1 © schneider~ross s~r the under-represented staff groups project current state analysis for soas...

1© Schneider~Ross S~R

The Under-Represented The Under-Represented

Staff Groups ProjectStaff Groups ProjectCurrent State Analysis for SOASCurrent State Analysis for SOAS

Anjana Nathwani, Robin Schneider & Alexis Walmsley

13th February 2008

SOAS Equality & Diversity Committee

February 2008 Appendix E1


1. This Presentation

What do we know? Profile – gender & ethnicity. Recruitment & promotion. Staff survey results.

What do people say?

What conclusions can we reach?


2. Methodology

Desk research: E&D Staff Reports. Staff survey results. Academic promotions policy, job descriptions etc. HESA data for comparators.

1:1s with policy holders in HR.

1:1s with senior leaders.

1:1s with staff who have experience of promotions processes.

Focus group with union representatives.


3. SOAS Overall Staff Profile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Female 31% 53% 65% 41% 47% 47%

Male 69% 47% 35% 59% 53% 53%

Ethnic Minority 21% 17% 37% 41% 34% 28%

AcademicAcademic Related

Clerical Research Other Related Total

NB Data snapshot as at Oct/Nov 2006. Full comparative data for same period in 2007 is not fully available as yet

(69)

(155)

(48)

(74)

(65)

(23)

(122)

(66)

(70)

(14)

(20)

(14)

(45)

(50)

(32)

(326)

(361)

(191)


4. Academic Staff Profile x Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Male 57% 67% 89%

Female 43% 33% 11%

HESA Average - Female 43% 31% 17%

Lecturers (A&B) Snr Read/Lecturer Professors


(55)

(42)

(45)

(22)

(42)

(5)


5. Academic Staff Profile x Ethnicity


Lecturers (A&B)Snr

Lecturer/Reader

ProfessorTotal

As a % of All Academics

Black African

4%4

2%1

0%2%

5

Asian British

11%11

0%2%

16%12

Chinese5%

56%

44%

25%11

Other BME10%

109%

613%

610%

22

All White58%

5670%

4779%

3766%140

Refused/Not Given

11%97

13%9

2%1

10%21

Total 46%97

27%57

23%47

100%211


6. Student Profile v Staff Profile

Student Profile 05-06

Other BME, 22%

Chinese, 6%

Black African, 4%

Asian British, 12% Refused/ NG, 4%

All White, 51%

Academic & Other Related Profile 2006

Asian British, 5%

Black African, 2%

Chinese, 6%

Other BME, 14%

Refused/ NG, 11%

All White, 62%

Academic Staff Only 2006

All White, 66%

Refused/ NG, 10%

Asian British, 2% Black African, 6%

Chinese, 5%

Other BME, 5%


7. Women & BME Staff & The Transfer To Fractional Contracts

Women and BME staff most strongly represented in these traditionally less secure roles.

Research (i.e., vast majority fixed-term contracts) Women 48.5% BME staff 45.4%

Other-Related (teaching, again fixed-term contracts) Women 48.4% BME staff 33.7%

Transfer of these staff onto permanent, fractional contracts represents a considerable opportunity – for them and for SOAS.


8. Academic Recruitment - Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Academic Recruitment x Gender

Female 43% 11% 37% 30% 42%

Male 56% 14% 63% 24% 58%

Gender split of applicants

Interviewees as a % of applicants

Gender split of interviewees

J ob offers as a % of interviewees

Gender split of J ob offers


9. Non-Academic Recruitment – Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Non-Academic Recruitment x Gender

Female 62% 13% 62% 28% 62%

Male 37% 13% 37% 28% 38%

Gender split of applicants


Gender split of interviewees

J ob offers as a % of interviewees

Gender split of J ob offers


10. Academic Recruitment - Ethnicity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Academic Recruitment x Ethnicity

White 49% 14% 55% 29% 63%

BME (ex Chinese) 33% 9% 25% 24% 24%

Chinese 9% 10% 7% 30% 8%

Not Given/Refused 9% 17% 13% 11% 5%

All 12% 26%

Applicants x ethnicity


Interviewees x ethnicity

J ob offers as a % of

interviewees

J ob offers x ethnicity


11. Non-Academic Recruitment – Ethnicity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Non-Academic Recruitment x Ethnicity

White 45% 15% 53% 30% 58%

BME (ex Chinese) 36% 13% 34% 26% 32%

Chinese 5% 8% 3% 55% 7%

Not Given/Refused 14% 9% 10% 9% 3%

All 13% 27%

Applicants x ethnicity


Interviewees x ethnicity

J ob offers as a % of

interviewees

J ob offers x ethnicity


12. Academic Promotions 2001/2 – 2006/7: Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Women 10% 75% 37% 50% 33% 89% 27% 72%

Men 90% 60% 63% 67% 67% 64% 73% 63%

Prof appsProf

successReader -

appsReader -

successfulSnr Lec -

appsSnr Lec -

successfulTotal apps

Total successful


13. Promotions 2001/2 – 2006/7: Ethnicity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

White 74% 66% 50% 68% 57% 87% 60% 75%

BME 21% 50% 37% 50% 26% 57% 27% 53%

Unknown 5% 50% 13% 60% 17% 56% 12% 56%

Prof - appsProf -

successfulReader -

appsReader -

successfulSnr Lec -

appsSnr Lec -

successfulTotal apps

Total successful


14. Staff Survey: Current Promotions Procedure Seems Fair x Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Male 60% 40%

Female 67% 33%

All resps to question 63% 37%

All Disagrees All Agrees


15. Staff Survey: Current Promotions Procedure Seems Fair x Ethnicity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

White background 61% 39%

Other background 65% 35%

All resps to question 63% 37%

All Disagrees All Agrees


16. Feedback about The Culture & Management

Strong common, re-inforcing feedback from different groups – senior leaders, HoDs, lecturers, HR and unions.

Culture is perceived to be changing, but still predominantly experienced as “old fashioned”, male, heterosexual and white.

Difficult to “lead” – not a strong sense of “collegiality”, a tendency to debate/ignore decisions that one disagrees with and a lack of accountability.

People management does not appear to be valued – the

best academics try to avoid it and performance management is weak – but there are some good role models (and recognised by unions).


17. Feedback About Selection Policies & Processes

Recruitment – could have a greater ‘positive’ outreach?

Promotion - legacy of inconsistent practices (from the past?) which are perceived to have been very subjective. “A small group sat around the table with totally inadequate paperwork.” “[After] I was appointed [to my role], I got asked some crazy questions…”

Everyone is not as familiar with the promotion criteria or as tightly focused on achieving them: Lack of discussions about career, expectations and

performance. Women pick up more student-centred “good citizen”

roles?


18. Feedback about Equality & Diversity Issues

Gender: perceptions from women that there’s a “boy’s club” and

misogynist elements in the culture; long working hours and lack of part-time more senior

academics – causes some women not to put themselves forward.

Ethnicity – some perceptions of a “colonial”, elitist mentality and a linked concern that Middle Eastern, Asian and African academics at SOAS are not sufficiently recognised or encouraged.

E&D is not ‘mainstreamed’ – need a set of strategies which link back to the 2016 vision.


19. Some Key Findings

Current overall profile: Academic women are under-represented at more senior levels –

particularly professorial level. Academic BME staff are under-represented in more senior roles and in

total in much lower numbers than the bme representation amongst students.

BME staff are under-represented in academic-related posts. Women & BME staff are strongly represented in the staff moving over to

permanent, fractional contracts.

Recruitment: Greater proportion of academic men than women are invited to interview. BME academics, excluding Chinese, are less likely to be invited to

interview and less likely then to be successful at interview.

Promotion: Academic women are successful but need to be encouraged to apply. Academic bme staff are significantly less successful than their white

colleagues. There is a high proportion (63%) of all staff who disagree that the

promotion procedure seems fair - and this rises to 67% of women (60% men) and 65% of bme staff (61% white).


20. Some Conclusions

There are strong drivers for increasing diversity at senior levels.

There have been recent improvements in policies which represent a good foundation for reaching out more widely for talent.

There remain, however, worrying examples of poor and inconsistent practice, and some bias in outcomes. SOAS is undoubtedly vulnerable – both legally, and perhaps more significantly, reputationally.

Culture change is critical because: It is the culture that determines how selection policies are

actually implemented. Currently, under-represented groups feel that they are excluded

or at least not valued. This influences aspiration levels and outputs as well as attrition.

At the core of this culture change needs to be real leadership – sending out an unambiguous message about the desired culture and the need to change - and a transformation in the perceived status of the task of ‘management’.


Manor Courtyard OfficesQuarley Manor

GrateleyAndover

Hampshire, SP11 8LEUK

Tel: + 44 (0) 1264 882 400 Fax: +44 (0) 1264 882 401

[email protected] www.globaldiversitynetwork.com

1 © schneider~ross s~r the under-represented staff groups project current state analysis for soas...

Documents

ross s

women bme staff

staff survey results

fair x gender slide

fair x ethnicity slide

appendix e1 slide

ed staff reports

profile gender ethnicity