asset 2016: experiences surrounding gender equality in the ......2 asse epor 2016 hysica ciences...

ASSET 2016: experiences surrounding gender equality in the physical sciences, 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 the physical sciences, and their intersections with ethnicity and disability

Executive summary 1

1 Introduction 9

2 Methods 102.1 The survey 102.2 The sample 102.3 Sample weighting 112.4 Data reduction 122.5 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 173.4 The impact of the Athena SWAN Charter 193.5 Beyond the gender gap: how do gender differences in

perceptions of gender equality vary by ethnicity and disability status? 20

4 Recruitment 234.1 How post was obtained 234.2 Interview panels 244.3 Decision to take up current post 244.4 Beyond the gender gap: how do recruitment processes

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

5 Job and career 305.1 Current posts 305.2 Time distribution across different academic duties 315.3 Life in the department 335.4 Factors influencing the average academic career 345.5 Factors influencing respondents’ academic careers 385.6 Beyond the gender gap: how does ethnicity and disability

intersect with gender in relation to the jobs and careers of STEMM academics in the physical sciences? 43

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

leave 466.2 Career breaks 546.3 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 567.1 Training opportunities 567.2 Training barriers 587.3 Beyond the gender gap: how do differences in training

opportunities and barriers differ across other characteristics? 61

8 Promotion and development 658.1 Explicit encouragement or invitation for promotion 658.2 Department’s encouragement of career development 678.3 Plans for future career 718.4 Beyond the gender gap: do individuals belonging to more

than one underrepresented group experience a unique path through the promotion and development process? 72

9 Conclusion 749.1 Key gender differences in the physical sciences compared with

STEMM sciences in general 749.2 Summary of intersectional results 769.3 Recommendations 78

10 References 80

Appendix: sample characteristics 811.1 Gender 811.2 Ethnicity 821.3 Disability 83

Index 84

1October 2017

2 Perceptions of gender equality in the physical sciences

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 the physical sciences. 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 826 respondents in the physical sciences (527 men, 299 women) of which 67 identified as black or minority ethnic (BME) and 142 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 have 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 reported a perceived advantage for men.

Despite both genders reporting that it was slightly easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department on average, female

2 ASSET report 2016: physical sciences

Executive summary

3.1 Intersectional results

3 Recruitment

2.1 Intersectional results

respondents reported a significantly stronger advantage for men than male respondents.

Gender and ethnicity: Compared with female respondents, proportionally more male respondents were formally promoted to their current post, regardless of their ethnicity. However, only 27.8% of the respondents who were formally promoted were women, all of whom were white. BME female respondents rated the quality of

Gender and ethnicity: Female respondents were more likely to perceive an advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development, markers of esteem and additional academic duties than male respondents, regardless of their ethnicity.

Gender and disability: Compared with female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, female respondents who disclosed as disabled not only reported a stronger advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem, but also felt less positive about the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their institution.

Although the majority of male and female respondents obtained their current post through an external advertisement (67.4% and 66.4%, respectively), proportionally more male respondents (16.9%) obtained their current post through a formal promotion than female respondents (8.8%).

Of those who were interviewed for their current post, 85.2% had more men than women on their interview panel. However, the difference between the proportions of male (5.4%) and female respondents (9.8%) who reported having more women than men on their interview panels was not significant.

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.

3October 2017

Executive summary

4 Job and career Female respondents were underrepresented in senior positions (eg head of school/division/department and professors) and overrepresented in early career positions (eg research fellow, research assistant, post-docs), even when age and contract type were taken into account.

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

working life in the department and its commitment to equality as being more influential in their decision to take their current post compared with BME male, white male and white female respondents.

Gender and disability: Although similar proportions of male (13.0%) and female respondents who disclosed as disabled (10.5%) had been formally promoted to their current post, there was a significant gap between male and female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled who were formally promoted (17.7% and 11.5%, respectively). Female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled rated their department’s commitment to equality as more influential than female respondents who disclosed as disabled and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled.


Executive summary

5 Caring responsibilities, leave and career breaks

4.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: Although BME female respondents were the least likely to be on part-time and teaching-only contracts, they were the most likely to be on fixed-term contracts. Regarding their own career progression, not only were BME respondents more negative in their ratings of the impact of ethnicity than white respondents overall, BME female respondents were significantly more negative about the impact of ethnicity than BME male respondents.

Gender and disability: The proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled on teaching-only contracts (38.7%) was significantly larger than the proportions of female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (19.4%), male respondents who had disclosed as disabled (14.3%) and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (17.8%). Moreover, female respondents who disclosed as disabled rated the impact of disability status on their own career progression more negatively than all other groups.

The difference between the proportion of female (33.6%) and male respondents (42.3%) who reported that they had previously taken parental leave (ie maternity, paternity, additional paternity, adoptive, shared parental or unpaid parental leave) was not significant.

Regardless of whether they had previously taken parental leave, male respondents were more likely than female respondents to say that they (i) could relocate if necessary, (ii) feel involved in the social life of their department, or (iii) have their work successes celebrated in their department.

Both male and 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.

female respondents were more positive than male respondents about the impact of having sources of support. With regard to their own career progression, female respondents rated the impact of their sex, gender identity, age and caring responsibilities more negatively than male respondents.

5October 2017

Executive summary

6 Training and leadership

5.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: There were no significant differences in the proportions of BME women (30.0%), white women (31.9%), BME men (20.0%) and white men (26.1%) reporting that they had previously taken parental leave. However, it was not possible to quantitatively explore whether men and women’s opinions of the options around returning from parental leave varied by ethnicity as too few BME respondents had previously taken parental leave.

Gender and disability: While the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (29.5%) and female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (32.2%) who had taken parental leave were relatively similar, the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (68.4%) with access to flexible working hours was significantly smaller than the proportion of women who had not disclosed as disabled (92.1%).

Proportionally more female respondents (16.1%) had taken career breaks than male respondents (6.1%). Although the majority of respondents’ career breaks lasted less than 12 months (50.0%), a considerable number of respondents reported breaks of one to two years (20.5%), three to five years (12.8%) or more than five years (16.7%). 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), regardless of their gender and whether they had previously taken parental leave.

Of the ten training areas listed, it was only in administrative tasks related to management that male respondents had more experience in than female respondents.

Compared with male respondents, a larger proportion of female respondents reported that the following barriers had blocked their access to training that they needed or wanted in the last 12 months: time, costs, lack of availability at their institution, caring responsibilities and gender identity.


Executive summary

7 Promotion and development

6.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: Compared with white male respondents, significantly smaller proportions of BME male respondents had obtained training in administrative tasks related to management, postgraduate supervision, leadership, grant application skills and project planning/financial management skills. BME male respondents were also more likely to report that they had been unable to access training that they needed or wanted because they were not eligible or the training was not relevant to their post. In contrast, the differences in the training opportunities and barriers experienced by BME and white female respondents were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that almost half of the BME female respondents in the physical sciences had completed postgraduate supervision training (45.0%), leadership training (40.0%) or grant application training (45.0%).

Gender and disability: Compared with male respondents who disclosed as disabled, significantly fewer female respondents who disclosed as disabled had equality and diversity training for staff and student issues. Many of the gender differences in the training barriers experienced by men and women were not present among respondents who disclosed as disabled.

The proportion of male respondents (58.9%) 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 (47.1%) who reported this experience.

Compared with their female colleagues, male respondents were more likely to feel that their department values their research and that they have 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 (2.5% and 3.7%, respectively). However, proportionally more female respondents (9.2%) than male respondents (4.8%) reported that they would like to continue their career in STEMM but outside of higher education.

7October 2017

Executive summary

8 Recommendations

7.1 Intersectional results Gender and ethnicity: The proportion of white male respondents (60.7%) that had been encouraged or invited to apply for promotion was considerably larger than the proportion of BME female respondents (45.0%), BME male respondents (40.4%) and white female respondents (47.1%) who had been directly encouraged or invited to apply for promotion. However, BME female respondents were more likely than white female respondents to say that their department encouraged them to develop their careers and that they felt their appraisal was useful and valuable. Finally, while the proportion of BME male respondents (12.8%) who would like to continue their career in STEMM outside of higher education was larger than the proportion of white male respondents (4.0%), it is worth noting that 9.9% of white female respondents also reported this intention compared with 0% of BME female respondents.

Gender and disability: In general, a larger proportion of male respondents, regardless of whether they had (51.9%) or had not (60.1%) disclosed as disabled, had been encouraged to apply for promotion compared with female respondents (39.0% and 49.1%, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (8.3%) who did not want to continue their career in STEMM was significantly larger than the proportion of male respondents who disclosed as disabled (2.5%), female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (2.6%) and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (2.5%).

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.


Executive summary

= 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 are 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 workload.

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

= Reduce variability in amount and type of support provided by line managers: (i) by ensuring that 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); (iii) line managers are motivated to prioritise these duties by increasing their accountability and adding incentives for being a good line manager.

9October 2017

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 the physical sciences 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 the physical sciences, the current report also examines how gender differences in the above aspects of working life vary across individual sub-disciplines, including:

= chemistry = earth, marine and environmental sciences = mathematics = physics

This approach and the addition of qualitative data allows ASSET 2016 to paint a more detailed picture of current perceptions of gender equality in the physical sciences.

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


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 the physical sciences contained 836 respondents from 40 institutions, of which 476 were male and 360 were female. The following analyses are

11October 2017

2 Methods

Table 2.3.1 Individual sub-disciplines by gender

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 physical sciences subsample consisted of 826 respondents (527 men, 299 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 fields encompassed under the physical sciences discipline.

Sub-discipline Female Male Total

No. % % No. % % No. %

Chemistry 63 21.1 34.1 122 23.1 65.9 185 22.4

Earth, marine and environmental sciences

89 29.8 45.9 105 19.9 54.1 194 23.5

Mathematics 72 24.1 32.1 152 28.8 67.9 224 27.1

Physics 75 25.1 33.6 148 28.1 66.4 223 27.0

Total 299 100.0 36.2 527 100.0 63.8 826 100.0


2 Methods

2.4 Data reduction

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

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 on the average academic career, 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.

2.5 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

13October 2017

2 Methods

2.5.3 Results related to individual sub-disciplines

2.5.2 Qualitative analyses 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:

= chemistry = earth, marine and environmental sciences = mathematics = physics

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.

2.5.4 Intersectionality This report explored 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 the physical sciences was sufficient for quantitative analyses (see Table 2.5.4.1).


2 Methods

Table 2.5.4.1 Sample sizes by gender and protected characteristic of interest

Protected characteristic Female Male Total

No. % No. % No.

Ethnicity

BME 20 29.9 47 70.1 67

White 278 36.6 481 63.4 759

Disability status

Had not disclosed as disabled 237 34.7 446 65.3 683

Had disclosed as disabled 61 43.0 81 57.0 142

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.

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).

4.0%

14.6%

81.4%

More women than men

Roughly equal numbers of women and men

More men than women

15October 2017

Figure 3.1.1 Ratings of department gender distribution by gender

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

On average, male respondents were more positive about their department’s commitment to gender equality than female respondents (see Table 3.1.1). The only item presented in Table 3.1.1 that male and female respondents rated similarly was how equally represented men and women are in their department: both genders tended not to agree with this statement and, on the following item in the survey, 81.4% of respondents said that there were more men than women in their department (see Figure 3.1.1).

Female Male

Department’s commitment to gender equality summary score 4.55 5.12

In general, men and women are equally well represented (in numbers) in my department 2.87 2.93

In general, men and women are treated equally in my department 4.78 5.65

My department is committed to promoting gender equality in STEMM 5.17 5.84

If I had concerns about gender equality in my dept, I would know who to approach 4.88 5.54

My department is (or would be) responsive to concerns about gender equality 5.11 5.79

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.

3.99

4.36

4.01

4.30

3.94

4.13

NeutralAdvantage

for men

4.00 4.20 4.40Professional developmentFemale

Male

Markers of esteemFemale

Male

Additional academic dutiesFemale

Male



Figure 3.2.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender

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).

Regarding the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem, female respondents were more likely to perceive an advantage towards men than male respondents, who tended to rate these items more neutrally (ie perceiving no advantage for either gender) (see Figure 3.2.1). In contrast, while female respondents reported a similar perceived advantage for men in the allocation of additional academic duties, male respondents perceived an advantage for women in this area.

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 4.13 for men and 3.94 for women regarding the allocation of additional academic duties).

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

17October 2017


Closer look: esteemed tasks

These female mathematicians commented on the esteem associated with certain tasks and how this could have a detrimental effect on a person’s development and progression:

‘”Soft” volunteering roles for things you can’t put on your CV are more often taken up by women. This goes from small things like setting up the milk rota to organising PPI activities. This has been going on for a while now, and for some in my department, it has now become an expectation that some woman will step for these things, men are not even asked to consider doing these “adminy” or “fun side things”.’

Female, mathematics

This was particularly the case for staff who took on more teaching responsibilities:

‘Women generally seem to place more emphasis on teaching responsibilities and tend to have greater investment in teaching.’

Female, mathematics

‘It is the value attributed to work that needs addressing. If more value was placed on the standard of teaching and the time taken doing it and less on the more traditional roles of prominent leadership and research recognition, then the balance would be more equitable.’

Female, mathematics

‘It seems that more than half of staff in teaching-orientated roles are women, yet there is confusion and lack of direction when it comes to promotion for those in teaching-orientated jobs.’

Female, mathematics

3.3 Perceived gender equality in obtaining senior posts

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.

0.0

0.0

2.5

0.0

6.7

1.7

45.3

18.3

22.6

29.1

17.8

29.7

5.0

21.2

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%



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

4.37

4.36

4.56

4.84

ChemistryEarth, marineMathematicsPhysics

NeutralSlightlypositive

4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80

19October 2017


3.4 The impact of the Athena SWAN Charter

Overall, 6.1% of respondents had not heard of the Athena SWAN Charter in their department and an additional 2.3% 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.

Case study: opinions of Athena SWAN were more positive among respondents in physics

Although all sub-disciplines were positive about the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives on their department in general, respondents in physics were more positive than respondents in chemistry, mathematics and earth, marine and environmental sciences (see Figure 3.4.1).

Figure 3.4.1 Ratings of impact of Athena SWAN on department by sub-discipline

However, it is worth noting that there were no gender differences between men and women’s ratings of the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in any the individual sub-disciplines. Moreover, there was very little variability in the proportions of respondents who had not previously heard of Athena SWAN initiatives across the sub-disciplines (range was 4.2% for chemistry to 7.9% for physics).



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

Closer look: historical factors and 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:

‘Positive recruitment agendas then force existing female staff to undertake administrative roles for example representation on a LOT more interview panels than men, which takes up time they could otherwise use to advance their career.’

Male, chemistry

For some respondents, gender inequalities in academia were the result of historical factors and this situation would improve over time:

‘I believe the imbalance of men and women at senior levels in the department reflects historical issues: there is a good representation of female junior professors, but fewer at the senior professor level – this will likely balance out with time, assuming the current dedication to gender equality issues continues.’

Female, earth, marine and environmental sciences

‘The current distribution of males/females in academic positions reflects the student numbers of the past 30 years – gender equality has improved substantially in the past decade and this will slowly filter through to higher rungs of the ladder.’

Male, chemistry

3.5.1 Gender and BME

Female respondents were more likely to report a perceived advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development, markers of esteem and additional academic duties than male respondents, regardless of their ethnicity (see Figure 3.5.1.1). There was a similar gender difference in perceived ease of obtaining senior posts: compared with male respondents, female respondents felt that it was easier for a man to obtain a senior post in their department, regardless of ethnicity.

4.50

4.35

3.93

4.00

4.29

4.30

3.97

4.01

4.20

4.12

3.96

3.94

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

Additional academic dutiesBME female

White female

BME male

White male

21October 2017


3.5.2 Gender and disability status

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


Female respondents who disclosed as disabled reported a stronger advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem than female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (see Figure 3.5.2.1). In addition, female respondents who disclosed as disabled rated the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their institution less positively than female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled.

4.50

4.32

3.97

4.00

4.37

4.28

3.96

4.02

4.13

4.13

3.84

3.96

Professional developmentDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Markers of esteemDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Additional academic dutiesDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

NeutralAdvantage


3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60

NeutralAdvantage


3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60



Figure 3.5.2.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender and disability status


2.9

2.5

16.9

11.3

10.0

11.0

67.4

66.4

2.9

8.8

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

23October 2017

Figure 4.1.1 Recruitment method by gender

4.1 How post was obtained

4 Recruitment

The majority of men and women obtained their current post through an external advertisement (see Figure 4.1.1). However, proportionally more men (16.9%) had obtained their current post through a formal promotion compared with women (11.3%), and proportionally more women (8.8%) had obtained their current posts through other methods (eg fellowship or grant application) than men (2.9%).

Respondents were asked about 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).


4 Recruitment

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

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, 7.0% of respondents’ recalled having an equal number of men and women on their interview panels and an additional 7.0% indicated that there were more women than men on their interview panel. This means that 85.2% of respondents recalled having more men than women on their interview panel. However, the difference between the proportions of male (5.4%) and female respondents (9.8%) who recalled having more women than men on their interview panels was not significant.

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 2.59 2.17

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

2.812.572.562.44

2.392.082.211.97

Commitment to equality 1.29 1.15

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

1.301.321.26

1.151.211.09

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 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.

2.42

2.40

2.13

2.13

2.79

2.74

2.25

2.13

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

Neutral In�uential

2.00 2.40 2.80 3.20

25October 2017

4 Recruitment

Case study: deciding to take a post in the individual sub-disciplines

Men and women in chemistry and earth, marine and environmental sciences rated the factors reflecting the quality of working life and a department’s commitment to equality in a similar manner (see Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). This was not the case among respondents in mathematics or physics: compared with men, women in these sub-disciplines rated working life as more influential in deciding to take their current post. Women in mathematics were also more likely to rate their department’s commitment to equality as more influential than men in mathematics (although this gender difference was not present among men and women in physics).

Figure 4.3.1 Influence of quality of working life in taking up current post by gender and sub-discipline


1.35

1.22

1.22

1.08

1.31

1.31

1.10

1.20

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

NeutralNot in�uential

2.001.601.200.80


4 Recruitment

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


Proportionally more men than women were formally promoted to their current post, regardless of their ethnicity. However, it is worth noting that only 27.8% of the respondents who were formally promoted were women, all of whom were white.

Of those respondents who were interviewed for their current post, there were no significant differences in the proportions of BME women (15.1%), white women (9.3%), BME men (11.6%) and white men (4.8%) who reported having more women than men on their interview panels.

Figure 4.3.2 Influence of commitment to equality in taking up current post by gender and sub-discipline


There are two additional points worth noting: first, respondents’ ratings of these two areas of influence did not significantly differ across the individual sub-disciplines, and second, indices of the quality of working life were consistently rated as more influential than those reflecting commitment to equality, regardless of sub-discipline.

3.18

2.56

2.22

2.16

1.80

1.26

1.21

1.15

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 current post by gender and ethnicity

In general, BME respondents rated the quality of working life in the department and its commitment to equality as more influential than white respondents. However, BME women rated these factors as being more influential in their decision to take their current post compared with BME men, white men and white women (see Figure 4.4.1.1).


The gender differences in how respondents were recruited and the factors that influenced their decision to take their current post were only present among respondents who had not disclosed as disabled. As seen in Figure 4.4.2.1, the difference between the proportions of women who disclosed as disabled (10.5%) and men who disclosed as disabled (13.0%) who had been formally promoted to their current post was not significant. In contrast, among respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, proportionally more men (17.7%) than women (11.5%) obtained their current post through a formal promotion.

5.3

1.8

0.0

3.4

10.5

11.5

13.0

17.7

8.8

11.5

13.0

9.4

63.2

67.3

68.8

67.3

12.3

8.0

5.2

2.2

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Ad hoc promotionDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Formal promotion roundDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Invitation/nominationDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Application for advertised postDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Other (eg fellowship/grant)Disabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male


4 Recruitment

Figure 4.4.2.1 Recruitment method by gender and disability status

2.49

2.62

2.30

2.14

1.10

1.34

1.26

1.13

Quality of working lifeDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Department’s equality commitment Disabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Neutral In�uentialNot at allin�uential

2.00 2.40 2.801.601.200.80

29October 2017

4 Recruitment

Figure 4.4.2.2 Influence of working life and commitment to equality in taking up current post by gender and disability status

Similarly, women who had not disclosed as disabled rated the importance of factors reflecting the quality of working life as more influential in their decision than men who had not disclosed as disabled (see Figure 4.4.2.2). In contrast, this gender difference was not present among men and women who disclosed as disabled. Notably, women who had not disclosed as disabled rated their department’s commitment to equality as more influential than women who disclosed as disabled and men who had not disclosed as disabled.



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 (eg head of school/division/department and professors) and overrepresented in early career positions (eg research fellow, research assistant, 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 3 1.0 25.0 9 1.7 75.0 12 1.5

Head of school/division/department 8 2.7 19.5 33 6.3 80.5 41 5.0

Centre director 1 0.3 12.5 7 1.3 87.5 8 1.0

Senior function head 1 0.3 50.0 1 0.2 50.0 2 0.2

Professor 31 10.4 24.4 96 18.3 75.6 127 15.4

Associate professor 3 1.0 12.5 21 4.0 87.5 24 2.9

Function head 1 0.3 50.0 1 0.2 50.0 2 0.2

Senior/principal lecturer (pre-1992 university) 19 6.4 22.4 66 12.6 77.6 85 10.3

Reader, principal research fellow 28 9.4 31.1 62 11.8 68.9 90 10.9

Senior lecturer (post-1992 university) 26 8.7 50.0 26 5.0 50.0 52 6.3

Lecturer 61 20.5 39.6 93 17.7 60.4 154 18.7

Teaching fellow 12 4.0 52.2 11 2.1 47.8 23 2.8

Researcher, research fellow, senior research assistant

30 10.1 43.5 39 7.4 56.5 69 8.4

Post-doc, post-doc research assistant 57 19.1 55.9 45 8.6 44.1 102 12.4

Research assistant 7 2.3 70.0 3 0.6 30.0 10 1.2

Teaching assistant 1 0.3 50.0 1 0.2 50.0 2 0.2

Technical staff 2 0.7 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 2 0.2

Other 7 2.3 38.9 11 2.1 61.1 18 2.2

Total 298 100.0 36.2 525 100.0 63.8 823 100.0

75.0

66.7

55.0

60.0

47.8

55.8

28.3

34.4

20.4

27.6

25.0

33.3

45.0

40.0

52.2

44.2

71.7

65.6

79.6

72.4

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

31October 2017

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 male respondents held full-time positions (95.0%), posts that included research and teaching (82.5%) and permanent contracts (80.5%), compared with female respondents (81.4%, 77.0% and 64.1%, 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 than women (see Figure 5.2.1).

2.28

2.42

1.92

2.06

1.87

1.77

1.05

1.03

TeachingFemale

Male

ResearchFemale

Male

Public engagement Female

Male

Clinical dutiesFemale

Male

Signi�cant portion

of my timeNone ofmy time

1.601.401.201.00 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40


5 Job and career

Figure 5.2.1 Time spent on academic duties by gender


In contrast, female respondents reported spending more time on public engagement than male respondents. However, as seen in Figure 5.2.1, although the average ratings of time spent on public engagement for men and women differed significantly, the difference between these two summary scores was relatively small. Finally, there were no significant gender differences in the time spent on clinical duties.

Case study: is there more time for research in physics and earth, marine and environmental sciences?

The gender difference in the amount of time spent on research-related tasks was not consistent across the individual sub-disciplines. Specifically, men and women in physics or earth, marine and environmental sciences reported spending similar amounts of time on research, whereas men in chemistry and mathematics reported spending more time on these tasks than women in these disciplines (see Figure 5.2.2). However, it is worth noting that the gender differences present among respondents in chemistry and mathematics remain even though men and women in these sub-disciplines reported spending different

1.92

2.06

2.14

2.14

1.71

1.98

1.90

2.13

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

None of my time

Signi�cant portionof my time

2.001.601.20

33October 2017

5 Job and career

5.3 Life in the department

amounts of time on research overall (ie respondents in chemistry spent more time on research than respondents in mathematics).

Figure 5.2.2 Time spent on academic duties by gender and sub-discipline


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).

5.04

5.24

4.05

4.46

4.39

5.05

3.59

3.52

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

5.4.1 Top factors of influence in the average academic career

5.4 Factors influencing the average academic career

Figure 5.3.1 Ratings of life in their department by gender


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. However, women rated being involved in well-regarded projects more positively than men (see Table 5.4.1.1).

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.

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

Factors Female Male

Being a woman* 3.89 3.25

Being married, civil-partnered or cohabiting 4.11 4.14

Having a supportive family and/or partner* 5.80 5.98

Being older than average in the field 3.46 3.53

Being younger than average* 4.47 3.98

Having a non-heterosexual sexual orientation* 3.97 3.87

Having a non-white ethnic identity* 3.91 3.81

Having a particular set of religious beliefs (including atheism)

3.96 3.96

Having a trans gender identity* 3.71 3.57

Having disclosed a disability to an employer* 3.90 3.69

Requiring reasonable adjustments to be made to the working environment*

3.90 3.67

Not having children or other caring responsibilities*

5.01 5.43

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

3.43 2.94

Extensive administrative experience* 4.22 4.04

Extensive experience of public engagement 4.85 4.88

Extensive teaching experience 4.67 4.70

Having good references from a previous post 5.56 5.64

Having teacher training (eg the PGCAP)* 4.37 4.60

Possessing an award in recognition of teaching skill

4.74 4.85

Being able to easily move geographical location*

5.75 6.01

Being able to work long hours* 5.63 5.78

Recruiting multiple PhD students 5.52 5.55

Involved in well-regarded projects*† 6.23 6.42


5 Job and career

5.4.2 Gender differences in perceived areas of impact

Successfully applying for grants† 6.54 6.61

Having substantive research output† 6.54 6.57

Flexible working hours 4.70 4.82

Receiving formal and regular mentoring* 4.95 5.37

Receiving support or encouragement from senior colleagues*

5.52 5.90

Receiving support/encouragement* 5.50 5.79

Having visible role models* 5.06 5.48

Having a heavy administrative load*‡ 2.40 2.07

Having a heavy teaching load*‡ 2.51 2.32

Taking a career break*‡ 2.88 2.64

Being lucky 5.47 5.49

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. Notably, 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 = 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). Finally, men and women did not significantly differ in how they rated the impact of having an esteemed reputation or teaching experience on the average academic career.

2.63

5.67

6.52

3.69

4.72

3.28

2.78

5.34

6.44

3.89

4.59

3.42

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



5 Job and career

5.5 Factors influencing respondents’ academic careers

Closer look: acting masculine

This respondent commented on how women can use ‘masculine’ characteristics to get ahead in their career and how men with ‘feminine’ characteristics can also experience problems:

‘Women are less likely to make their opinions known or feel that their opinion is worthy. I have male colleagues who fit into this more female-type personality (caring, conscientious, less self-promoting) who, like women are less likely to get the promotion they deserve. Some women are more male-type personality and these are the type that are more likely to get promoted and be in positions of more power/influence... but this negatively impacts on people with the more female-type personality. Therefore the more male-type personalities are more likely to get promoted and seek more prominent roles, which in turn leads to promotion.’

Female, mathematics

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).

3.79

4.00

4.02

3.95

3.90

3.97

3.52

3.78

3.81

4.03

4.00

4.03

4.00

4.00

3.99

3.91

3.89

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

39October 2017

5 Job and career

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



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

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 3.25 3.78 3.89 4.04 3.66 3.95

Sexual orientation 3.87 4.00 3.97 4.00 3.93 4.00

Ethnicity 3.81 4.03 3.91 4.04 3.87 4.03

Marital/civil status 4.14 3.95 4.11 4.00 4.12 3.99

Disability status 3.69 3.89 3.90 4.00 3.83 3.96

Religious beliefs 3.96 3.97 3.96 3.99 3.96 3.98

Caring responsibilities 2.94 3.53 3.43 3.92 3.26 3.78

Age 3.75 3.77 3.97 3.89 3.89 3.84

Gender identity 3.57 3.83 3.71 4.05 3.66 3.97

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.

In contrast, both genders were neutral in their ratings of the impact of sexual orientation, ethnicity, marital/civil status and religious beliefs.

3.78

4.00

4.03

3.95

3.89

3.97

3.53

3.77

3.83

4.04

4.00

4.04

4.00

4.00

3.99

3.92

3.89

4.05

NeutralSlightly

negative

3.603.403.203.00 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

3.25

3.87

3.81

4.14

3.69

3.96

2.94

3.75

3.57

3.89

3.97

3.91

4.11

3.90

3.96

3.43

3.97

3.71

41October 2017

5 Job and career

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


3.77

3.44

3.81

3.87

3.44

3.45

4.03

3.88

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

(own career average ) Neutral

Slightlynegative

3.603.202.802.40 4.00

2.57

2.64

2.77

2.79

2.73

2.58

2.86

2.70


5 Job and career

Case study: experiences and perceptions of impact of caring responsibilities across sub-disciplines

For the most part, respondents tended to rate the impact of caring responsibilities on the average academic career more severely than how they rated the impact of this factor on their own career progression. However, whether there were differences in how men and women rated the impact of this factor on their own versus the average academic career varied by sub-discipline (see Figure 5.5.1.2). For instance, men and women in chemistry were similar in how they rated the impact of caring responsibilities on their own academic careers, with both genders rating in a slightly negative manner on average, but differed significantly in how negatively they rated the impact of caring responsibilities on the average academic career. In contrast, the differences between men and women’s perceived impact of caring responsibilities on the average academic career were not significant in earth, marine and environmental sciences, mathematics and physics. Instead, women in these sub-disciplines were significantly more negative than men about the impact of caring responsibilities on their own careers.

Figure 5.5.1.2 Impact of family/children on average academic career and own career by gender and sub-discipline


0.0

20.0

9.3

4.6

47.1

35.1

43.3

17.7

8.3

24.2

31.0

16.2

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Part-timeBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Fixed-termBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Teaching-onlyBME female

White female

BME male

White male

43October 2017

5 Job and career

Figure 5.6.1.1 Contract mode, type and function by gender and ethnicity

5.6 Beyond the gender gap: how does ethnicity and disability intersect with gender in relation to the jobs and careers of STEMM academics in the physical sciences?


Examining the intersection between gender and ethnicity revealed that while BME women were the least likely to be on part-time and teaching-only contracts, they were the most likely to be on fixed-term contracts (see Figure 5.6.1.1).

While BME respondents rated the impact of ethnicity on their own career progression more negatively than white respondents overall, the gap between the average ratings of BME women and white women was significantly more pronounced than that between BME men and white men (see Figure 5.6.1.2).

3.29

4.06

3.70

4.08

EthnicityBME female

White female

BME male

White male

3.60 3.80

NeutralDisagree

4.003.20 3.403.00


5 Job and career


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


Investigating the intersection between gender and disability status revealed that there were a number of ways in which academics who disclosed as disabled experienced their department and current posts in a manner that differed from academics who had not disclosed as disabled. For example, compared with respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, respondents who disclosed as disabled were less likely to describe their department as a supportive environment and more likely to say that their department was demanding of their time and effort. However, there were also a number of instances where women who disclosed as disabled experienced compounded disadvantage; for example, the proportion of women who disclosed as disabled on teaching-only contracts (38.7%) was significantly larger than the proportions of women who had not disclosed as disabled (19.4%), men who had disclosed as disabled (14.3%) and men who had not disclosed as disabled (17.8%) on this form of contract. Moreover, female respondents who disclosed as disabled rated the impact of disability status on their own career progression more negatively than all other groups (see Figure 5.6.2.1). Finally, it is worth noting that women were significantly more negative than men about the impact of sex and gender identity on their own career progression, regardless of disability status.

3.48

4.01

3.84

4.03

3.77

3.80

4.05

4.03

3.85

3.80

4.05

4.05

Disability statusDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

SexDisabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Gender identityDisabled 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



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 the physical sciences 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 92 91.1 11.2 0 0.0 0.0 92 11.2

Paternity 2 2.0 0.2 126 90.6 15.3 128 15.5

Additional paternity 1 1.0 0.1 3 2.2 0.4 4 0.5

Adoption 2 2.0 0.2 1 0.7 0.1 3 0.4

Shared parental 2 2.0 0.2 4 2.9 0.5 6 0.7

Unpaid parental 2 2.0 0.2 5 3.6 0.6 7 0.8

Total 101 100.0 12.2 139 100.0 16.8 240 29.1

* 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.

Respondents were also asked about other forms of caring responsibilities, including whether they care for another adult. The proportions of men (4.0%) and women (3.4%) who reported that they provide care for another adult were not significantly different.

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 38.9% of the overall sample (or 33.6% of female respondents and 42.3% of male respondents) indicated that they were a parent or legal guardian, only 29.1% of the total sample reported that they had previously taken some form of parental leave. The proportion of women (33.6%) who had taken parental leave was not significantly different from the proportion of men who had taken such leave (42.3%).

1.92

3.76

2.68

3.78

5.84

5.86

6.05

5.94

3.71

4.38

4.24

4.41

4.30

4.50

4.61

4.69

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 6.002.00 3.00 5.00

47October 2017


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

6.1.1 Differences in the factors related to career progression

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

= could relocate if needed = are involved in the social life of their department = 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 could count on support from their partner or family: this gender difference was not present among respondents who had not taken parental leave (see Figure 6.1.1.1).




Closer look: caring responsibilities and career progression

This respondent commented that caring responsibilities had limited their ability to relocate for work:

‘I am in the classic position of being unable to relocate because of family commitments. I feel as though I have to muddle through and make the best of my situation and try to forge a career in this place, but if I was free to move, I would not be working here.’

Female, physics

The competitive nature of academia made it especially difficult for people who had taken time off to care for children:

‘In general, it is more about caring responsibilities than gender – academia is VERY competitive. Anyone who takes a year or two off to be a carer (most usually, a women taking maternity leave, or going part-time to care for children) is disadvantaged. I don’t think this is always conscious, but it definitely sets people back in their career.’

Male, earth, marine and environmental sciences

‘Having a family and children has a negative effect on your career because those without this tend to work longer hours. Attempting to have a work–life balance does not help your career.’

Female, chemistry

This was particularly the case for women, with respondents sharing the view that men with caring responsibilities could more easily choose how much time to spend with family:

‘Women often take a larger role in child care responsibilities and other tasks. After career breaks, such as maternity leave, it would be beneficial to allow for reduced responsibilities within the department, so that the individual may get their research back on track.’

Female, mathematics

‘So, many male colleagues can work any hours they like because they have a wife taking care of their family. Even men who have a slightly more modern approach to family life have a distinct advantage because they can pick and choose how far they go with their commitment to their family.’

Female, physics

49October 2017


6.1.2 Departmental preparation for parental leave

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

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 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



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

Childcare-related policies on payments and benefits

28 14.2 58 29.4 67 34.0 44 22.3

Facilities for continued baby feeding on return to work

51 27.4 32 17.2 94 50.5 9 4.8

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

46 23.5 39 19.9 77 39.3 34 17.3

Time off for antenatal appointments 28 14.7 55 28.9 89 46.8 18 9.5

Health and safety assessment 34 17.8 48 25.1 97 50.8 12 6.3

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

13 6.7 73 37.6 57 29.4 51 26.3

Workplace childcare facilities 46 24.0 36 18.8 67 34.9 43 22.4

Leave cover and handover 46 24.3 37 19.6 80 42.3 26 13.8

89.1

74.2

37.6

45.2

26.9

34.8

17.4

6.5

35.5

14.0

10.9

25.8

62.4

54.8

73.1

65.2

82.6

93.5

64.5

45.2 54.8

86.0

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

Policies and options related to childcare and parental leave

Female Male





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

Keeping-in-touch days 38 19.9 46 24.1 98 51.3 9 4.7

Options for phased return/workload adjustment

42 22.2 41 21.7 93 49.2 13 6.9

Rest facilities during pregnancy 67 35.8 17 9.1 101 54.0 2 1.1

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).

51October 2017


Table 6.1.3.1 Perceived helpfulness of options and resources by gender

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 = lower initial administrative load = additional shared parental leave = baby feeding facilities = childcare facilities

Department options and resources Female Male

Keeping-in-touch days* 5.43 4.78

Flexible hours* 6.58 6.15

Initial part-time* 5.78 4.38

Initial low teaching load* 5.65 4.21

Initial low admin load* 5.19 4.03

Initial low research supervision 4.47 3.99

Initial low clinical duties 3.85 4.00

Support networks 4.28 4.19

Additional shared parental leave* 5.28 4.09

Baby feeding facilities* 5.62 4.48

Childcare facilities* 5.17 3.94

* Denotes a significant gender difference in average rating.

1.1

10.3

3.0

12.2

4.5

13.2

24.8

12.8

7.2

17.9

36.3

27.4

23.2

6.3

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

Male

UnderpreparedFemale

Male

Somewhat underpreparedFemale

Male

NeutralFemale

Male

Somewhat preparedFemale

Male

PreparedFemale

Male

Extremely preparedFemale

Male



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

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

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.

3.60

4.18

5.21

5.43

4.55

4.58

5.72

5.07

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

Prepared

4.00 4.40 4.80 5.20 5.603.60

Neutral

53October 2017


Case study: feeling prepared to return to work varies by how available flexible working options are across sub-disciplines

Although women in physics found flexible working hours more helpful than men in preparing to return from parental leave, the difference between men and women’s overall feeling prepared to work was not significant within this sub-discipline. However, in all other sub-disciplines, men generally felt more prepared to return from parental leave than women (see Figure 6.1.4.2).

Figure 6.1.4.2 Ratings of feeling prepared to return from parental leave by gender and sub-discipline


However, how prepared respondents felt to return from parental leave was related to how available flexible working hours were upon return, which varied across the sub-disciplines. For instance, 74.0% of respondents in chemistry reported that they had access to flexible working hours, compared with 89.4% of respondents in physics. It is worth noting that 87.4% of respondents in earth, marine and environmental sciences and 78.8% of respondents in mathematics had access to this option, suggesting that there is more to feeling prepared to work than simply having flexible working hours available.



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

6.2 Career breaks 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.

Roughly one tenth of respondents in physical sciences reported having taken a career break (10.3%). However, proportionally more women (16.1%) had taken career breaks than men (6.1%).

The majority of respondents’ career breaks lasted less than 12 months (50.0%), but there was a considerable number of respondents who reported breaks of one to two years (20.5%), three to five years (12.8%) or more than five years (16.7%). However, the proportion of women who took career breaks that were more than five years long (26.3%) was more than twice the proportion of men taking a career break of that duration (7.5%).

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), regardless of their gender and whether they had previously taken parental leave.


There were no significant differences in the proportions of BME women (30.0%), white women (31.9%), BME men (20.0%) and white men (26.1%) reporting that they had previously taken parental leave. However, on average, BME men were less likely to say that they felt supported by their family or partner than white men, regardless of whether they had previously taken parental leave. In contrast, this difference was not present among female respondents.

With regards to the helpfulness of options to facilitate a return from parental leave, it was not possible to quantitatively explore whether gender differences varied by ethnicity as too few BME respondents in physical sciences had previously taken parental leave (n = 15).

Finally, while the proportion of white female respondents (11.9%) who

55October 2017



had taken a career break was larger than the proportion of white male respondents (7.5%) who taken a career break, the number of BME male and BME female respondents (n = 10) who had taken a career break was too small to explore quantitative differences.

The proportion of male respondents who disclosed as disabled (12.7%) who had taken parental leave was significantly smaller than the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (29.5%), female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (32.2%) and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (28.0%). Nonetheless, men were still more likely than women to say that they could relocate if needed, felt involved in the social life of their department and had their work successes celebrated in their department, regardless of their disability status or whether they had previously taken parental leave.

The overall number of respondents who disclosed as disabled who had taken parental leave was quite small (n = 28), which limited analysis of the options and resources to facilitate return from parental leave, given that there were many options that were not available to the majority of respondents. However, this number was sufficient to explore differences related to flexible working hours and feeling prepared to return from parental leave. Notably, while the proportion of women who disclosed as disabled (68.4%) with access to flexible working hours was significantly smaller than the proportion of women who had not disclosed as disabled (92.1%), there was no difference in how helpful women who had and had not disclosed as disabled rated this option or how prepared they felt to return from parental leave. Instead, men felt more prepared to return from parental leave than women, regardless of their disability status.

Among respondents who disclosed as disabled, the proportion of women (16.7%) who had taken a career break was more than twice the proportion of men (6.1%). In contrast, the difference between the proportions of men (8.1%) and women (11.3%) who had not disclosed as disabled who had taken a career break was not significant. While contrasts between men who had and had not disclosed as disabled were not possible, investigating the intersection between gender and disability revealed that there was a tendency for women who disclosed as disabled to say that it was more difficult to return to work after a career break compared with the average ratings of women who had not disclosed as disabled.


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 area that proportionally more men than women reported having experience in was for administrative tasks related to management. In all other areas, the proportions of male and female respondents reporting that they had received this form of training were similar (see Figure 7.1.1).

24.6

33.1

50.2

55.0

25.6

25.4

42.1

40.8

36.0

38.5

49.8

52.0

17.2

19.8

43.4

46.3

46.8

53.7

45.8

49.8

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

57October 2017


Figure 7.1.1 Training opportunities by gender

57.8

50.4

16.2

5.0

3.6

2.9

17.0

9.3

14.4

11.0

14.4

4.8

4.0

2.7

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 had needed or wanted in the last 12 months: time, costs, lack of availability at their institution and caring responsibilities (see Figure 7.2.1).

59October 2017


Table 7.2.1 Training barriers related to protected characteristics by gender

For the majority of the protected characteristics, the number of respondents who reported that a given characteristic had blocked their access to training was too small to allow for gender contrasts (see Table 7.2.1). The only exception to this was age, which was similarly reported by male and female respondents.

Training barrier Female Male

No. %† No. %†

Accent or language skills 3 1.1 3 0.6

Age 14 5.1 19 3.9

Disability 3 1.1 1 0.2

Dress or appearance 3 1.1 1 0.2

Ethnicity or race 2 0.7 1 0.2

Gender identity 3 1.1 0 0.0

Marital or civil partnership status 2 0.7 5 1.0

Religion or belief 1 0.4 1 0.2

Sex 0 0.0 2 0.4

Sexual orientation 0 0.0 0 0.0

† 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 chemistry had more training opportunities than respondents in physics, mathematics

3.98

3.58

3.25

3.74

3.13

3.45

3.18

3.51

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

Average number of training opportunities

4.0 5.03.02.01.0



and earth, marine and environmental sciences, even when respondents’ age and current post were taken into account. However, men and women reported having similar opportunities for training across all four sub-disciplines (see Figure 7.2.2).

Figure 7.2.2 Training opportunities by gender and sub-discipline


Taking a closer look at the individual training opportunities revealed that respondents in chemistry were more likely to have obtained training in leadership, project/financial management and equality and diversity issues for staff and students.

In contrast to respondents’ total training opportunities, there were significant gender differences in respondents’ total training barriers across all four sub-disciplines (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 barrier that was consistently reported by more women than men was the financial cost of training. In other words, women were more likely than men to have had financial costs block their access to training in the last 12 months, regardless of their discipline.

1.24

1.04

1.66

0.91

1.29

0.78

1.32

1.04

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

Average total of training barriers

4.0 5.03.02.01.0

61October 2017


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

Figure 7.2.3 Training barriers by gender and sub-discipline



Investigating the intersection between gender and ethnicity revealed an imbalance in the training opportunities and barriers experienced by BME and white men in particular (see Figure 7.3.1.1). For instance, compared with white men, significantly smaller proportions of BME men had obtained training in:

= administrative tasks related to management = postgraduate supervision = leadership = grant application skills = project planning/financial management skills

20.0

24.9

17.8

34.7

45.0

50.5

37.8

56.6

40.0

24.5

13.3

26.5

45.0

35.3

20.5

40.1

26.3

16.5

8.9

20.8

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Administrative managementBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Postgraduate supervisionBME female

White female

BME male

White male

LeadershipBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Grant applicationsBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Project/�nance managementBME female

White female

BME male

White male



Figure 7.3.1.1 Training opportunities by gender and ethnicity

63October 2017



In contrast, the differences between the proportions of BME and white female respondents who had obtained training in these areas were not statistically significant. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that almost half of the BME female respondents in the physical sciences had completed postgraduate supervision training (45.0%), leadership training (40.0%) or grant application training (45.0%).

In addition to reporting fewer training opportunities, the proportion of BME men (9.8%) who reported that they had been unable to access training that they needed or wanted in the last 12 months because they were not eligible for the training was more than four times larger than the proportion of white men who experienced this barrier (2.3%). A similar gap was found for the relevancy of training: the proportion of BME men (19.5%) who were unable to access training because it was not relevant to their post was almost twice the proportion of white men (10.2%) who reported experiencing this barrier.

In contrast to the intersection between gender and ethnicity, taking a look at how gender differences varied according to respondents’ disability status revealed significant differences in the training opportunities and barriers experienced by men and women who disclosed as disabled. For instance, among respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, similar proportions of men and women had obtained equality and diversity training for staff and student issues (see Figure 7.3.2.1). In contrast, compared with men who disclosed as disabled, significantly fewer women who disclosed as disabled had obtained equality and diversity training for staff and student issues.

41.7

47.9

65.0

51.6

39.3

44.7

56.3

44.5

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%Equality and diversity (sta�)Disabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male

Equality and diversity (students)Disabled female

Non-disabled female

Disabled male

Non-disabled male



Figure 7.3.2.1 Equality and diversity training for staff and student issues by gender and disability status

Regarding respondents’ experience of training barriers, compared with men who had not disclosed as disabled, proportionally more women who had not disclosed as disabled reported that the following barriers had blocked their access to training in the last 12 months:

= time = not offered by institution = not relevant to position = caring responsibilities

Conversely, the gender differences in the above training barriers were not present among men and women who disclosed as disabled. Taken together, these results suggest that the types of opportunities or disadvantages that female academics in the physical sciences experience can vary depending on whether or not they have disclosed a disability.

47.5

56.8

48.3

47.1

49.3

62.4

42.5

65.1

ChemistryFemale

Male

Earth, marineFemale

Male

MathematicsFemale

Male

PhysicsFemale

Male

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

65October 2017

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 (58.9%) who reported that they were encouraged or invited to apply for a promotion or post at a higher grade was significantly larger than the proportion of female respondents (47.1%) who reported this experience.

Case study: gender imbalance in explicit encouragement across sub-disciplines

In general, the proportion of respondents who had previously been encouraged or invited to apply for promotion was similar across the four sub-disciplines. However, whether it was men or women who reported being encouraged varied: proportionally more men than women were encouraged to apply for promotion in mathematics and physics (see Figure 8.1.1). In contrast, the proportions of men and women in chemistry and earth, marine and environmental sciences who had been encouraged to apply for promotion were relatively similar.

Figure 8.1.1 Proportion of respondents encouraged or invited to apply for promotion by gender and sub-discipline



Closer look: confidence and putting yourself forward

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

‘Men are more likely to end up in senior positions because they promote themselves better. However we are making efforts to overcome this and have recently promoted women who have been very reluctant to ‘blow their own trumpet’.’

Female, chemistry

‘Also I believe from anecdotal evidence and observation that women are still, in general, less forceful in making claims for their own capability and readiness for promotion.’

Female, physics

‘I am also concerned that men are more likely to put themselves forward for promotion or senior positions in the department and the university than women.’

Male, earth, marine and environmental sciences

Respondents explained that this problem was not necessarily the fault of the employer but a problem in society more generally:

‘In a work environment, women tend to be less assertive than men, which places women at a disadvantage, but this is not a fault of the employer. I view it more as part of a wider cultural problem of gender stereotyping, which starts at birth and continues throughout our lives.’

Female, physics

However, as this respondent noted, universities could do more to address this problem by providing better information and changing the promotions process:

‘Promotion is based on a self-written document where bragging about achievements gets results even if they are not real achievements and have been done by someone else. No guidance is given on what is being sought after to hit the points required for promotion.’

Female, chemistry

67October 2017


8.2 Department’s encouragement of career development

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). Compared with their female colleagues, male respondents were more likely to feel that their department values their research and that they have access to senior departmental staff. However, male and female respondents both enjoyed:

= having a formally assigned mentor = opportunities to serve on important departmental committees = feeling that their department values their external professional

activities = having sufficient administrative experience = having a supportive line manager = an appraisal they considered useful and valuable

4.84

4.95

2.91

2.97

4.60

5.04

4.96

5.36

4.96

5.13

4.41

4.72

5.01

5.70

5.29

5.52

3.89

3.83

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

5.86

5.13

4.35

4.77

5.58

5.44

4.07

4.95

47.5

56.8

48.3

47.1

49.3

62.4

42.5

Committee opportunitiesFemale, invited

Female, not

Male, invited

Male, not

Research is valuedFemale, invited

Female, not

Male, invited

Male, not

Prepared

4.00 4.40 4.80 5.20 5.60 6.00

Neutral

69October 2017


Case study: encouragement goes a long way in chemistry

Compared with women who had not previously been encouraged to apply for promotion, women in chemistry who had previously been encouraged to apply for promotion were more likely to enjoy:

= the opportunity to serve on important departmental committees

= feeling that their research was valued by their department

In contrast, this gap was not present among men who had and had not previously been encouraged to apply for promotion (see Figure 8.2.2).

Figure 8.2.2 Ratings of departmental support for career development in chemistry by gender


However, the association between explicit encouragement and departmental support for career development varied across the individual sub-disciplines. For instance, among respondents in mathematics, being encouraged to apply for promotion removed the gender gap in male and female respondents’ access to senior staff. Conversely, female mathematicians who had not been encouraged to apply for promotion were significantly less likely to report feeling that they had access to senior staff compared with male mathematicians who had not been encouraged.



Closer look: influence of informal masculine networks

Respondents described the ongoing influences of informal, masculine networks on department decision-making. These networks excluded certain members of staff and often took place at locations outside of the department:

‘The people making decisions are men, and the decision-making always prefers the ‘in crowd’. Therefore selection for this maintains the status quo.’

Male, mathematics

‘Bias seems to be informal, for example lab meetings of largely male lab groups in the pub, and a bit of a ‘drinking culture’. Men are the most vocal in lab meetings.’

Female, earth, marine and environmental sciences

Respondents noted that this did not necessarily favour all men and also depended on relationships between staff:

‘I can’t answer many of these questions with confidence because the hierarchy in my department is also governed by who is in the favoured circle of influence and who is not. This is not always gender related and I have seen men unfairly treated because they are not flavour of the month. My feeling is progress is governed by who you know, but I think this automatically disfavours women because you are automatically not ‘one of the boys’.’

Female, physics

These informal masculine networks often exerted power in subtle ways, such as unconscious biases:

‘The main problem seems to be an unconscious bias that operates because men are perhaps more comfortable working with other men. Informal male networks arise, the members of which may then be more prominent in one another’s minds when it comes to selecting someone for a particular role.’

Female, physics

3.82

3.89

3.48

3.47

3.52

2.84

3.58

2.77

Neutral AgreeDisagree

4.00 4.40 4.803.603.20Desire to obtain management postFemale invited to apply

Female not invited

Male invited to apply

Male not invited

Expect to obtain management postFemale invited to apply

Female not invited

Male invited to apply

Male not invited

71October 2017


8.3 Plans for future career

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

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.


In contrast to the gender difference in respondents’ desires, male and female respondents were similar in how much they expected to obtain a senior management post in their institutions (see Figure 8.3.1). Instead, whether respondents expected to obtain a senior post depended on whether they had or had not been explicitly invited or encouraged to apply for promotion in the past.

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 proportion of male (2.5%) and female respondents (3.7%) who indicated that they did not want to continue a career in STEMM was not significant, almost twice as many women (9.2%) than men (4.8%) 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 (92.7% and 87.1%, respectively).

5.64

4.80

4.88

4.96

5.00

3.83

3.95

3.81

Encouraged to develop careerBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Valuable and useful appraisalBME female

White female

BME male

White male

Neutral AgreeDisagree4.00 4.40 4.80 5.20 5.603.60



Figure 8.4.1.1 Ratings of departmental support for career development by gender and ethnicity

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 (60.7%) that had been encouraged or invited to apply for promotion was considerably larger than the proportion of BME male respondents (40.4%), BME female respondents (45.0%) and white female respondents (47.1%) who had been directly encouraged or invited to apply for promotion.

Regarding respondents’ ratings of their department’s support for career development, there were two instances where BME female respondents reported an advantage compared with white female respondents: specifically, BME women were more likely than white women to say that their department encouraged them to develop their careers and that they felt their appraisal was useful and valuable (see Figure 8.4.1.1).


However, these differences did not translate to a significant difference in how much BME and white women wanted or expected to obtain a senior management post.

Finally, the proportion of BME men (12.8%) who reported that they would like to continue their career in STEMM outside of higher education was more than three times the proportion of white men reporting this intention (4.0%). While not statistically significant, it is worth noting that 9.9% of white women reported this intention compared with 0% of BME women.

73October 2017



In general, a larger proportion of male respondents, regardless of whether they had (51.9%) or had not (60.1%) disclosed as disabled, had been encouraged to apply for promotion compared with female respondents (39.0% and 49.1%, respectively).

Respondents who disclosed as disabled were less likely to say that they have the opportunity to serve on important departmental committees and a supportive line manager than respondents who had not disclosed as disabled. Moreover, men were more likely to feel that their research is valued by their department and that they have access to senior staff, regardless of disability status.

Although, there were no instances where gender differences in men and women’s ratings of their department’s support for career development were exacerbated or attenuated by their disability status, respondents did differ with regard to their intentions for their future career. Specifically, the proportion of female respondents who disclosed as disabled (8.3%) who indicated that they did not want to continue their career in STEMM was significantly larger than the proportions of male respondents who disclosed as disabled (2.5%), female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (2.6%) and male respondents who had not disclosed as disabled (2.5%). Interestingly, the difference between the proportions of male (4.5%) and female respondents who disclosed as disabled (9.9%) who indicated that they would like to continue their career in STEMM outside of higher education was not significant, whereas this was not the case for male (6.3%) and female respondents (6.7%) who had not disclosed as disabled.


9.1 Key gender differences in the physical sciences 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 the physical sciences. This section begins with a summary of these experiences, as well as a discussion of the instances where the experiences of respondents in the physical sciences 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 physical sciences.

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 the physical sciences.

Compared with men, women in the physical sciences:

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

= tended to be on fixed-term, part-time or teaching-only contracts

= 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, markers of esteem and administrative duties

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

= were less positive in their opinions regarding life in their department (eg whether it is a supportive environment, values teaching and is transparent and fair in the allocation of resources)

= spent less time on research-related tasks, despite appreciating that these tasks positively contribute to the average academic career

= rated the impact of having a family/children, protected characteristics and administrative duties on the average academic career more negatively

75October 2017

9 Conclusion

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

= were more likely to experience the adverse impact of caring responsibilities on the factors related to career progression (eg less able to relocate, less involved in the social life of their department) and less likely to feel prepared to return from parental leave

= reported that time constraints, financial costs and caring responsibilities had blocked their access to training in the last 12 months

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

However, there were two areas where there were key differences between the full sample and respondents in the physical sciences.

The first area pertains to training opportunities: there were considerably fewer gender differences in the training opportunities reported by men and women in the physical sciences compared with those reported in the full sample. Specifically, there was only one training area out of the ten listed that did not have a significant gap between men and women in the full sample and this was teaching. In all other areas, proportionally more men had obtained training compared with women. In contrast, among respondents in the physical sciences, the only training area that proportionally more men than women reported having experience in was for administrative tasks related to management. In all other areas, the proportions of male and female respondents reporting that they had received this form of training were similar. A comparable pattern was present for the training barriers reported by men and women in the physical sciences compared with the full sample. For instance, out of the six contextual barriers listed in the ASSET 2016 survey, only three (time, money and availability at institution) were disproportionately reported by women in the physical sciences, versus all six in the full sample. Notably, similar proportions of men (2.7%) and women (4.0%) reported that an unsupportive or obstructive line manager had blocked their access to training in the last 12 months, compared with the significant gap between men (4.0%) and women (7.0%) in the full STEMM sample.

The next area of contrast between the results for the full sample and the subsample of respondents in the physical sciences pertain to


9 Conclusion

9.2 Summary of intersectional results

their experiences regarding promotion and development. Specifically, men and women in the physical sciences felt similarly encouraged by their department to undertake activities that would contribute to their career development. In addition, men and women were similarly likely to:

= have a formally assigned mentor = have the opportunity to serve on important departmental

committees = feel that their department values their external professional activities = have sufficient administrative experience = have a supportive line manager = have an appraisal they considered 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 the physical sciences rated their department’s encouragement of their career development, differences in their intentions for the future of their careers remained.

9.2.1 Gender and ethnicity

Investigating the intersection between gender and ethnicity among respondents in the physical sciences revealed a less consistent pattern than the compounded disadvantage identified for BME women in the full sample. For instance, BME and white women did not differ in their perceptions regarding the allocation of tasks and resources related to professional development and markers of esteem. However, while BME and white women both felt that their departments were committed to equality, BME women were more likely than white women to say that this was an influential factor in deciding to take their current post. In some cases, the compounded disadvantages reported for BME women in the full sample were reversed: for example, the proportions of BME women on part-time or teaching-only contracts were smaller than those reported by BME men, white women and white men. Similarly, compared with white women, BME women were more likely to say that their department encouraged them to develop their careers and that they had appraisals that were useful and valuable.

77October 2017

9 Conclusion


In contrast, the pattern surrounding the experiences of BME men in the physical sciences was more transparent than that for BME women. For example, the proportions of BME that reported training experience in administrative tasks related to management, postgraduate supervision, leadership, grant application skills and project planning/financial management were significantly smaller than the proportions of white men who had these experiences. Moreover, compared with white men, BME men were more likely to say that they were unable to obtain training that they needed or wanted because they were not eligible or it was not relevant to their position. Finally, the proportion of BME men (12.8%) who reported that they would like to continue their career in STEMM outside of higher education was more than three times the proportion of white men reporting this intention (4.0%).

Taken together, the above results suggest that the experiences of both BME men and women in the physical sciences vary compared with those reported for the full sample of STEMM academics.

The overarching pattern of results for the intersection between gender and disability status for the full ASSET 2016 sample was that disability was unanimously associated with disadvantage across the six aspects of working life. In contrast, the negative impact of disability was less consistent among respondents in the physical sciences. For instance, there were no significant differences in the recruitment experiences of respondents who had and had not disclosed as disabled. Moreover, respondents who disclosed as disabled spent similar amounts of time on research, teaching, public engagement and clinical duties as respondents who had not disclosed as disabled.

For the most part, respondents had similar opinions regarding the impact of factors related to career progression for the average academic and their own careers, although it is worth noting that respondents who disclosed as disabled were more negative about the impact of disability on their own careers than respondents who had not disclosed as disabled.

Nonetheless, there were a number of areas where disability was associated with disadvantage. Specifically, compared with respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, respondents who disclosed as disabled:


9 Conclusion

9.3 Recommendations

= were less likely to describe their department as a supportive environment

= felt their department was more demanding of their time and effort = felt less supported by their family or partner = were less likely to have had training in administrative tasks related to

management = experienced more contextual barriers to training, including those

associated with cost, relevance to their position and having an obstructive line manager

= had fewer opportunities to serve on important departmental committees

= less likely to say that they had a supportive line manager

Notably, there were a handful of instances where disadvantages related to disability were limited to women. Compared with female respondents who had not disclosed as disabled, female respondents who disclosed as disabled:

= were more likely to be on teaching-only contracts = reported a stronger advantage for men in the allocation of tasks and

resources related to professional development and markers of esteem = rated the impact of Athena SWAN initiatives in their institution less

positively = were the most negative in their ratings of the impact of disability

status on their own career progression = had less equality and diversity training for staff and student issues = were the most likely to say that they did not want to continue their

career in STEMM

These unique experiences of women who disclosed as disabled highlight how identifying with 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.

79October 2017

9 Conclusion

= 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 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

81October 2017

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

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

Chemistry 63 21.1 34.1 122 23.1 65.9 1127 25.5 27.1 3033 23.1 72.9

Earth, marine and environmental sciences 89 29.8 45.9 105 19.9 54.1 1294 29.3 34.5 2458 18.7 65.5

Mathematics 72 24.1 32.1 152 28.8 67.9 1045 23.7 23.0 3502 26.7 77.0

Physics 75 25.1 33.6 148 28.1 66.4 951 21.5 18.8 4121 31.4 81.3

Total 299 100 36.2 527 100 63.8 4417 100 25.2 13114 100 74.8

1.1 Gender

Appendix: sample characteristics

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

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



Table 1.2.2 ASSET 2016 physical sciences subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by ethnic group

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

1.2 Ethnicity

ASSET 2016 HESA 2014/15 staff records

No. % No. %

White 758 92.2 13639 86.9

BME total 64 7.8 2055 13.1

Black 2 0.2 128 0.8

Asian 15 1.8 763 4.9

Chinese 8 1.0 651 4.1

Mixed 25 3.0 257 1.6

Other 14 1.7 256 1.6

Total 822 100.0 15694 100.0


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

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

Chemistry 15 22.7 8.1 170 22.4 91.9 560 27.3 15.0 3170 23.2 85.0


Mathematics 25 37.9 11.2 199 26.2 88.8 621 30.2 15.3 3450 25.3 84.7

Physics 22 33.3 9.9 201 26.5 90.1 622 30.3 13.9 3849 28.2 86.1

Total 66 100 8.0 759 100 92.0 2055 100 13.1 13640 100 86.9


83October 2017


Table 1.3.2 ASSET 2016 physical sciences subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by impairment type

Table 1.3.1 ASSET 2016 physical sciences sub-sample 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. % %

Chemistry 158 23.2 85.9 26 18.2 14.1 4041 23.7 97.1 119 23.2 2.9


Mathematics 190 27.9 84.8 34 23.8 15.2 4393 25.8 96.6 154 30.0 3.4

Physics 183 26.8 82.1 40 28.0 17.9 4976 29.2 98.1 96 18.7 1.9

Total 682 100 82.7 143 100 17.3 17017 100 97.1 514 100 2.9

ASSET 2016 HESA 2014/15 staff records

No. % No. %

Had not disclosed as disabled 682 82.7 17017 97.3

Disclosed as disabled 143 17.3 477 2.7

Blind or serious visual impairment 3 0.4 17 0.1

Communication or social impairment 9 1.1 4 0.0

Deaf or serious hearing impairment 16 1.9 28 0.2

General learning difficulty 0 0.0 7 0.0

Long-standing illness or health condition

34 4.1 99 0.6

Mental health condition 40 4.8 48 0.3

Physical impairment or mobility issues 5 0.6 48 0.3

Specific learning difficulty 23 2.8 101 0.6

Other 28 3.4 125 0.7

Total 825 100.0 17494 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 14

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

Figure 3.1.1 Ratings of department gender distribution by gender 15

Figure 3.2.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender 16

Figure 3.3.1 Proportion of respondents’ ratings of ease in obtaining senior post by gender 18

Figure 3.4.1 Ratings of impact of Athena SWAN on department by sub-discipline 19

Figure 3.5.1.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender and ethnicity 21

Figure 3.5.2.1 Perceived allocation of tasks and resources by gender and disability status 22

Figure 4.1.1 Recruitment method by gender 23

Table 4.3.1 Breakdown of summary scores and average ratings across items related to respondents’ decision to take their current post 24

Figure 4.3.1 Influence of quality of working life in taking up current post by gender and sub-discipline 25

Figure 4.3.2 Influence of commitment to equality in taking up current post by gender and sub-discipline 26

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

Figure 4.4.2.1 Recruitment method by gender and disability status 28

Figure 4.4.2.2 Influence of working life and commitment to equality in taking up current post by gender and disability status 29

Table 5.1.1 Current posts by gender 30

Figure 5.1.1 Salary band by gender 31

Figure 5.2.1 Time spent on academic duties by gender 32

Figure 5.2.2 Time spent on academic duties by gender and sub-discipline 33

Figure 5.3.1 Ratings of life in their department by gender 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 39

Table 5.5.1.1 Perceived impact of protected characteristics on own versus average academic career by gender 40

Figure 5.5.1.1 Perceived impact of protected characteristics on own and average academic career by gender 41

Figure 5.5.1.2 Impact of family/children on average academic career and own career by gender and sub-discipline 42

Figure 5.6.1.1 Contract mode, type and function 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

85October 2017

Index

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 47

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 options and resources by gender 51

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

Figure 6.1.4.2 Ratings of feeling prepared to return from parental leave by gender and sub-discipline 53

Figure 7.1.1 Training opportunities by gender 57

Figure 7.2.1 Training barriers by gender 58

Table 7.2.1 Training barriers related to protected characteristics by gender 59

Figure 7.2.2 Training opportunities by gender and sub-discipline 60

Figure 7.2.3 Training barriers by gender and sub-discipline 61

Figure 7.3.1.1 Training opportunities by gender and ethnicity 62

Figure 7.3.2.1 Equality and diversity training for staff and student issues by gender and disability status 64

Figure 8.1.1 Proportion of respondents encouraged or invited to apply for promotion by gender and sub-discipline 65

Figure 8.2.1 Ratings of departmental support for career development by gender 68

Figure 8.2.2 Ratings of departmental support for career development in chemistry by gender 69

Figure 8.3.1 Ratings of desire to obtain senior management post versus expectations by gender 71

Figure 8.4.1.1 Ratings of departmental support for career development by gender and ethnicity 72

Table 1.1.1 ASSET 2016 physical sciences subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and gender 81

Table 1.2.1 ASSET 2016 physical sciences subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and ethnicity 82

Table 1.2.2 ASSET 2016 physical sciences subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by ethnic group 82

Table 1.3.1 ASSET 2016 physical sciences sub-sample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by sub-discipline and disability status 83

Table 1.3.2 ASSET 2016 physical sciences subsample and HESA 2014/15 staff records by impairment type 83

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 the ......2 asse epor 2016 hysica ciences...

Documents