: experiences of gender equality in STEMM academia and their intersections with ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability and age. Equality Challenge Unit, London. www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/asset-2016

HEFCE commissioned report by ECU (2017) Findings: Sector-leading and innovative practice in advancing equality and diversity. Higher Education Funding Council for England, Bristol. www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2017/edpractice

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/mentoring-progressing-womens-careers-in-higher-education

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/mentoring-progressing-womens-careers-in-higher-education

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-higher-education-statistical-report-2015

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-higher-education-statistical-report-2015

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-in-higher-education-statistical-report-2016

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/equality-in-higher-education-statistical-report-2016

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/asset-2016

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/asset-2016

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2017/edpractice

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rereports/year/2017/edpractice

85October 2017

Table 1.1.1 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and gender

1.1 Gender

Appendix: sample characteristics

Sub-discipline ASSET 2016 HESA 2014/15 staff recordsFemale Male Female Male

No. % % No. % % No. % % No. % %

Anatomy and physiology and pathology 53 3.5 51.5 50 4.4 48.5 787 2.5 48.8 825 3.2 51.2

Biosciences 429 28.0 53.5 373 32.7 46.5 6097 19.0 44.4 7643 29.2 55.6

Clinical dentistry 45 2.9 58.4 32 2.8 41.6 664 2.1 44.1 841 3.2 55.9

Clinical medicine 387 25.2 48.3 415 36.4 51.7 12478 38.9 52.9 11089 42.4 47.1

Nursing and allied professionals 385 25.1 73.3 140 12.3 26.7 7168 22.4 75.1 2378 9.1 24.9

Pharmacy and pharmacology and toxicology

49 3.2 51.0 47 4.1 49.0 1061 3.3 48.9 1108 4.2 51.1

Psychology and behavioural sciences 211 13.8 63.7 120 10.5 36.3 3817 11.9 60.3 2516 9.6 39.7

Veterinary science 27 1.8 67.5 13 1.1 32.5 759 2.4 55.8 600 2.3 44.2

Total 1533 100 57.4 1140 100 42.6 32044 100 55.0 26175 100 45.0

Source HESA 2014/15 staff records (ECU 2016).



Table 1.2.2 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by ethnic group

Table 1.2.1 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and ethnicity

1.2 Ethnicity

Sub-discipline ASSET 2016 HESA 2014/15 staff recordsBME White BME White

No. % % No. % % No. % % No. % %


Biosciences 77 28.0 9.6 725 32.7 90.4 1662 19.0 13.2 10917 29.2 86.8





29 3.2 30.2 67 4.1 69.8 379 3.3 19.0 1615 4.2 81.0



Total 1533 100 57.4 1140 100 42.6 32044 100 55.0 26175 100 45.0


ASSET 2016 HESA 2014/15 staff records

No. % No. %

White 2411 86.9 47202 86.1

BME total 364 13.1 7648 13.9

Black 22 0.8 785 1.4

Asian 142 5.1 3530 6.4

Chinese 36 1.3 1524 2.8

Mixed 68 2.5 902 1.6

Other 96 3.5 907 1.7

Total 2775 100.0 54850 100.0


87October 2017


Table 1.3.2 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by impairment type

Table 1.3.1 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and disability status

1.3 Disability

Sub-discipline ASSET 2016 HESA 2014/15 staff recordsHad not disclosed as disabled

Disclosed as disabled

Had not disclosed as disabled

Disclosed as disabled

No. % % No. % % No. % % No. % %


Biosciences 674 29.5 84.0 128 26.1 16.0 13361 19.0 97.2 378 29.2 2.8





76 3.3 80.0 19 3.9 20.0 2118 3.3 97.7 50 4.2 2.3



Total 2284 100 82.3 491 100 17.7 32044 100 55.0 26175 100 45.0


ASSET 2016 HESA 2014/15 staff records

No. % No. %

Had not disclosed as disabled 2223 80.1 57805 97.2

Disclosed as disabled 552 19.9 1,643 2.8

Blind or serious visual impairment 21 0.8 44 0.1

Communication or social impairment 7 0.3 17 0.0

Deaf or serious hearing impairment 24 0.9 117 0.2

General learning difficulty 0 0.0 10 0.0

Long-standing illness or health condition

129 4.6 500 0.8

Mental health condition 141 5.1 163 0.3

Physical impairment or mobility issues 23 0.8 210 0.4

Specific learning difficulty 93 3.4 419 0.7

Other 114 4.1 163 0.3

Total 2775 100.0 59448 100.0



Index

Table 2.3.1 Individual sub-disciplines by gender 11

Table 2.5.4.1 Sample sizes by gender and protected characteristic of interest 13

Table 3.1.1 Ratings of department’s commitment to gender equality 15

Figure 3.1.1 Ratings of department gender distribution by gender 16

Figure 3.2.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender 17

Figure 3.3.1 Proportion of respondents’ ratings of ease in obtaining senior post by gender 19

Figure 3.5.1.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender and ethnicity 22

Figure 4.1.1 Recruitment method by gender 24

Table 4.3.1 Breakdown of summary scores and average ratings across items related to respondents’ decision to take their current post 26

Figure 4.4.1.1 Influence of the quality of working life and commitment to equality in taking up post by gender and ethnicity 27

Figure 4.4.2.1 Influence of the quality working life and commitment to equality in taking up post by gender and disability status 28

Table 5.1.1 Current posts by gender 29

Figure 5.1.1 Salary band by gender 30

Figure 5.2.1 Time spent on academic duties by gender 31

Figure 5.3.1 Ratings of life in their department by gender 32

Figure 5.3.2 Time spent on academic duties by gender and sub-discipline 33

Figure 5.3.3 Ratings of life in their department by gender and sub-discipline 34

Table 5.4.1.1 Average ratings of all factors impacting the average academic career by gender 35

Figure 5.4.2.1 Areas of perceived impact on the average academic career by gender 37

Figure 5.5.1 Areas of perceived impact on respondents’ academic careers by gender 40

Table 5.5.1.1 Perceived impact of protected characteristics on own versus average academic career by gender 41

Figure 5.5.1.1 Perceived impact of protected characteristics on own and average academic career by gender 42

Figure 5.6.1.1 Time spent on academic teaching duties by gender and ethnicity 43

Figure 5.6.1.2 Ratings of life in their department by gender and ethnicity 44

Figure 5.6.2.1 Factors influencing respondents’ academic careers by gender and disability status 45

Table 6.1.1.1 Proportions of respondents by type of parental leave and gender 46

Figure 6.1.1.1 Factors related to career progression by gender and parental leave status 48

Table 6.1.2.1 Proportion of respondents who did and did not receive or request information regarding childcare-related policies and options prior to parental leave 49

Figure 6.1.3.1 Reported availability of options/resources in the department to facilitate return from parental leave 50

Table 6.1.3.1 Perceived helpfulness of department options and resources by genderr 51

89October 2017

Index

Figure 6.1.4.1 Ratings of feeling prepared to return from parental leave by gender 52

Figure 6.2.1 Difficulty returning to work by gender and parental leave status 53

Figure 6.2.2 Impact of a career break on career progression by gender and parental leave status 54

Figure 6.3.1.1 Difference in the percentage of BME and white female respondents with access to KIT days and flexible working hours when returning from parental leave 55

Figure 6.3.1.2 Options and resources to facilitate return from leave by gender and ethnicity 56

Figure 7.1.1 Training opportunities by gender 59

Figure 7.2.1 Training barriers by gender 60

Table 7.2.1 Training barriers related to protected characteristics by gender 61

Figure 7.2.2 Training opportunities by gender and sub-discipline 62

Figure 7.2.3 Training barriers by gender and sub-discipline 63

Figure 7.3.1.1 Training opportunities by gender and ethnicity 64

Figure 7.3.2.1 Training barriers by gender and disability status 67

Figure 8.2.1 Ratings of departmental support for career development by gender 70

Figure 8.3.1 Ratings of desire to obtain senior management post versus expectations by gender 73

Figure 8.3.2 Expectations to obtain senior management post by gender and current post 74

Figure 8.4.2.1 Proportion of respondents invited or encouraged to apply for promotion by gender and disability status 77

Table 1.1.1 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and gender 85

Table 1.2.1 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and ethnicity 86

Table 1.2.2 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by ethnic group 86

Table 1.3.1 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and disability status 87

Table 1.3.2 ASSET 2016 biosciences and medicine subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by impairment type 87

Equality Challenge Unit

Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) supports higher education institutions across the UK and in colleges in Scotland to advance equality and diversity for staff and students.

ECU provides research, information and guidance, training, events and Equality Charters that drive forward change and transform organisational culture in teaching, learning, research and knowledge exchange. We have over ten years’ experience of supporting institutions to remove barriers to progression and success for all staff and students.

ECU believes that the benefits of equality and diversity and inclusive practice are key to the wellbeing and success of individuals, the institution’s community, the efficiency and excellence of institutions, and the growth of further and higher education in a global environment.

We are a registered charity funded by the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and Universities UK, and through direct subscription from higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland.

First Floor, Westminster Tower 3 Albert Embankment London, SE1 7SP T 020 7438 1010 F 020 7438 1011 E [email protected] www.ecu.ac.uk

© Equality Challenge Unit 2017 Information in this publication may be reproduced solely by ECU subscribers and the universities and colleges that ECU is funded to support, as long as it retains accuracy, the source is identified and it will not be used for profit. Use of this publication for any other purpose is prohibited without prior permission from ECU. Alternative formats are available: E [email protected] limited by guarantee. Registered in England and Wales, No. 05689975. Charity no. 1114417 (England, Wales) and SC043601 (Scotland).

http://www.ecu.ac.uk

asset 2016: experiences surrounding gender equality in ......2 asse epor 2016 ioscience n edicine...

Documents